Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-05-09 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. May 9, 2016 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:05 PM 1.Appointment of two Candidates to the Human Relations Commission, two Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission, and Three Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Terms Ending May 31, 2019 and one Candidate to the Utilities Advisory Commission forone Unexpired Term Ending May 31, 2017 Study Session 2.Council Study Session on Sea Level Rise Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:05-6:15 PM REVISED THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2016 2 May 9, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Oral Communications 6:15-6:30 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:30-6:35 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the April 25, 2016 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 6:35-6:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Approval of a Contract With the United States Geological Survey for Five Years in the Amount of $60,023 per Year for a Total of $310,315 for San Francisco Bay Monitoring Near the Regional Water Quality Control Plant's Discharge 5.Approval of the Donation of a Surplus Ambulance to Oaxaca, Mexico 6.Approval of an Allocation of $1 Million to the Palo Alto Unified School District in the Event the City of Palo Alto Wins the $5 Million Georgetown University Energy Prize 7.Recommendation to Council to Adopt two Resolutions: (a) Endorsing the Community Plan to end Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015- 2020; and (b) Supporting City Programs to Encourage and FundAffordable Housing as Urged by the Santa Clara County Housing Task Force 8.Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Team Sheeper LLC, for the Learn to Swim Program for Summer 2016 at an Amount Not-to-Exceed $236,500, and Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:40-8:00 PM 9.Approval of the Concept Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road (Continued from April 18, 2016); Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C16163533 With Alta Planning + Design, Inc. in the Amount of $824,542 for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street 3 May 9, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects; and Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C16161534 With Fehr & Peers in the Amount of $544,509 for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 8:00-10:30 PM 10.Direction to Staff Regarding Implementation Priority for the Following new Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts: a Portion of Crescent Park, the Edgewood Plaza Area, the Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 May 9, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Standing Committee Meetings SP. Policy and Services Committee Meeting May 10, 2016 SP. Finance Committee Meeting May 10, 2016 SP. Finance Committee Meeting May 12, 2016 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council SET 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 9, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of two Candidates to the Human Relations Commission, two Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission, and Three Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Terms Ending May 31, 2019 and one Candidate to the Utilities Advisory Commission for one Unexpired Term Ending May 31, 2017 On Monday, May 9, 2016 the Council is scheduled to appoint two Commissioners to the Human Relations Commission, two Commissioners to the Library Advisory Commission, and three Commissioners to the Utilities Advisory Commission for terms ending May 31, 2019 and one Commissioner to the Utilities Advisory Commission for one unexpired term Ending May 31, 2017. Voting will be by paper ballot. Human Relations Commission Vote to appoint 2 three-year terms on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) expiring on May 31, 2019. The first two candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. The 2 HRC Candidates are as follows: 1. Jill O’Nan (Incumbent) 2. Greer Stone (Incumbent) On March 21, 2016, the City Clerk’s Office was notified that Tony Putulin withdrew his application for the Human Relations Commission. Library Advisory Commission Vote to appoint 2 three-year terms on the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) expiring on May 31, 2019. The first two candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. The 4 LAC Candidates are as follows: 1. Alan Bennett 2. Sheena Chin (Incumbent) 3. Natasha Kachenko 4. Bob Moss (Incumbent) Page 2 Utilities Advisory Commission Vote to appoint 3 three-year terms on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) expiring on May 31, 2019 and 1 term expiring May 31, 2017. The first three candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed to the terms ending May 31, 2019. Following these appointments, the first candidate to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed to the unexpired term ending May 31, 2017. The 7 UAC Candidates are as follows: 1. Chris DiBona 2. Lisa Forssell 3. A.C. Johnston 4. Henrik Morkner 5. William Ross 6. Judith Schwartz (Incumbent) 7. Terry Trumbull Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be provided to Council Members directly. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: HRC - O'Nan, Jill (PDF) Attachment B: HRC - Stone, Greer (PDF) Attachment C: LAC - Bennett, Alan (PDF) Attachment D: LAC - Chin, Sheena (PDF) Attachment E: LAC - Kachenko, Natasha (PDF) Attachment F: LAC - Moss, Bob (PDF) Attachment G: UAC - DiBona, Chris (PDF) Attachment H: UAC - Forssell, Lisa (PDF) Attachment I: UAC - Johnston, AC (PDF) Attachment J: UAC - Morkner, Henrik (PDF) Attachment K: UAC - Ross, William (PDF) Attachment L: UAC - Schwartz, Judith (PDF) Attachment M: UAC - Terry A. Trumbull (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 ) CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION INCUMBENT APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Incumbents may use this form to declare their intent to apply for another term in office. BOARD CURRENTLY SERVING ON: Human Relations Commission NAME: O'Nan. Jill Last RESIDENCE First \ ADDRESS: ------------------------------------! s~ Palo Alto, CA 94306 City State Zip HOME PHONE: WORKPHONE: ~s=mn=e~--------~ CELL PHONE: EMAIL: X I am reapplying for the board listed above; please resubmit the most recent application I have on file. I am reapplying for the board listed above; I will update my application and submit it prior to the deadline.* I will NOT reapply for another term at this time. *Blank applications may be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org Signature of Applicant /~ 1 ., ) / ~ .. C:;\· c~-~ .. ' ·~' J 3 "'A~r~8 ::AM lOt. .0 I . \ ) . . . . . ~ ' ............ HUMAN RESOUCES COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/ A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: O'Nan Jill ~~~---------------------------------Last First ~SIDENCE /ADDRESS: -------------------------------------Street Palo Alto CA 94306 City State Zip Education: BA Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio MA Stanford University JD Stanford University HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: CELL PHONE: ---------------- EMAIL: List relevant training and e~perienee, certificates oftraining, licenses, or professional registration: · Professional writer and editor with strong communication and collaborative skills. . ' Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Human Relations Commission Jill O'Nan 4 I have a Masters degree in East Asian studies as well as a JD from Stanford University. This background makes me sensitive to the needs of Asian immigrants to our community and to the practical requirements of governance. Since the early 1990s, I have worked in Silicon Valley as a freelance writer and editor, specializing in marketing communications. I have also taught writing at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and School of Engineering. Through this professional experience I have developed very strong communication and business skills, which are essential to the work of the Human Relations Commission (HRC). In order to serve as an effective voice for Palo Alto residents, the HRC must be able to understand and articulate the needs of the community, and work collaboratively with City Council and City staff to address those needs. Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Human Relations Commission Self-employed Writer and editor For the past six years I have served as a volunteer human relations commissioner. During that time, I have led a number of key projects, including a citywide human needs assessment requested by Council, an RFP process to allocate incremental HSRAP funds, a senior summit to identify service gaps impacting elders, and a new series of community forums sponsored by the HRC. In addition, I have had the pleasure of participating in many of the City's community outreach events. These include the annual May Day parade, the July 4th chili cook-off, World Music Day, and the Our Palo Alto series of community dialogs. Finally I have participated in a number of events hosted or sponsored by local nonprofit agencies, including YCS, PAHC, and DreamCatchers. Two recent highlights for me were serving as a judge for a student film contest sponsored by Digital Leaders, a PAHC youth program, and giving the keynote to a group of YCS campers who had just finished learning about environmental impacts in the Bay Area. As a long-time Palo Alto resident, I have deep roots in this community and I care greatly about its future. For many years I rented an apartment in the Ventura neighborhood and witnessed firsthand the struggles that many of our less affluent residents face. Even after purchasing a small condo in a "better" neighborhood with much wealthier neighbors, I continue to be struck by how many Palo Alto residents struggle with issues such as transportation, nutrition, loneliness, and depression. The HRC plays a major role in working with local agencies that help people of all ages, cultures and income levels overcome these barriers. The HRC also plays a major role in bringing community needs to the attention of Council--and then working with Council and City staff to fill in service gaps where possible. The ability to have this kind of positive impact on Palo Alto residents is what drew me to serve on the HRC in the first place, and it continues to draw me today. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Human Relations Commission Recently the HRC launched a new learning series called "The Immigrant Experience." As part of this series, immigrants from other countries are invited to share their experience of moving to Palo Alto with the HRC. Two guest speakers from China spoke very poignantly about how isolated they feel in Palo Alto, despite the fact that both speak very good English. Although they have not experienced overt racism, they do not feel welcome outside the Chinese community. Hearing about their experiences made me realize how important it is to reach out to new residents and help them engage with the wider community, not just their own cultural or ethnic group. Two of my colleagues on the HRC, Valerie Stinger and Theresa Chen, are now working with City staff and a representative from Joe Simitian's office to develop a "welcome packet" for new Palo Alto residents. The HRC is also exploring the possibility of sponsoring a diversity day celebration that will bring residents from various backgrounds together so they can share their cultural traditions and learn about other traditions as well. The HRC has a broad charter to ensure all residents have access to the City's many amenities. Within that charter, here are some specific goals I would like the HRC to achieve: Sponsor 3 to 4 community forums a years to provide a safe place where residents can learn about and discuss sensitive topics such as: mental illness, elder abuse, and drug addiction. These events will be organized by teams of commissioners in concert with the Community Services Department. Facilitate collaboration among our local social service providers to address service gaps affecting seniors, the unhoused, low-income youth, and other sometimes marginalized groups. This can be done informally by connecting service providers with complementary interests, or formally by hosting a conference or "summit"-type event. Partner with City staff and other commissions to help plan and implement better services for residents, such as improved shuttle routes and service. This will involve assigning a liaison or forming a subcommittee to work with these outside groups. Continue to support and advocate for agencies that receive HSRAP funding. The HRC can best do that by conducting regular site visits, carefully reviewing agency proposals, working with the City Manager's office to recommend budget increases when appropriate, and alerting Council when urgent needs in the community arise. Personallnfonnation Name: Alan Bennett Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City gt.falo ~. who. are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes(!l No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for@vesCo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for-Dte.(!}No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?Oe&(!)No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Library Advisory Commission? Lbommunity Group §aily Post (ikmail from Ci~ Clerk ity Website Dalo Alto Weekly Flyer Other: ____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Courses in Art, Music and History, Osher Lifelong Learning Program, Santa Clara University 2010- Courses in Spanish, Linguistics and History, San Jose State University 2004-2008 Postdoctoral (NSF Fellowship), Cambridge University 1966 Ph.D., Solid State Physics (NSF Fellowship), University of Chicago 1965 MS, Physics, University of Chicago 1963 BA, Physics (Phi Beta Kappa), University of Pennsylvania 1962 Various Business Courses, e.g ., General Electric Management School1974 Stanford High Technology Marketing Course 1983 Page 1 library Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Marketing Manager, Livermore National Laboratory 1992-2003 occupation: Vice-President Research,Varian Associates 1984-1991 Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Palo Alto University Rotary/at various times:BoardMember/Co-chairman-lnternational Committee/Website Support Stanford Hospital/ Volunteer Chaplain Science is Elementary/Tutor in Elementary School Classrooms Downtown Streets T eam/Mentor(past) Opportunity Service Center/Lunch Service Volunteer Congregation Kol Emeth/at various times:Education Committee, Board Member. Library Committee · · Catholic Worker House/Elementary School Tutor (past) Nuestra Casa, East Palo Alto/ESL Tutor(past) Osher Lifetime Learning Institute, Santa Clara University/Curriculum Committee 1. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a passionate user of the library. At any time, I have 5 to 10 books out on loan. The University of Chicago book group meets in my house. I really care about libraries and making them relevant to today's reader. As described above( and detailed in my attached resume) my working career was spent as a researcher and R&D manager in industry. Some of my professional experience is directly relevant to the library system. For example, I have been involved in strategic planning for 40 years which will be vital to mapping the Library's future with its new facilities and computer systems. The new computer system is a great baseline but will no doubt require additions/modifications to match evolving local needs. I have many years of experience in actual programming and in managing the development of computer systems. The new buildings are really wonderful, but additions/modifications will no doubt be needed in the future. I have managed a number of construction projects during my working career. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of the R&D that I managed was measured by how well it met our customers' needs. And meeting user expectations must be a central element in our library's success. I was actually responsible for the 12,000 volume corporate library while at Varian Associates and very active in the revitalization of a local synagogue's library. My involvement in a number of community groups, e.g., Rotary, the homeless community, the Hispanic community might also be useful. Page2 Library Advisory Commission a 4. library Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations LINK library Technology Plan LINK In preparation for this application , I have read both documents and am generally familiar with their contents. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the Citv of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: @ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21 . I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address. phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: QHome I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Page4 Library Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Library Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 21689B17-CB61-44F2-9ACB-CBF72574B677 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here:LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Library Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 21689B17-CB61-44F2-9ACB-CBF72574B677 .l ) 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. L\15/{.f!Jty V)?JT.s) Nv11f?t:f( ~ p 1Tcl'1.> cJ-Jt7cfrcJJ 6tJG £'~ J3JIIrJ 1}-.v.; )-p w 1}-jJJ 5CtfM Tv 1313' CJ11J#If-lt11/-L,JJ3f(trrKJf75_ IT 15 Ct,tFtJ4 1Jj1-1 !,;" f$ ~II( J 1)-11 tf {\):; '1 N (}-If I 114-L-I [5/? /}"/? le" 5 ~ )3.f, t rYT 2: 13 t/l Wif M f/ 5T (r))JII5T L,JBifl}f(f O(tYI(IfTJtJ.o/5 TP I)-.PPtrF.55 NPW '-'1/3~/J-/tY Fufl/c Tf viVS frN'P vf'orve IJ TN~~ 17-1/tf cJ-flf,V;:,;,.vJ.--Ovr( L-J Btr/J-/.fle:s (tPPC/-JI( To N~tvt! /TP)v$'TtT!J ~--vcrt.t.-I)-AlP 5f'f?J/t!' TJ-!t/ Ct}f11ft1Vf1/lT~ Bvl wE MV5T 5T!TJ fTcT,Vo'-'Y /AIIIvL veP wJTJ-f 1}-vJI PI/Ttlrte ttJiJLVTIPiliJ op '-JJ3«f)-rxj FtJA/crJ/Jf//.s IJ-~P o~c4/JrJo¥J- 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like. to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Cvvf~t/fllf 'W~ifklr/f /tviTH C1!1/'111/lt17'1 ITIVP >'1/JFF TO lft:li/' U/' w/TI-1 1)-1/y ~HtriV.~IIV/-NIJ"e'b.J 1=11r /..,J$~tNry 5~.,:t'(IJ1tl?'.>:!l 1111/P wvl(k w/T)j .5:TIJ-Fp Tt/ ~ FJ-JJ~Fy )}-'/1?'1"1.-Ct~t~~111111Jtf-IM""{(otiJA// Hv•·' I 1-., Wlft.-(, 'THt rvBt-Jc J.s .5e'~ V/1)) ~ t1~ /S5llrf.S 1)-f(e' I )),JN7/ F/17.1> TliiJ-T Mtry IVtt?'/J CPVIJ/C/J-~< itGTirJIII) .§'llclf /f5 Mvftt: >7'/Tf~F Tv IMCI(tTO..ft? Olt,:tPr/J-rJ;vt,_, ifvv/?.s tJif M.Jiflf FVAIJ> J r-.J IV? -•!( 11 Jt/--Jty J)tlPJ/fiV Dt7P &J !51(&vry M~rorq;I).;L-$ .Stl fYJJL~ 'To r:::vt-(..,)w s ~ r b V!J-L,v ()-Tt:r Tr-1 t1 J S ..f v{? _s 11-f./ p f!~ f?' .5' .,., . 17 v wr r J--J t;r fo7 LO tV 1--lA/ J T H s, /., (/ T J 0 IV .5 T, Til IX v r' ~ C (} rJ 11/ c);_ Page3 Library Advisory Commission DocuSgn Enveope 10: F47625B6 52F6 4CAB 8564 D01265BA2583 Personal Information Name: Christopher J DiBona Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home t181ottice Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?~YesONo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ~ala~. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?LJYesl2SjNo Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?I8]Yes0No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?f81Yes0No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yes(8]No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group Ooaily Post ~Email from City Clerk Deity Website D Palo Alto Weekly. D Flyer Other:--------------------~------------------------------------------ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Masters, Software Engineering (CMU) Bachelors, CS (George Mason) . ~· .... . . . Page 1 DocuSgn Enveope 10: F47625B6 52F6 4CAB 8564 D01265BA2583 Employment Present or Last Employer: Google Occupation: Director , Eng. Open Source. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am an appointee to the US Commerce Departments Data Access Commission. I have helped in the formation of Code for America, Make Magazine, Maker Faire and others. I was on the board of the open source initiative, and have regularly been part of endless software and hardware standards bodies and meetings, including acm, ieee, ITU, etc ... 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I would like to have a hand in helping plan the future of water, data, power and trash for the city I call home. I'm especially interested in waste water cleanliness and reuse, and in mitigation the palo alto super fund sites. I would love to help continue Palo Alto's path to becoming an intensely ecologically friendly city. Page 2 · DocuSgn Enveope 10: F47625B6 52F6 4CAB 8564 D01265BA2583 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: Ll NK. Utility bill inserts and even the bills themselves represent a wasteful use of paper and postage, we should give the residents an option to recieve the bills via email. The discussion of solar via the central valley vs in palo alto was also very revealing in how the city thinks of transmission quality and losses therein. The discussions with Google and AT&t were interesting , and while I'd need to recuse myself from discussions around Google, I am definately interested in helping with the fiber question in palo alto. The undergrounding of power was also keenly interesting, as we had been considering a panel upgrade in our residence and it was cost prohibitive to update to 400amp service, which led me to wonder what could be done to help people in that situation, if indeed it was worthwhile to do so. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Sober, reasoned review of our practices as a city wrt power allocation as we experience both commercial and residential growth in consumption. Can we incentivize more residential solar to offset increased consumption due to the adoption of EVs? Similarly, are we using our wastewater most effectively? Concrete production is a large consumer of water, have we considered a way of getting our grey/treated wastewater into the concrete and other large water consumers hands? Etc .. I would love to see how the fiber sausage is made and help , even in the absence of working with AT&T or Google, ensure that palo alto can control its data destiny much in the same way the palo alto power authority has. . ...... . . . Page 3 DocuSgn Enveope 10: F47625B6 52F6 4CAB 8564 D01265BA2583 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: JEL I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. ~) ~r:quest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address l ~ from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 1050 N California Ave, Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Cell Phone: 0 Home /Ootfice Phone: E-mail: chris@dibona.com Date: 2/23/2016 2/24/2016 Page 4 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?__ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?__ Yes __ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: B5130B6F-5E60-4AF5-B6B7-4E2F678E5EE3 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: B5130B6F-5E60-4AF5-B6B7-4E2F678E5EE3 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here:LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: B5130B6F-5E60-4AF5-B6B7-4E2F678E5EE3 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: B5130B6F-5E60-4AF5-B6B7-4E2F678E5EE3 Personal Information Name: A.C. Johnston Address: 325 Channing Ave. Apt 301, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650.823.5561 Home /_x_ Office Phone: 650.813.5610 E-mail: acjohnston@mofo. com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? _x_ Yes _ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?_ Yes _x_ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? _x_ Yes_ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? _x_ Yes_ No (I believe my 401-K plan holds minor amounts of shares in a number of technology companies including AT&T and Google) Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? _Yes _x_ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? _ Community Group _ Email from City Clerk _ Palo Alto Weekly _Daily Post _x_ City Website _Flyer Other: City Council Meetin;:,_ ________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I graduated from Yale College in 1968 with a B.A. I graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975 with a JD. From 1969-1972, I served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard a diesel-electric submarine. I served variously as the Communications Officer, Sonar Officer, Operations Officer, and Engineer becoming very familiar with the electronic, electrical and mechanical systems on board. I also qualified as Officer of the Deck and was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal for the work of the Engineering department during a 4 month deployment. From 1975 to the present, I was an associate and later a partner with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. I was the founder and served as managing partner of the firm's Washington DC and Palo Alto offices and served as co-head of the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation group. My practice has been largely focused on complex commercial litigation, particularly patent infringement and trade secret litigation, for electronics, laser diode, and semiconductor companies. I have also represented alternative energy producers, particularly co-generation facilities and wind farms, in negotiating power purchase agreements with utilities and in regulatory proceedings before the California PUC. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Morrison & Foerster LLP Occupation: Lawyer Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am currently serving on the Sustainability/Ciimate Action Plan advisory board working on the draft S/CAP for the City of Palo Alto. I was on the initial board of directors of the Silicon Valley Campaign for Legal Services which was started in the mid-1990s to raise the level of contributions to legal services organizations in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Since the mid-1990s I have served as a volunteer mediator in Santa Clara County Superior Court mediating commercial disputes. I am currently on the board of directors of the homeowners' association of the condominium in which we live in Palo Alto. I have served as Vice President and Treasurer. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? From my experience representing alternative energy producers, negotiating Power Purchase Agreements, and working on the S/CAP, I am very interested in and familiar with the issues around the City of Palo Alto Utilities' role in helping to reduce the City's carbon footprint and with integrating alternative energy production, including locally produced renewable energy, into the City's energy supply resources. I am also very interested in the proposals being considered for bringing fiber-to-the-premises in Palo Alto. From my experience representing electronics and laser diode companies in IP litigation, I am somewhat familiar with fiber optic technologies and very familiar with negotiating and analyzing complex commercial contracts between technology companies. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. As noted above, I am very interested in exploring how, in practical terms, CPAU can contribute to the City's S/CAP goals. Improving energy efficiency, electrification of water and space heating and adoption of electric vehicles are three major suggestions for reduction of the City's carbon footprint. These are important steps toward and important goal. I am interested in working to accomplish those steps in cost- effective ways recognizing that CPAU also has a major investment in natural gas delivery infrastructure. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? As noted, one goal would be for the CPAU to effectively contribute to the City's overall S/CAP goals. think reducing greenhouse gases contributing to climate change is highly important and that Palo Alto should be a leader in this field. The UAC should work with CPAU staff to think creatively about practical and effective ways to decrease reliance on non-renewable energy in Palo Alto. This could include, for example, providing more information to CPAU customers for replacing natural gas heating with cost- effective electric heating systems, including specific recommendations for replacement systems. This information must be readily available to customers so that, when a water heater goes out, a customer already knows what alternative systems are available and who can install them. The CPAU should also look at the effectiveness of incentives to encourage replacement of non-electric heating systems even before the end of their natural lives. Another goal would be for Palo Alto to reach an agreement with a third party broadband provider that will make fiber to the premises available to residents and small businesses and also provide the option for CPAU to expand its dark fiber services in the future. Higher speed internet capabilities provide many benefits including increased productivity for users and potentially allowing more citizens to work from home reducing car trips through the city. The UAC should work with Staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee to promptly evaluate and refine proposals and thus to speed recommendation to the City Council of the best alternative so that the project can be completed as expeditiously as possible. Page3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I do not have past experience with these documents. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.u The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _x_ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: Home I Office Phone: E-mail: lnDocuSigned by: Signature: L~c~~o~~st~V\-Date: March 23, 2016 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission /,c' •:t ~/'! Personal Information Name: Henrik Morkner Address: 2710 Emerson St., Palo Alto, CA 94306 Cell Phone: 650-380-8525 18) Home J00ffice Phone: E-mail: fastgaas@yahoo.com Are you a Palo AltoResident?I8]Yes0No ~ ·ef!f::¥ ;Gf f'ALO ALTO. CA CITYtlERK'SOFflCE t'6MAR '5 AH g: 27 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City QL.Iialo ~. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYeslQlNo Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?I8]Yes0No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OYesiE)No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yesi8JNo How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Dcommunity Group [ll Email from City Clerk D Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post Deity Website · 0Fiyer Other: ______ _...:... _____________ ========== List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Relevant professional experience: -B.S. in Electrical Engineering, SJSU 1984 -M.S. in Electrical Engineering, SJSU 1989 -Agilent management training program, 1998 -Various classes at Stanford, Mission College, Foothill College on History, Social Science, Political Science -Named on 1 0 US Patents, 6 of which I am prime or sole author -Published over 30 articles in various IEEE and trade Electronics publications -Served on Board of Directors, Technica USA (approximately $20 million in annual revenue) -Served on IEEE review boards and committees I worked for over 30 years in the microwave communication business as .an engineer and manager. I have dealt with large budgets through economic diversity and understand the compromises that must be made. I understand modern electric and communication systems and can add greatly to integrating Palo Alto to achieve an Utopian future. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission "-o-/ ~~~ ~P; .~r: ;" ...; j•· .. Emplciy'lke·~,;.t"• : ·,:.,;: ~; ''} .,.:-i·.~ :!"' 11 ,,. ·"YO"· I • , . .,, PresEili.\oti}..~~EnBJfo~M1'fOM Technology Solutions Occupation: Director of Engineering -----~ Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am a long time Palo Alto resident (resident since 1991) and have monitored committee meetings in person and on-line over the years. I have participated in the local Palo Alto community (schools, libraries, activities), but never in an active or elected role. I served a Vice-President of the Student Union in college and was very active in state and local politics (aided a good friend in his bid for state senate). I still have several friends in state and federal government. Once I started work in the professional world I served on various IEEE committees over the years. I am well versed in Roberts Rules of Order and the hierarchal decision making system prevalent in both community and corporate. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have recently retired (at age 54) from full time workafter aiding two companies through successful public offerings. Now that my financial needs are met, I wish to give back to the community that has served me well over the years. I feel that my experience is directly relevant to the UAC because: -I have a strong technical understanding of communication and engineering systems -I have managed large budgets, bids, contracts, and services -I have strong leadership and communication skill. -I was successful in large company politics and can be diplomatic and listen My motivation to serve with the UAC is to help the Palo Alto community. I feel we face challenging times with resources and budgets in the future. With no disrespect to present member, utilities have become a complex and technical process. I think the UAC can use more people with a strong technical background to aid in complex decisions. I feel I can help Palo Alto UAC with that and have the time to do so. Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission , /' ~ 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I have had a long time interest in the UAC, but the latest meeting intrigued me. I followed in detail the discussion to raise both sewer and water rates. I am not opposed to higher rates, I felt that the increases requested were modest. However, I was very impressed by the discussion and the detailed questions and analysis that followed. In particular was the simplistic analysis with the recommendation presented of an average 10% increase per year for several years. I could see flaws in this approach, as did other committee members. I wanted then and there to add my expertise in future growth and spending analysis that served me with successful companies. At that point I decided I would apply to the UAC and try to help Palo Alto to navigate the upcoming years I am a firm believer that it is the details that define a community, not the broad concepts. This discussion was good and I feel I can contribute to this and other similar discussions. The results I seek are to better the community through smart and clever Palo Alto UAC decisions. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? My main goal for the UAC is that they make the best "smart" decisions and recommendations. Too many times I watched companies and communities make complacent or poorly formed decisions that impact people and their life style. For companies, a good decision was vital to good corporate health and profit. I was fortunate to be part of many successful companies that made good decisions. For the community, the decision making process is more esoteric. Bad decisions often do not result in failure, but a degradation of quality and community. I love Palo Alto and raised 3 children here, I wish to see it continue to thrive and perform. Specific goals include: -Achieving rates and budgets commensurate to the communities ability to pay -Make sure Palo Alto utilities are being smart and up-to-date in their approach -Incorporate environmentally responsible decisions balanced with fiscal realities -Help usher in a new era of water, power, communication, and waste management I want to accomplish this by attending meetings and reviewing all material diligently. I wish to actively participate in the discussions, asking questions and listening intently. I want to serve on sub-comities that bring new ways and methods to Utilities. This way I can help make informed and educated decisions and recommendations for Palo Alto. Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission ~ ~' 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have read through the documents and understand their content Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _m I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR .0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. 1 am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: E-mail: Signature: Date: _____ _ Page4 Utility Advisory Commission ~ " DocuSign Envelope ID: 81A8275D-2A21-4A45-AE C2C4BFC7679 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have read through the documents and understand their content Consent to Publish Personal Information on the Citv of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: J8l I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D. I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home tO Office Phone: E-mail: ruDocuSigned by: Signature:~~~~ Date· 3/15/2016 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission .~ Certificate Of Completion Envelope ld: 81A8275D2A214A45AE425C2C4BFC7679 Subject: Please DocuSign this document: Henrick-UAC 2015 application.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 6 Certificate Pages: 1 AutoNav: Enabled Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Signatures: 1 Initials: 0 Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Record Tracking Status: Original 3/15/2016 9:25:40 AM Signer Events Henrik Morkner fastgaas@yahoo.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person· Signer Events Editor Delivery Events Agent Delivery Events Intermediary Delivery Events Certified· Delivery Events Carbon Copy Events Notary Events Envelope Summary Events Envelope Sent Certified Delivered Signing Complete Completed Holder: Kim Lunt kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org Signature r-;j DocuSigned by: ~:,.~~ Using IP Address: 76.21.6.216 Signature Status Status Status Status Status Status Hashed/Encrypted Security Checked Security Checked Security Checked ~ Docu~ jjjj S5C:URiilD Status: Completed Envelope Originator: Kim Lunt 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Location: DocuSign Timestamp Sent: 3/15/2016 9:27:52 AM Viewed: 3/15/2016 9:29:05 AM Signed: 3/15/2016 9:30:41 AM Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamps 3/15/2016 9:27:52 AM 3/15/2016 9:29:05 AM 3/15/2016 9:30:41 AM 3/15/2016 9:30:41 AM Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: William Dale Ross Address: 2103 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, California 94306 Cell Phone: (415) 2694569 __ Home / X Office Phone: (650) 843-8080 E-mail: wross@lawross.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? X Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes X No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? X Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes X No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes X No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: Other City residents______________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I would incorporate by reference the information contained in my August 15, 2016 application for the Planning and Transportation Commission. Relelated to the UAC I have engaged in the following actions: Drafted and achieved implementation of a Zero Water Footprint program applicable to industrial, commercial, residential and institutional uses in a 14 square mile area including incorporated area; participated in the negotiation and drafting water acquisition and transmission contracts; participation on behalf of local governments before the State Energy Commission on Alternative Energy Projects; participation in proceedings before the State Public Utilities Commission dealing with location and compliance with maintenance standards of the Commission for natural gas pipelines of P G & E; acquisition of mutual water systems; Water Commission(s) on acquisition of opposition to riparian and groundwater applications; negotiation and drafting of emergency water transmission agreements, and the environmental analysis, if not exempt, of the foregoing actions under CEQA. Formulation in conjunction with consultants of Urban Water Management Plans. DocuSign Envelope ID: 937B1B45-8C91-4A17-9DA0-31DEF432E0F6 16 Mar 23 | 5:29 pm Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Law Offices of William Ross Occupation: Attorney Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Please see information contained in the previously referenced application for the PTC. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Please see my previous reference describing involvement in utility regulation practice. The UAC would provide a forum for the application of that experience and knowledge for the benefit of Palo Alto residents and property owners. DocuSign Envelope ID: 937B1B45-8C91-4A17-9DA0-31DEF432E0F6 Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I think there is a continuum of issues before the UAC in rate setting and recommendations for compliance with State regulations on energy and water efficiency that relate directly to stated policies on what is now Also I believe oversight of the required update of the Urban Water Management Plan to incorporate the latest water practices approved by the Department of Water Resources are incorporated into new development approvals. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? a regulatory matrix that could be accomplished now demonstrating City commitment to, and implementation of sustainability policies. This could be accomplished by Council direction or be initiation by the UAC on its DocuSign Envelope ID: 937B1B45-8C91-4A17-9DA0-31DEF432E0F6 Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission own initiative. 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have experience in my professional capacity with each of the documents described although referenced or described differently. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 No state or local agency shall post the DocuSign Envelope ID: 937B1B45-8C91-4A17-9DA0-31DEF432E0F6 Page 5 Utility Advisory Commission home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: X Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application pproviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 2103 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, California 94306 Cell Phone: (415) 269-4569 __ Home / X Office Phone: (650) 843-8080 E-mail: wross@lawross.com Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: March 23, 2016 DocuSign Envelope ID: 937B1B45-8C91-4A17-9DA0-31DEF432E0F6 Planning and Transportation Commission Personal Information Name: William Dale Ross Address: 2103 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, California 94306 Cell Phone: (415) 269-4569 0 Home I @:>ffice Phone: (650) 843-8080 E-mail: wross@lawross.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? {8]ves QNo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of �lo Al�ho are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? LJYes e9No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? [8] Yes 0 No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Des {8] No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves (8] No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? Ocommunity Group D Email from City Clerk D Palo Alto Weekly Other: Other City residents OoailyPost Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Practicing attorney representing local governments and developers on issues of land use and environmental compliance. Have served as legal counsel to County Planning Commissions, City Planning Commissions. Have served as City Attorney for American Canyon since 1992 and advised and represented the cities of Gilroy, Los Altos, Soledad, San Gabriel, Monterey Park and Burbank on land use and CEQA matters as Special Counsel. I also served as a member of the City of Pasadena Planning Commission from 1991-1998 and its Chairman from 1986-1988. During that time several critical planning issues were formulated by the Commission and adopted by the City Council including a Master Development Plan for the California Institute of Technology. I have participated in numerous conferences by the California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association and various CLE extension courses concerning issues of land use and compliance with CEQA, the Brown Act and conflict of interest issues. Served on San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2000-2005. Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I was a original and continuing member of the 2180 Task Force which made recommendations to the City Planning Director concerning the development of the JJ&F Parcel; I have continuously advised the College Terrace Residents Association on legal issues associated with land use, environmental review and have consulted with residents and business owners in the City with respect to issues of City governance and planning policies and decisions. I have supported the intercollegiate athletic program at Stanford through, among other things the formation and administration of non-profit public benefit corporations consistent with NCAA and Conference rules. Page2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 18] I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 2103 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, California 94306 Cell Phone: (415) 269-4569 0 Home I lg) Office Phone: ( 650) 843-8080 E-mail: wross@lawross.com a a a a I J .IJA' � ��� August31,2015 Signature: ___ f'V __ A�-----·-/_vv _'Z---____________ Date: ------ Page 5 Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto (ID # 6871) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Study Session on Sea Level Rise Title: Council Study Session on Sea Level Rise From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This is a Study Session report and requires no Council action. Executive Summary This study session is being presented to identify facility-specific and programmatic issues that involve sea level rise. Six “Guiding Principles” and three generic “Tools” are being presented as a framework for Council discussion both now and as plans and projects are brought to Council in the future. Specific concerns discussed in this report as examples include the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, the Palo Alto Golf Course and Palo Alto Airport, the Municipal Service Center/Emergency Response capabilities, and the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update to show how the Guiding Principles and Tools could be used to assist in decision-making. Council input on the Guiding Principles and Tools is being sought in preparation for specific program and project recommendations,which will follow in the coming months. Background Scientists agree that climate change has led to global increases in temperature and sea level rise. In the past century, global mean sea level has increased by seven to eight inches1. In the last 10 to 15 years, the rate of global sea level rise has increased by about 50 percent. According to experts, climate change will fundamentally change the way we live. No longer will the environment be a static condition, a certainty upon which other variables depend. Rather, it will be a 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013 City of Palo Alto Page 2 variable itself, and it will make us plan for the future like never before.2 In addition to the non-static nature of climate change and its effects, the sheer complexity of the multiple factors that affect climate change makes modeling difficult at best. There are many elements at risk of variation because of climate change, and it is not known how each of these elements will affect each other. As a result, the general public’s assumption of a steady and predictable change is likely not accurate. The San Francisco Bay, home to one of the oldest tide gauges in the country,has seen 0.63 feet of sea level rise over the last century. In the coming century, the rate of sea level rise is expected to accelerate, as higher average atmospheric temperatures cause glaciers and the polar ice caps to melt. Opinions vary on the forecasted amount of sea level rise, but there is little argument that the accelerating trend will continue.As a result, there is a very high level of uncertainty for which it is difficult to plan. In the year 2000, the State of California adopted guidance and sea level rise projections for planning purposes ranging from 10 to 17 inches by 2050, 17 to 32 inches by 2070, and 31 to 69 inches by 21003. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in its latest Bay Plan amendment (October 2011) revised its estimate of the year 2100 sea level rise from 55 inches to up to 69 inches.However, data on sea level rise is evolving,and BCDC uses the 55-inch sea level rise scenario in the Bay Plan when assessing long- term impacts. Recent projections by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the South Bay range from 0.5 to 5 meters (19.7 to 196.8 inches), showing the considerable uncertainty as to what level of rising waters to expect and the high variability in projections.4 The Pacific Institute estimates that a 3.28 foot rise in sea level would put 220,000 people at risk of a 1% (100-year)flood event, given today’s population in the Bay Area. Critical infrastructure, such as roads, hospitals, schools, emergency facilities, wastewater treatment plants, power plants, and more will be at increased risk of inundation, as will vast areas of wetlands and other natural 2 Columbia Law School, Center for Climate Change Law, Managed Coastal Retreat, 20133http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/2013_SLR_Guidance_Update_FINAL1.pdf4http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2009-11-01/sea-level-rise-and-future-bay-area City of Palo Alto Page 3 ecosystems. In addition, it is estimated that the cost of replacing property that will likely be at risk of coastal flooding with this level of sea level rise is $49 billion (in year 2000 dollars)5. The overall result of both sea level rise and possible changes in precipitation patterns is that low-lying areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay will experience more frequent and severe flooding. Areas that are typically flood-prone will be inundated, and some areas that are currently not at risk will be periodically flooded. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)predicts that by 2050, a majority of U.S. coastal areas are likely to be threatened by 30 or more days of flooding each year due to dramatically accelerating impacts from sea level rise.6 The purpose of this study session is to: 1)inform the Council on sea level rise protection, mitigation, and adaptation efforts occurring in California, regionally, and in Palo Alto; 2) prepare Council for future actions; 3) present conceptual draft guiding principles for addressing sea level rise; and 4)obtain input from Council members on their questions, priorities, and vision for Palo Alto regarding sea level rise. Discussion Palo Alto’s existing Bayfront flood protection system is comprised of a levee network between San Francisquito Creek and the Mountain View border. These levees do not meet current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards for height or construction quality. As a result, there are approximately 2,700 Palo Alto properties in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area that are currently potentially subject to tidal flooding from a 1% (100-year) high tide event in San Francisco Bay, assuming no sea level rise. In addition there are critical City facilities and infrastructure as well as a regional facility located within the designated tidal floodplain, including: ·Regional Water Quality Control Plant ·Palo Alto Airport ·City of Palo Alto Municipal Service Center ·Palo Alto Utility Control and Engineering Center 5 http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/sea_level_rise_sf_bay_cec3.pdf6Coastal Hazards Resiliency Group (CHARG), Strategic Brief, 2015 City of Palo Alto Page 4 ·City of Palo Alto Animal Services ·City of Palo Alto offices at Elwell Court ·Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course ·Palo Alto Baylands and Byxbee Park ·Palo Alto’s closed landfill ·Commercial properties, including the U.S. Post Office and International School ·Regional utility corridors (e.g. PG&E gas mains and electric transmission lines) ·Palo Alto Utility Substations ·Stormwater Pump Stations ·U.S. Highway 101 Sea level rise will result in an increase in the number of properties designated as being in the floodplain unless measures are taken to adapt and protect the shoreline and/or specific properties. Such measures may lead to possible changes in the shoreline as decisions must be made regarding which assets to protect and whether to retreat or adapt. It will require the expenditure of significant resources to address sea level rise. Sea level rise also poses emergency response and safety challenges, which are addressed in the City’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment as well as the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. This study session provides the Council with information on efforts being taken at the state, regional and local level related to sea level rise. State of California Initiatives In 2014,the State legislature passed AB 2516, which imposes new requirements for sea level rise planning. The law directed the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to create a database consisting of various entities, departments, and boards to share information about sea level rise planning projects. Participating agencies include the Department of Water Resources, California Coastal Commission, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, State Lands Commission, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and State Coastal Conservancy. AB2516 requires, on or before January 1, 2016, the CNRA, in collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), to create, update biannually, and post on an internet website a Planning for Sea Level Rise Database describing steps being taken throughout the state to prepare for and adapt to sea level rise. As a result of AB 2516, the Palo City of Palo Alto Page 5 Alto Utilities Department and Palo Alto Airport were required to provide information on July 1, 2015 regarding their planning efforts with respect to sea level rise. The State Assembly has a Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy chaired by Assemblyman Rich Gordon. The California Coastal Commission unanimously adopted a Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance document on August 12, 2015. It provides an overview of the best available science on sea level rise for California and a recommended methodology for addressing sea level rise in Coastal Commission planning and regulatory actions. The potential impacts of sea level rise fall within the California Coastal Commission’s (and local governments’) planning and regulatory responsibilities under the Coastal Act. Sea level rise increases the risk of flooding, coastal erosion, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies. The Coastal Act mandates the protection of public access and recreation along the coast, coastal habitats, and other sensitive resources, as well as providing priority visitor-serving and coastal- dependent or coastal-related development while simultaneously minimizing risks from coastal hazards. The California Ocean Protection Council provided an updated Sea Level Rise Guidance Document "to help state agencies incorporate future sea-level rise impacts into planning decisions." This document includes a table summarizing sea level rise models for the years 2030-2100 north and south of Cape Mendocino, which were adopted by the State for planning projections. The State of California Natural Resources Agency has a California Climate Adaptation Strategy,which is a comprehensive plan to guide adaptation to climate change, becoming the first state to develop such a strategy in 2009. Bay Area Initiatives The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Resiliency Group (CHARG)is a forum at which local, regional, state, and federal scientists, engineers, planners, and policy makers can develop a common understanding about regional coastal hazards issues. CHARG’s participants represent many Bay Area cities (including Palo Alto), all nine Bay Area counties, and regional, state, and federal agencies. Each member organization is responsible for protecting public safety, health, and City of Palo Alto Page 6 welfare through planning, building, and maintaining infrastructure and enhancing and maintaining the natural environment. CHARG has developed a Strategic Brief and is working on technical, funding, and policy issues related to sea level rise. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) and Joint Venture Silicon Valley are hosting sub-regional meetings for agencies in Santa Clara County. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) consists of 27 members who represent various interests in the Bay, including federal, state, regional, and local governments and the public of the San Francisco Bay region. The Commission is authorized to control: 1) Bay filling and dredging, and 2) bay-related shoreline development. BCDC updated the San Francisco Bay Plan in October 2011 to deal with the expected impacts of climate change in San Francisco Bay.7 The previous policy language recommended that new development not be approved in low-lying areas that are in danger of flooding now or in the future unless the development was elevated above possible flood levels. The new BCDC policies require sea level rise risk assessments to be conducted when planning shoreline development or designing large shoreline projects within BCDC jurisdiction. The risk assessment should be prepared by a qualified engineer and should be based on the estimated 100-year flood elevation that takes into account a range of sea level projections for mid-century and end of century. All projects should be designed to be resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection. If it is likely that the project will remain in place longer than mid- century, an adaptive management plan should be developed to address the long- term impacts. Shoreline protection projects, such as levees and seawalls, must be designed to withstand the effects of projected sea level rise and to be integrated with adjacent shoreline protection. Whenever feasible, projects must integrate hard shoreline protection structures with natural features, such as marsh or upland vegetation, that enhance the Bay ecosystem.[2] Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) is a collaborative planning effort led by BCDC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Coastal Services Center to understand how San Francisco Bay Area communities can adapt to sea level rise and storm event flooding. The ART Project has engaged local, regional, state and federal agencies, as well as non-profit and private stakeholders, to explore how the Bay Area can increase resilience to sea level rise and storm events,while protecting critical ecosystem and community services. 7 http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/SLRfactSheet.shtml City of Palo Alto Page 7 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides resources via its Resilience Program (http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/climate_change/)as well as sea level rise vulnerability maps (http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/news/new-sea-level- rise-map-interface/) The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is the largest tidal wetland restoration project on the West Coast. When complete, the project will restore 15,100 acres of industrial salt ponds to a rich mosaic of tidal wetlands and other habitats. Its goals are to restore wetland habitat, provide public access and recreation,and provide for flood management in the South Bay that enables restoration. Once established, tidal marshes on the outboard side of levees will be the first line of flood defense and will help protect the levees from storm wave action and tidal surge. Restored tidal wetlands also increase the flood carrying capacity of local creeks, flood control channels, and rivers. In addition, the San Francisco Estuary Institute has updated its Baylands Goals Report to include sea level rise. The Baylands Goals Report provides a roadmap for wetland restoration and describes how such restoration can assist with sea level rise protection. In order for wetlands to assist with sea level rise adaptation, they must be restored quickly, reconnected to natural processes, such as creeks, and have open land to be able to migrate landward as sea levels rise.8 The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority9 is a regional government agency charged with raising and allocating resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The Authority was created by the California legislature in 2008 with the enactment of AB 2954 (Lieber). The restoration authority has placed a regional parcel tax measure on the June 2016 ballot. The $12 tax would raise $500 million over 20 years to fund flood protection infrastructure and wetland restoration projects across the San Francisco Bay. The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study is a study by the US Army Corps of Engineers funded through a congressional appropriation together with local funding from the Water District and the State Coastal Conservancy to identify and recommend tidal flood risk management projects for federal funding. The 8 www.baylandsgoals.org9http://sfbayrestore.org/ City of Palo Alto Page 8 shoreline study team is currently working on the planning and design of flood protection projects in the Alviso area of San Jose and a pre-feasibility study for the remaining shoreline area in Santa Clara County. The Water District is also working with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) on flood protection, has performed coastal floodplain modeling,and maintains a resource website on sea level rise10. The Bay Area Climate Change Consortium (BAECCC) facilitates collaboration between resource managers, scientists, and interested parties. BAECCC is working on implementing a Natural Infrastructure Initiative to recognize the value the ecosystems in the Bay Area add to human well-being and resiliency. The Silicon Valley 2.0 Project was developed by the County of Santa Clara Office of Sustainability to respond to a gap in regional climate adaptation planning and the need for an implementation tool rather than simply a plan.11 This interactive risk management tool includes geo-economic information about various assets and allows planners to assess the value of vulnerable assets. The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP)presents a thorough summary of climate change projections and expected impacts to four water-related Functional Areas in the Bay Area, including water supply/water quality, flood control wastewater/stormwater, and watershed and habitat protection. The Bay Area IRWMP reviewed climate change adaptation strategies from a wide range of regional and local initiatives and planning documents such as urban water management plans, habitat restoration plans, wastewater treatment master plans, watershed stewardship plans and water supply strategies. The Bay Area IRWMP identifies the following general strategies for adapting to climate change: ·Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects; ·“No Regrets” approach to address immediate or ongoing concerns while reducing future risks; 10http://cf.valleywater.org/Water/Where_Your_Water_Comes_From/Water%20Supply%20and%20Infrastructure %20Planning/Climate%20Change/SeaLevel.cfm 11 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osp/SV2/Pages/SV2.aspx City of Palo Alto Page 9 ·Establish a climate change adaptation public outreach and education program; ·Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation strategy development and regional approaches; ·Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness; and ·Update building codes and zoning. For Sea Level Rise, the specific strategies identified by the Bay Area IRWMP are: ·Multifunctional ecosystem-based adaptation along the bay shore and rivers ·Remove critical infrastructure from hazard zone ·Raise, armor and maintain flood control structures that protect critical infrastructure that cannot be moved. ·Prevent placement of new infrastructure in areas likely to be inundated. ·Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans. Local Projects The City of Mountain View conducted a comprehensive sea level rise vulnerability and adaptation assessment for its Shoreline Community adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The study addresses the potential for increased flooding directly from coastal sources as well as upstream sea level rise impacts to creek flooding and stormwater drainage. Supporting assessments include geotechnical levee evaluations, pump intake siltation, and landfill management concerns. As a result of the study, the City has developed a Capital Improvement Program to meet the flood protection needs of the area. Across the Bay in San Leandro, a multi-agency partnership is piloting the construction of a wide horizontal “ecotone” levee at the Oro Loma Sanitary District wastewater treatment plant. The ecotone slope (essentially a wide, gently-sloped levee with wetland vegetation) serves to provide protection from rising sea levels as well as increase the removal of nutrients from secondary wastewater effluent. Wastewater treatment plants of the future will be moving away from the goal of “wastewater treatment”and towards a framework of “resource recovery.” Wastewater contains two major resources that are important to the ecology of coastal ecosystems: fresh water and nutrients. The City of Palo Alto Page 10 movement of fresh water across the ecotone slope is crucial in replenishing a coastal habitat type that has been removed from the Bay as streams have been channelized. In addition, wastewater contains nutrients that can stimulate the growth of the plants on the ecotone levee.12 In terms of tidal flood protection, the San Francisquito Creek JPA is conducting a levee improvement feasibility study and design project for the Bayfront levees between San Francisquito Creek and Redwood City. This project, which the JPA has designated as the “Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation” or “SAFER Bay” project, is being jointly funded through a grant from the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and financial contributions from the cities of Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. This is a separate, but related project from the JPA’s San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project. The scope of the SAFER Bay project includes a feasibility study to identify the preferred alternative for improving the existing Bayfront levee system to provide 1% (100-year)protection from tidal flooding (including consideration of future sea level rise), followed by preparation of an environmental impact report and final construction bid documents. While FEMA does not currently address sea level rise in its flood mapping, the SAFER Bay feasibility study incorporates three feet of sea level rise into its design assumptions in order to be consistent with the project time frame (at least five decades) and the range of sea level rise projections over this time13. The JPA has a long-term goal of placing a ballot measure before local voters seeking approval of a special tax or assessment to fund construction of the recommended tidal levee improvements. The feasibility study consultant team is currently finalizing a report with potential levee alignments for the Palo Alto area. Restoration of tidal marshes, including the idea of constructing wide ecotone levees, is one of the strategies being considered regionally as the first line of defense from rising seas and storm surges, which also allows for levees to be lower than they would need to be without the marsh protection (see discussion above of Baylands Goals Report). 12 http://www.acfloodcontrol.org/SFBayCHARG/pdf/oro_loma_ecotone.pdf 13 Based on OPC 2013 and USACE 2011 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Palo Alto Responding to sea level rise generally involves three generic tools: ·Protect (e.g. levees, floodwalls, wetlands) ·Adapt (e.g. build any new or substantially-improved structures elevated above future flood levels or as structures that can be submerged without sustaining appreciable damage) ·Retreat (e.g. either partially/seasonably or completely surrender an area to rising sea level) While our primary and most cost-effective option may be to protect as much of the existing floodplain as possible from tidal flooding, if sea level rise meets or exceeds the currently accepted projections, managed retreat may be needed over the long-term due to the limitations of the protective structures as well as the costs of continuing to armor the coastline. The City of Palo Alto already has limited protection and adaptation measures in place, and related zoning policies in areas of flood risk. Staff has developed the following six guiding principles regarding sea level rise for discussion purposes: 1.For City of Palo Alto capital projects,use sea level rise assumptions that accommodate the range of California and regional sea level rise estimates and are consistent with other planning efforts. At this time, the sea level rise estimate should be a minimum of 55 inches by year 2100 based on BCDC projections. 2.Staff should continue to monitor the latest climate change and sea level rise science and adapt as needed if sea level rise occurs at a more rapid pace and/or higher levels than currently projected. 3.Any engineered solutions should be adaptable to changing predictions. 4.All three categories of tools (protect, adapt, retreat) should be considered when appropriate and cost effective. 5.For areas where a protection strategy, i.e. levees, is being pursued, additional tools should still be used in case the severity and speed of sea level rise increases and other measures, such as designing structures that can get wet and locating sensitive equipment higher in a building,become necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 12 6.Staff should continue to collaborate with regional planning efforts on studies of impacts and strategies for response to sea level rise. The following three examples serve to illustrate how the guiding principles and tools may be used: 1.The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) serves an essential function to protect public health and the environment. Using guiding principle 4, preliminary analysis indicates that relocating the treatment plant would not be cost-effective and that it must be located near the Bay to facilitate discharge of treated effluent. As a result,the RWQCP likely must be protected by levees in the long-term. However, using guiding principle 5, the RWQCP will also need to adapt, including the possible need for new pumps to allow the effluent to discharge to the Bay and the need to construct new facilities with rising groundwater in mind. The RWQCP may also consider use of its effluent to benefit marshes and reduce nutrients,similar to the Oro Loma Ecotone project described above.New buildings at the RWQCP are being built to meet the current flood hazard regulations minimum elevation requirement (Elevation 10.5 feet,NAVD88). In light of guiding principle 1, the City should consider increasing that elevation requirement. When that requirement is changed, new structures at the RWQCP will be constructed in compliance with the modified regulations. 2.The SAFER project described above is designed to protect facilities in the Palo Alto Baylands such as the golf course and airport for at least the next five decades. Should sea level rise be more extreme or occur faster than anticipated over the long term, an analysis would need to be done to determine whether increased protection is cost effective (per guiding principle 4). 3.With the Municipal Service Center (MSC) located in a potential future tidal inundation zone, emergency response capabilities may be affected. Potential future impacts include closure of Highway 101 due to flooding and the inability to get service vehicles from the east side of Highway 101 to the west side and areas within the City needing assistance during flood emergencies. Some of these access problems surfaced during the 70-year City of Palo Alto Page 13 flood event in February 1998. Using all guiding principles, an analysis is needed to determine the best approach to protect the emergency response capabilities and other services that the MSC provides. The ongoing Comprehensive Plan update is an opportunity to further explore the applicability of the listed guiding principles. It is anticipated that the new Comprehensive Plan will include discussion and references related to sustainability, climate change and sea level rise, and their effects. New policies and programs may be drafted to, for example,increase the resilience of areas in the current or future floodplain through zoning changes. As an example, the Alviso Master Plan prepared by the City of San Jose has design guidelines for the “ground floor “flood story” [which] can be used only for parking and incidental storage.” 14 Other considerations could relate to restricting new housing or other sensitive uses east of Highway 101 and other vulnerable areas, a form of managed retreat.The Comprehensive Plan update could be used to trigger consideration of such new requirements. Palo Alto’s proposed actions to address sea level rise vulnerabilities will be further discussed in the future. While Palo Alto should plan and implement its own actions, they must be coordinated with other jurisdictions, as rising waters do not respect political boundaries. A regional response will be critical to a successful outcome. Timeline The following items related to sea level rise will be submitted to the Council for discussion in 2016 unless otherwise noted: ·The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)-development will include adaptation strategies to address climate risks and create a resilient community.In addition, this will include an assessment of Palo Alto’s specific sea level rise and climate risks (S/CAP Appendix F “Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Analysis”). ·The Comprehensive Plan Update -will incorporate sea level rise issues. ·The SAFER Bay feasibility study results and recommended levee alignments -will be brought forward in mid-2016; a funding request will be made in 14 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9341 City of Palo Alto Page 14 the proposed FY2017 Capital Improvement Program budget for design and environmental analysis of tidal levee improvements in Palo Alto. ·The revised Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan -will incorporate plans to mitigate sea level rise such as the SAFER Bay project, and appropriate adapt and retreat strategies. ·FEMA’s new Flood Insurance Rate Maps –will expand the footprint of the tidal floodplain in Palo Alto and surrounding communities based on an updated analysis of the existing flood risk. ·Modifications to the zoning and floodplain ordinances as needed. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 9, 2016 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the April 25, 2016 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 04-25-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Special Meeting April 25, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:01 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Holman arrived at 5:07 P.M., Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Filseth, Kniss Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Filseth, Holman, Kniss absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:03 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:09 P.M. Mayor Burt announced no reportable action. Study Session 1. Receive and Review the Report on the Mid-Peninsula Bicycle Sharing System Study. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/25/16 Special Orders of the Day 2. Building Safety Month Proclamation. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 11, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve the Action Minutes for the April 11, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Filseth, Kniss absent Consent Calendar MOTIN: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-6. 4. Approval of an Amendment to Contract Number C1415788 With Finite Matters to Increase the Contract Term by Three Years and $142,225 for a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed of $363,555 for Budget Publishing Software Services and Support. 5. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C13148075 in the Amount of $117,000 With West Coast Arborists Inc., for Tree Pruning and Removal Services for a Total Contract Compensation Not- to-Exceed $1,349,410. 6. Request for Authorization to Amend two Legal Services Agreements With the Law Firm of Rankin Stock & Heaberlin: (1) for Litigation Defense in the Matter of Harney v. City of Palo Alto Police Department, Increase Compensation by $60,000 for a Total Contract Not-To-Exceed Amount of $90,000; and (2) for Litigation Defense in Multiple General Litigation Matters, Increase Compensation by $60,000 for a Total Not- To-Exceed Amount of $190,000. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/25/16 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Filseth, Kniss absent Action Items 7. Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Budget Overview. NO ACTION TAKEN 8. Colleagues Memo: Developing City Policy on Acquisition, Use, and Safeguards for Surveillance and Information-gathering Technologies. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to refer this Colleagues Memo to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss and potentially make recommendations to Council. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “with a focus on technology that collects personally identifiable information.” MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to refer this Colleagues Memo to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss and potentially make recommendations to Council, with a focus on technology that collects personally identifiable information. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Filseth, Kniss absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Wolbach reported his attendance at the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly meeting last Thursday. Housing was the primary topic covered at breakout sessions during the meeting. He reported his attendance at a County Town Hall meeting hosted by Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian which looked at short-term bike and pedestrian improvements to the intersection of Page Mill Road and Interstate 280. During the meeting he learned that the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department focuses on infrastructure and is not involved with transportation programs. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/25/16 Vice Mayor Scharff reported on his visit to Tsuchiura, Japan, one of Palo Alto’s Sister Cities. He participated in the Kasumigaura Marathon during his trip. He reported his attendance at the ABAG Administrative Committee Joint meeting with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Planning Committee. During the meeting, the bodies recommended the consolidation of staff by moving all ABAG staff to the MTC. Council Member Holman requested an update on meeting dates for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Select Committee on Airplane Noise. James Keene, City Manager, advised meetings dates have been scheduled. Staff will ensure this information is on the City’s website. Mayor Burt reported his attendance at the Matadero Creek Bikeway Pop-Up on Saturday. This allowed several hundred people to explore a portion of Santa Clara Valley Water District land along the Creek. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6777) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Contract with The United States Geological Survey for San Francisco Bay Monitoring Title: Approval of a Contract With the United States Geological Survey for Five Years in the Amount of $60,023 per Year for a Total of $310,315 fo r San Francisco Bay Monitoring Near the Regional Water Quality Control Plant's Discharge From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached sole source funding Agreement (Attachment A) with United States Geological Survey (USGS) in the amount of $62,023 per year for a term of five years for a total of $310,115 to monitor pollutants in clam tissue and sediments and to monitor ecosystem diversity in the Palo Alto Baylands. Background The USGS has collected clam and sediment data adjacent to the Palo Alto discharge point since 1974. The discharge point has been the source of considerable data on diversity and clam reproductivity, as well. The work done by the USGS consists of two parts. Part I provides for sampling and analysis of tissue from clams and sediment found in the mud flats near the discharge point of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Part II provides for monitoring of the number and diversity of the benthic organisms (such as worms and clams that live in the mud) and the reproductivity of the clams. The monitoring is required by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), which regulates the discharge of treated wastewater to the San Francisco Bay from the RWQCP. The sampling will cover a five-year calendar period from 2017 to 2021 and continue the work approved by Council and completed during City of Palo Alto Page 2 previous years (CMR:3514; CMR:164:10). Discussion The results to date show dramatic decreases in pollutant levels in the clams compared to the early 1980s when pollutant discharges from RWQCP were much greater. Part II of the program has shown the clams are better able to reproduce and that certain other benthic organisms are on the increase, consistent with a less contaminated environment. No other consultants or institutions have the unique capability to analyze pollutant and ecosystem trends in the vicinity. The work done by the USGS for Palo Alto to date has been exemplary and received nationwide recognition. The USGS does not charge Palo Alto the full cost of the sampling program, but only incremental costs associated with Palo Alto’s required monitoring. The Regional Board and Palo Alto wish to take advantage of the knowledge, experience, and efficiency in analyzing and interpreting data USGS brings to this project. For these reasons, the USGS has been declared a sole source provider of the required services. Resource Impact The total cost of the three-year agreement is $186,000. First year costs (in the amount of $62,023) will be funded from the Wastewater Treatment Funds FY 2017 operating budget. Future years will be subject to Council approval of Wastewater Treatment Fund budgets. These costs are shared with the partnering cities which pick-up 64 percent. Policy Implications Approving this continuing monitoring program does not have any new policy implications. Environmental Review The monitoring program does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, an environmental assessment is not required. Attachments: Attachment A: USGS - PaloAlto Collaboration Agreement (PDF) Attachment B: USGS PA Proposal 2016 (DOCX) March 2015 Agreement # 16HWCH00002 OPA File # 16-5087 1 Collaborative Agreement Agreement between U.S. Geological Survey, a Bureau of the Department of the Interior, through the offices of its National Research Program – Western Branch , located in Menlo Park, CA, hereinafter called “USGS”; and the City of Palo Alto, located in Palo Alto, CA, hereinafter called “Collaborator.” USGS and Collaborator are sometimes herein referred to as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. Additional provisions that are specified in attachments to this Agreement are accepted to the extent allowed by applicable Federal laws and regulations. If there are any conflicts between such attachments and this Agreement, the Parties understand that the provisions in Articles 1-14 shall take precedence. Whereas, the USGS is authorized to perform collaborative work and prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies, Federal, State or private, pursuant to 43 USC §36c and to receive payments in arrears by 43 USC §50b. Whereas, the USGS has a mission in basic and applied research of the nation’s water resources and has need of data to support specific scientific objectives in understanding the dynamics of the San Francisco Bay ecosystem relative to water and sediment quality; Whereas, Collaborator has obligations to conduct a prescribed self-monitoring system of effluent discharged to San Francisco Bay and has need of USGS expertise in inorganic biochemistry and estuarine ecology; Now therefore, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Statement of Work: See attached Statement of Work (SOW)(Attachment A), incorporated by referenceherein. 2.Principal Contacts: The Principal Investigator assigned to this project from the USGS is Dr. JanetThompson, 650-329-4364, jthompso@usgs.gov, 345 Middlefield Rd MS496, Menlo Park, CA 94025. The Principal Contact for Collaborator is Karin North, 650-329-2104, Karin.north@cityofpaloalto.org, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303. In the event that a PI is unable to continue in this project, the sponsoring agency will make every effort to substitute a replacement acceptable to the other Party. 3.Title to Equipment. There will be no joint property purchased as a result of the work outlined in theSOW. Each Party will provide its own equipment necessary to support its participation in the technical evaluation. 4.Term. The collaborative effort provided by USGS and Collaborator will commence on the effective date of this Agreement. The effective date of this agreement shall be the later date of (1) May 1, 2016 or (2) the date of the last signature by the Parties. The expiration date of this Agreement shall be April 30, 2021. This Agreement is subject to renewal only by mutual written agreement of the Parties. 5.Funding. Collaborator is providing funds to USGS in the amount of $310,115. The USGS requires anadvance of $0.00 to begin work on the project. USGS shall issue an invoice to Collaborator for annual payments. Collaborator shall pay USGS in annual installments of $62,023 each on May 1, 2017, May 1, 2018, May 1, 2019, May 1, 2020, and May 1, 2021. Attachment A March 2015 Agreement # 16HWCH00002 OPA File # 16-5087 2 If work begins or continues prior to receiving a lump sum or installment advance payment, invoices not paid within 60 days of receipt bear interest at the annual rate established by the U.S. Treasury. The USGS will submit invoices on an annual basis to the administrative contact identified in Article 9. Invoices not paid within 60 days of receipt bear interest at the annual rate established by the U.S. Treasury, pursuant to 31 USC §3717. Collaborator is providing in-kind services valued at $0.00. USGS is providing in-kind services valued at $0.00. 6. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by either Party on thirty (30) days written notice to the other Party. In the event of an early termination USGS shall be reimbursed for any completed work or work in progress at the time of termination of the Agreement. 7. Publications/Reports: Each Party is free to publish the information and data developed by the project. 8. Intellectual Property: No intellectual property is expected to be developed under the research effort. A copy of the data and the reports provided for in the SOW will be delivered to Collaborator at the end of the project. 9. Notices: Any notice required to be given or which shall be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by first class mail to the parties as follows: USGS: Collaborator: Casey Tharp Karin North 345 Middlefield Rd MS466 2501 Embarcadero Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 Palo Alto, CA 94303 ctharp@usgs.gov Karin.north@cityofpaloalto.org 650-329-4457 650-329-2104 Financial Contact Information for Collaborator: Karin North 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-329-2104 Taxpayer ID: 94-6000389 www.cityofpaloalto.org 10. Independent Entity: For purposes of this Agreement and all services to be provided hereunder, each Party shall be, and shall be deemed to be, an independent party and not an agent or employee of the other party. Each Party shall have exclusive control over its employees in the performance of the work. Neither Party may use the name of the other in advertising or other form of publicity without the written permission of the other. 11. Governing Law/Disclaimer: March 2015 Agreement # 16HWCH00002 OPA File # 16-5087 3 (a) The validity and interpretation of this Agreement are subject to interpretation under Federal Law. Each party agrees to be responsible for the activities, including the negligence, of their employees. As a Federal entity, USGS liability is limited by the Federal Tort Claims Act, codified at 28 USC 2671 et seq. USGS warrants that it is self-insured for purposes of Worker’s Compensation. (b) THE USGS AND COLLABORATOR MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY AS TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE RESEARCH, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH, DATA OR RESULTING PRODUCT INCORPORATING DATA DEVELOPED AND EXCHANGED UNDER THE STATEMENT OF WORK. THESE PROVISIONS SHALL SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT. 12. Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be liable for any unforeseeable event beyond its control, not caused by the fault or negligence of such Party, which causes such Party to be unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and which it is unable to overcome by the exercise of due diligence including, but not limited to, flood, drought, earthquake, storm, fire, pestilence, lightning, and other natural catastrophes; epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, or disobedience; strikes, labor disputes, or failure, threat of failure, or sabotage; or any order or injunction made by a court or public agency. In the event of the occurrence of such a force majeure event, the Party unable to perform shall promptly notify the other Party. It shall further use its best efforts to resume performance as quickly as possible and shall suspend performance only for such period of time as is necessary as a result of the force majeure event. 13. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains all of the terms of the Parties and supercedes all prior agreements and understandings related thereto. This Agreement can be changed or amended only by a written instrument signed by the Parties. 14. Disputes: The signatories to this Agreement shall expend their best efforts to amicably resolve any dispute that may arise under this Agreement. Any dispute that the signatories are unable to resolve shall be submitted to the Director of the USGS or his/her designee and the City Manager of the Collaborator or his/her designee for resolution. 15. Miscellaneous Provisions: Pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, codified at 31 U.S.C. §1341 (a)(1), nothing herein contained shall be construed as binding the USGS to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of its appropriations or funding in excess or what it has received for the collaborative work outlined in the SOW. Non- Appropriation: This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. 16. Survivability. The following provisions shall survive the termination of this Agreement: 1, 3, 5-8, 10-16. 1 Attachment B PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO: NEAR FIELD RECEIVING WATER MONITORING January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dan Cain, Janet Thompson, Francis Parchaso, and Samuel Luoma (emeritus) 345 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MENLO PARK, CA 94025 2 Contents Executive Summary of Past Findings ............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Previous Studies in Near-Field Receiving Waters .......................................................................................... 7 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Monitoring Approach .................................................................................................................................. 11 Sampling Design ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Sampling Location............................................................................................................................... 12 Sampling Frequency ........................................................................................................................... 13 Constituents to be Determined .......................................................................................................... 13 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 14 Analytical Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Budget ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 3 Executive Summary of Past Findings U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have assessed trace metal concentrations in sediments and sediment-dwelling species at an intertidal site in the vicinity of the discharge point of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) since 1977. They have also characterized the area’s benthic community structure since 1974. Ancillary biotic and abiotic factors that could affect metal concentrations and benthic community structure—exotic species invasions, pelagic food availability, and weather anomalies—have also been measured during this time. Collectively, this dataset describes a long-term, detailed history of metal concentrations and benthic community dynamics at this site. It provides a detailed chronology of ecological recovery following reductions in metal loadings from RWQCP, and continues to support the management of metal contaminants in San Francisco Bay. Initially, these studies found exceptionally high concentrations of copper (Cu) and silver (Ag) in mud- dwelling animals in this area, with strong seasonal variability. Additional studies identified the RWQCP as a point source for Cu and Ag and established the clam Macoma petalum as a biological indicator of metal exposure. The annual mean concentrations of Cu and Ag in M. petalum were 287 mg/kg and 105 mg/kg, respectively, in 1980. These levels exceeded tissue concentrations reported in the literature for this species and were much greater than seen elsewhere in San Francisco Bay. Elevated metal concentrations coincided with reduced reproductive activity in M. petalum. Related studies supported the hypothesis that elevated Ag concentrations in M. petalum inhibited the development of reproductive tissue. The benthic community also showed signs of environmental stress during this time, suggesting that metal exposures were affecting the species composition of the community. Opportunistic organisms (capable of fast invasion and propagation in disturbed environments) dominated the community. These organisms possess traits that could reduce contact with highly contaminated sediments (e.g., live at the sediment-water interface, in tubes, or as shelled animals; brood their young; and fed on waterborne particles rather than on sediment). Concentrations of Cu and Ag in both sediments and clams declined significantly during the 1980s as the PARWQCP implemented more advanced waste-water treatment and source control programs. The downward trends in Cu in sediments and in the tissues of M. petalum correlated with reduced Cu discharge from the RWQCP. Coincident with the decline in Cu and Ag in the sediment and clams, the 4 reproductive activity of the clam greatly increased. The composition of the benthic community also shifted during this period. Opportunistic species became less dominant, and less opportunistic species became more persistent. Other environmental factors that vary seasonally and annually (for example, sediment composition, grain-size distribution, organic content, and ambient water salinity) were not associated with the observed temporal trends in metal concentrations, inferred metal effects on species, and benthic community changes. The only unidirectional change in an environmental factor during this period (1980–1990) was the decline in metal concentrations in discharge from the waste treatment plant. Following the significant reductions in the 1980s, concentrations of Cu and Ag in sediments and clams have remained relatively low and stable. Concentrations have fluctuated modestly and without a sustained temporal trend. However, Ag in sediments remains greater than what may be considered the regional background (0.09 mg/kg). This persistent, low level of contamination likely derives from Ag introduced to the site before the 1990s. The concentrations of Cu and Ag in M. petalum have fluctuated as much as four-fold. Concentration minima for Cu observed during this period (1991, 2000–2005, and 2008–2012) were comparable to what can be considered baseline concentrations for this species in San Francisco Bay (20–30 mg/kg). Thus, metal concentrations in sediments and tissue of M. petalum are more likely a combination of inputs from the PARWQP and other regional sources, cycling of contaminants stored within sediments, and regionally-scaled physical and biogeochemical processes controlling the distribution and bioavailability of metals. As concentrations of Ag and Cu in M. petalum declined, reproductive activity increased both in terms of the percentage of individuals that were in a reproductively active stage and the frequency of reproductive activity during the year. Overall, the reproductive status of the population has improved and stabilized over the 20 years of reduced exposure to Ag and Cu at the site. Over the same period, the composition of the infaunal community shifted from a dominance of surface- dwelling, brooding species to species with various life-history characteristics. In particular, species that lay their eggs in the mud and feed by burrowing through and consuming the mud, which were rare in the community in the 1970s and 1980s, have increased in abundance. This pattern continued through 2007, with the less opportunistic species becoming more dominant in abundance. A disturbance occurred on the mudflat in early 2008 (possible causes include sediment accretion or freshwater 5 inundation) that resulted in the loss of the benthic animals, except for those deep-dwelling animals like M. petalum. Animals returned to the mudflat within 2 months of the event, however, which indicated that the disturbance was not due to a persistent toxin or to anoxia. Benthic community data in 2009 showed that the animals that returned to the mudflat were those that can respond successfully to a physical, nontoxic disturbance. The most recent community surveys showed a mix of animals that consume the sediment, filter feed, brood their young, and have pelagic larvae that must survive life on the sediment at a young age. The 2008 defaunation event allowed for an examination of the response of the community to a natural disturbance and a comparison of this recovery to the long-term recovery observed in the 1970s, when the decline in sediment pollutants was the dominating factor. Today, the community at this site is very similar to the benthic community observed by Thompson and Parchaso (2012) throughout South San Francisco Bay: although small filter feeding species are numerically dominant, there is a significant proportion of the community that feeds on surface and subsurface sediment particles, a feature of community structure that is not present where sediments have high concentrations of toxicants. When this study started in the late 1970s, the site was already heavily contaminated with metals. Although the authors assume that the biological conditions reflected the consequences of elevated metal exposures, there is a scarcity of preexisting data to evaluate impacts due to elevated metals. However, the long-term record contained in this study provides a unique opportunity to document biological response when the stress of metal exposure is relaxed. The data make a compelling case that the mitigation of Ag and Cu in waste-water effluent during the 1980s allowed for biological recovery and the establishment of a more diverse and stable infaunal community. Programs to control and reduce loadings of priority pollutants, including, Cu, Ag, Ni, and Hg to South Bay and monitoring of those pollutants continue. By monitoring metal concentrations and community dynamics, this study supports the self-monitoring and reporting programs of RWQCP, and compliments the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). In addition to providing an historical perspective and current status of environmental conditions in the extreme South Bay, data from this study are constructing a contemporary baseline to identify future perturbations to the benthic community. Human impacts on the Bay ecosystem will continue. Events that have the potential of altering the observed contamination in the system include (1) the ongoing salt pond restoration which could mobilize old and new sediments and change the hydrodynamics of South Bay, and (2) emerging contaminants, such as the rapidly 6 expanding commercialization of consumer products utilizing metal-based nanoparticles. An important implication of our recent findings is that effects on metal contamination from these changes have not proven to be sufficient to be detectable in the present South Bay environment. Other changing environmental conditions will also shape ecological patterns in South Bay. For example, recent changes in the seasonal pattern of phytoplankton growth and accumulation (blooms) in South Bay are likely to affect and be affected by the benthic community. We have seen a significant increase in the background levels of phytoplankton biomass in the south bay since 1999. We have also observed a fall phytoplankton bloom in addition to the spring bloom during many years since 1999. There are a number of possible factors contributing to these changes in phytoplankton dynamics. Two strong possibilities include (1) a change in light availability due to lower suspended sediment concentrations, or (2) smaller populations of filter feeding bivalves that normally heavily graze the phytoplankton during all periods except early spring. It is also likely that these changes would not be occurring if metal contamination was sufficient to inhibit phytoplankton growth. Introduction In the 1992, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) directed the Executive Office to implement a regional monitoring program for San Francisco Bay, currently known as the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances (RMP). Furthermore, the RWCB directed discharge permit holders to implement a self-monitoring program comprising the collection of chemical data for water, sediment, and biota from receiving waters in support of the RMP. The RWQCP conducts self-monitoring of receiving water as a condition of its NPDES permit. Since 1994, the City of Palo Alto has also supported special U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies of metals and benthic community structure at a site near the RWQCP discharge point. USGS scientists have studied this site since the mid- 1970’s using methods compatible with the RMP. This dataset is the basis for a long-term temporal perspective of ecological conditions in the extreme South Bay. The program has had demonstrated successes with respect to management of pollutant discharge to the Bay: documenting a progressive reduction of metal contamination near the discharge of the RWQCP; identifying regional and local factors contributing to more complicated temporal patterns in metal concentrations in biota and sediments; and continuing monitoring of priority pollutants, including copper, nickel, and mercury. By 7 currently studying metals and benthic community structure, a strong linkage between metal exposures and biological responses was established. Looking forward, our understanding of water quality and the ecosystem needs to consider on-going and planned activities that could influence metals and biological communities in South Bay. For example, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project completed the physical restructuring of the ponds in 2014. Remobilized sediment and water from these ponds has been transported throughout South Bay, and likely to the USGS field site. The potential of these newly created habitats to be sources of metals, such as Hg, is currently being studied. In addition, recent increases in phytoplankton biomass in South Bay since 1999 (Cloern and others, 2007) and the apparent causes of the increase (influx of predators on the benthos and decreased turbidity) are likely to be reflected in the benthic community structure if the higher phytoplankton biomass persists. Analysis of community structure will identify long-term shifts in species composition as well as episodic disturbances. Monitoring of metals will contribute to a strength- of-evidence approach to assess potential causes for observed changes in community structure. The present proposal is for the five year period starting on January 1, 2016 and ending on December 31, 2020. The proposal describes a continuation of the near-field (inshore) monitoring program at the USGS site that builds upon a rare long-term ecological record spanning four decades. We propose to accompany assessments of trends in metal exposure with determinations of biological processes that integrate and respond to environmental perturbations on different temporal scales. Specifically, reproduction in the indicator clam, M. petalum, and benthic community structure will be assessed. Monitoring metal concentrations and biological endpoints will provide a robust evaluation of site- specific ecological condition that is compatible with the RWCB’s goals. Previous Studies in Near-Field Receiving Waters USGS scientists began collecting biological, physical, and chemical data from an intertidal mudflat near the discharge point of the RWQP in the mid-1970’s. These data showed exceptionally high concentrations of copper (Cu) and silver (Ag) in surficial sediments and in the clam M. petalum at this site compared to other locations in the Bay and worldwide (Thomson and others, 1984; Luoma and others, 1985; Cain and Luoma 1990). USGS studies also indicated that the reproductive cycle of M. petalum was abnormal, and the assemblage of benthic species was indicative of environmental stress. 8 Additional studies, showed metals were present in enriched concentrations throughout the food web, including birds from the area. Concentrations of Cu and Ag declined in both sediments and M. petalum after 1981 as the RWQCP implemented advanced treatment of influent and source control programs. The downward trends in Cu in sediments and in the clam correlated with reduced Cu discharges from the RWQCP. The intertidal mudflat environment of the site is quite complex and variable from year-to-year. Sediment composition (for example mean particle size and organic content), salinity, and other factors varied seasonally and from one year to another. However, over a sustained period of study none of these factors displayed temporal trends that corresponded to the changes in metal concentrations, metal effects, or benthic community changes. The only unidirectional change in an environmental factor during this period was the decline in metal inputs from the waste treatment plant during the 1980s. Since 1991, metal concentrations in M. petalum more or less stabilized around 40 µg/g Cu and 4 µg/g Ag. Annual variations in tissue metal concentrations of relatively small magnitude occur, but there have been no sustained trends, and the temporal patterns no longer correlate with Cu and Ag discharged from the plant. Although effluent from the plant contributes to the metal loading of South Bay, the data suggest it does not have the predominant influence on metal concentrations at the site that it did historically. Seasonal fluctuations and annual variation in metal concentrations now are more likely related to a combination of factors such as local inputs, diffuse and periodic inputs (e.g., storm related run-off), remobilization/recycling of legacy contamination of Bay sediments, and local physicochemical conditions affecting metal bioavailability. Since 1974, USGS scientists have also monitored and studied the benthic community and reproductive activity of M. petalum at the site. Findings during the first 10 years of this study were published in Nichols and Thompson (1985a; 1985b). We found that this community was composed of non- indigenous, opportunistic species that dominated the community due to their ability to survive the many physical disturbances on the mudflat. The disturbances discussed included sediment erosion and deposition, and exposure at extreme low tides. The possible effects of metal exposure as a disturbance factor were not considered in these analyses as the decline in metal concentrations in M. petalum and sediment had just begun. A synthesis of results from the metal study (see Hornberger and others, 1999; 2000) suggested that 9 sediments and local populations of clams at this location are sensitive indicators of metal loadings to nearby receiving waters. These studies illustrated reduced metal concentrations in sediments and in biota (M. petalum) within a year of significant reductions in metal loading from the RWQCP discharge. Other analyses (e.g., Thompson and others, 2002; Shouse 2002; Shouse and others, 2003; Moon and others, 2005, Cain and others, 2006) indicated that higher-level biological responses to metal loading take longer. Whereas a response at the organism level (i.e., reproductive activity) was observed within a year or two, a consistent response at the community level, indicated by a progressive change in the number or type of species that colonized the site following the recession in metals exposure, took several years to develop. Due to the natural intra-annual variability of benthic community dynamics it is likely to take a minimum of 5-10 years for a change in the benthic community to be stable. Analyses of the benthic community data have revealed the following trends: 1. The community has shifted from being dominated by a few opportunistic species to a community where there are more equally dominant, equally persistent species; 2. The community, which was previously dominated by surface dwelling, brooding species in now composed of species with varying life history characteristics; 3. Species that lay their eggs in the mud, previously rarely present in the community, have increased in abundance; 4. M. petalum reproductive activity has increased concurrent with the decline in tissue metal concentrations, resulting in a population with predictable semi-annual reproductive periods. These studies demonstrated how coordinated monitoring of metals exposure and biological response can strengthen interpretations of causality. The strong temporal associations among metal loading, environmental levels of metal contamination, and biological responses support an interpretation of biological recovery following a recession of metal exposures resulting from reductions in metal loadings to South Bay by municipal and industrial dischargers in general, and RWQCP in particular. Temporally intensive sampling (multiple months per year) facilitated identification of long-term trends from annual and intra-annual variation driven by climate patterns and growth and reproductive cycles in benthic invertebrates. The data from a receiving water-monitoring program of this type is useful for the Regional Board, and it can provide valuable feedback to local dischargers. For example, these data help to inform 10 staff at the RWQP on plant operations, and the success of source control and pretreatment programs. Objectives The purpose of this monitoring program is to characterize temporal trends in trace element concentrations, the reproductive activity of the bioindicator, M. petalum, and the benthic community structure at an inshore (intertidal) site near the discharge of the RWQCP (i.e., the USGS site), as designated in the RWQCP self-monitoring program. Specifically, trace elements and associated parameters will be determined in surficial, fine-grained sediments and in the clam M. petalum, the reproductive state of M. petalum will be evaluated, and the structural and functional features of the benthic community will be analyzed. Biological attributes will be characterized with simple, established metrics. Reproductive activity will be reported as total percentage of animals reproductively active for each year (we know from previous work that this percentage is lowest during periods with the highest pollutant concentrations (Hornberger and others, 1999, 2000)) and as a reproductive index. Community composition will be described in terms of number of species, number of individuals of dominant species and rank analysis curves (i.e. benthic communities in more polluted environments are expected to have fewer species and higher numbers of individuals for the dominant species than benthic communities in non-polluted environments). All monitoring will be conducted in a manner that will provide high- quality data that are compatible with existing data, and with data provided by programs such as the Regional Monitoring Program. Specific objectives include: 1. Collect data to assess seasonal patterns and inter-annual trends in trace element concentrations in sediments and M. petalum at the USGS site; 2. Collect ancillary chemical and physical data to monitor seasonal and inter-annual patterns in environmental conditions at the site; 3. Collect data to assess seasonal and annual trends in reproductive activity of the clam M. petalum at the site; 4. Collect data to assess seasonal and annual trends in benthic community structure at the USGS site, concurrent with metals data; 11 5. Present the data within the context of the historical dataset from the site so as to characterize long-term trends and current conditions; 6. Provide data complementary to and supportive of other South Bay programs such as the RMP. Despite the complexities of monitoring natural systems, the monitoring approach described below has been effective in the past in relating changes in near field contamination in San Francisco Bay to changes in metal discharges to the Bay, and in relating changes in near field contamination to changes in benthic community structure (Kennish, 1998) and reproductive activity of M. petalum (Hornberger and others, 2000). Existing historical data will provide a context within which cause and effect can be assessed for change in the future. If continued, this study will provide data on metal concentrations in the local receiving water that can be evaluated within the context of similar data collected by Regional Monitoring Program, feed-back on new or on-going initiatives to control and mitigate inputs of metals from sources within the service area, and new treatment technologies to reduce effluent loadings. Continuation of this study will build on a unique data set where ecological data and contaminant data are concurrently collected and analyzed within the context of changing influent treatment practices. Monitoring Approach The proposed approach will monitor trace element concentrations in fine-grained (< 100 µm) sediments and the resident population of the deposit-feeding clam M. petalum. Sediment particles bind most trace element pollutants strongly, efficiently removing them from the water column. Numerous prior studies have shown that analysis of concentrations of these pollutants in sediments provide a time- integrated indicator of trace element input to the water column. Animals such as M. petalum live in contact with sediments and feed upon organic material associated with sediment particles. Uptake of trace elements from ingested sediments results in their accumulation in the tissues of M. petalum. These animals are important prey for larger species that live in the Bay, including migrating waterfowl. Thus, analysis of the metals in the soft tissues of the clam provides a measure of the clam’s exposure to bioavailable pollutants and an estimate metal transfer to predators. Analysis of the trace element concentration in the tissues of a bioindicator, such as M. petalum, indicates whether a pollutant is bioavailable and bioaccumulated. Although elevated pollutant concentrations in an organism suggest an increased probability of toxicological risk, it does not confirm 12 toxicity. Chronic metal toxicity in an invertebrate can manifest in physiological impairment, including reproductive impairment (Hook and Fisher, 2001a; 2001b), feeding inhibition (Cain and others, 2016), and retarded growth (Irving and others, 2003). Annual growth and reproductive cycles in M. petalum can be followed with the condition index (CI), which is an indicator of the physiological condition of the animal and, specifically, is the total soft-tissue weight of a clam standardized to shell length (Cain and others, 1990). Earlier studies of M. petalum from the USGS site showed that reproductive activity increased as Cu and Ag concentrations in the clam’s soft tissues declined (Hornberger and others, 2000). Therefore, the CI and reproductive activity of M. petalum appears to be a good indicators of physiological stress related to elevated exposure to some metals, at least. The benthic community data will be analyzed in a manner similar to that used in published benthic studies near sewage treatment outfalls (see Kennish 1998). The proposed approach will examine species dominance patterns and community composition changes in combination with environmental variables. Other studies have shown that more opportunistic species are likely to persist in highly disturbed environments (as was shown by Nichols and Thompson (1985a) at this location in 1974 through 1983), and that the abundance and types of dominant species can change with changes in metal concentrations (Shouse and others, 2003). We will also examine changes in the benthic community concurrent with changes in the concentrations of specific metals. For example it has been shown that some crustacean and polychaete species are particularly sensitive to elevated copper (Morrisey and others, 1996; Rygg 1985) and that most taxonomic groups have species that are sensitive to elevated silver (Luoma and others, 1995). Sampling Design Sampling Location Samples for sediment and clam tissue metal concentrations will be collected from an intertidal mudflat site located at Sand Point (N 37º 27.638, W 122º 05.969) (Figure 1). Benthic community samples will be collected nearby (Figure 1): station FN45 is 12 m from the edge of the marsh and 110 cm above MLLW. These locations are on a mudflat on the shore of the bay (not a slough) approximately 1 kilometer southeast of the Palo Alto discharge point. It was chosen because it is influenced by the discharge of RWQCP, but it is not immediately adjacent to that discharge. Thus, it reflects a response of receiving 13 waters to the effluent, beyond just a measure of the effluent itself. Earlier studies have shown that dyes, natural organic materials in San Francisquito Creek and effluent from the RWQCP all move predominantly south toward Sand Point and thereby influence the mudflats in the vicinity. Earlier work showed that San Francisquito Creek and the historical Yacht Harbor were minor sources of most trace elements compared to the RWQCP. Earlier studies also showed that intensive monitoring at one site was more effective in determining trends in trace element contamination than was less frequent sampling at a larger number of sites in the vicinity of the discharge. Sampling Frequency The basic metals monitoring program supported by the City of Palo Alto will have a sampling frequency of three times per year. Statistical techniques such as power analyses indicate that three samples per year will provide 20 percent sensitivity in detecting trends. The USGS monitoring experience at the site indicates that seasonal cycles and episodic events influence annual variation in metal concentrations in sediments and tissues; three samples per year will be insufficient to track and characterize seasonality in metal contamination. Consequently, important episodic events may be missed, associations between metals and biological metrics, such as community structure, are weakened, and long-term trends in both metal exposure and community composition are more difficult to define. Thus, samples will be collected more frequently as stipulated below. To support interpretations of cause and effect in a temporally variable environment, metal and benthic invertebrate sampling should be coincident and thus sampling will coincide with the three sampling events for metals. In addition, previous analyses of benthic invertebrate data (1974 through 1983) indicated that benthic samples need to be collected at a time step of about every other month in order to distinguish seasonal differences from inter-annual differences if the differences are small (Nichols and Thompson 1985a; 1985b). In dynamic systems such as San Francisco Bay, distinguishing between the effects of natural seasonal changes and anthropogenic environmental stressors is more reliable with more frequent samples. Thus, the USGS will sample metals in the sediment and clam tissue and will sample the benthic community an additional two to six times per year. Constituents to be Determined The chemical constituents to be analyzed in sediments and in the tissues of M. petalum as well as 14 ancillary chemistry and physical properties are listed in Table 1. The constituent list is consistent with the chemical and physical constituents analyzed by the RMP. The methods employed are designed to minimize below detection limit determinations. The variables chosen for determination are those required by the Regional Board. Benthic samples will be processed to produce species lists, species counts, and species functional group. Each clam selected for reproductive analysis will be characterized by size (length in mm), sex, developmental stage, and condition of gonads. Methods Sampling Sediments and M. petalum will be collected at low tide from the exposed mudflat. Sediment samples will be scraped from the visibly oxidized (brownish) surface layer (top 1–2 cm) of mud. This surface layer represents recently deposited sediment and detritus, or sediment affected by recent chemical reactions with the water column. The sediment also supports microflora and fauna, a nutritional source ingested by M. petalum. Enough sediment will be obtained to conduct all proposed analyses (Table 1) and to archive approximately 10 grams for any unforeseen future needs. Clams will be collected by hand from the same area. Typically, 60–120 individuals will be collected, representing a range of sizes (shell length). As they are collected, the clams will be placed into screw-cap polypropylene container (previously acid- washed) containing site water. These containers will be used to transport the clams to the laboratory. Three replicate samples will be collected using 8.5 cm diameter x 20 cm deep cores for the benthic community monitoring study. A minimum of 10 individual M. petalum of varying sizes (minimum of 5mm) will be collected for the analysis of reproductive activity. Sample Preparation Sediments will be sieved through 100 μm mesh in ultra-clean (18 Mohm-cm) deionized water immediately upon return to the laboratory. Both the fraction of sediment passing through the sieve and the fraction retained on the sieve will be dried and weighed. Particle size distribution will be defined as the proportion of the total sediment mass divided between these two fractions. This also provides an estimate of the particle size characteristics of the bulk sediment for those who might want to make 15 comparisons with bulk analyses. Replicate aliquots of the fraction of sediment that passes through the 100 μm sieve will be digested by reflux with concentrated nitric acid. This method provides a “near-total” extraction of metals from the sediment and is comparable to the recommended procedures of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for leachable metals and to the procedures employed in the Regional Monitoring Program. Another set of replicate subsamples from the silt/clay fraction will be directly extracted with dilute (0.6 N) hydrochloric acid (HCl) for 2 hours at room temperature. This method extracts metals bound to sediment surfaces and is operationally designed to obtain the leachable, anthropogenic contribution to the sediment concentration (Luoma and Bryan 1982). Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations were determined using a continuous flow isotope ratio mass spectrophotometer (IRMS) (table 1). Before the analysis, sediment samples were acidified with 12 N HCl vapor to remove inorganic carbon (Harris and others, 2001). Clams will be returned to the laboratory live, washed free of local sediment and placed in clean ocean water diluted with distilled water to the salinity on the mudflat at the time of collection (determined from the water in the mantle cavity of representative individual clams). Clams will be moved to a constant temperature room (12° C) and starved for 48 hours to allow for the egestion of sediment and undigested material from their digestive tracts. Following depuration, the length of each clam will be determined then the shell and soft tissue will be separated. Soft tissues will be composited into 6-12 composite samples, each containing animals of similar shell length, digested by nitric acid reflux, and analyzed for most metals by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrophotometry (ICPOES). Samples for mercury and selenium analysis will be composited as above into 3-4 composite samples. These samples will be stored at -80° C, and later will be homogenized, refrozen, freeze dried, and subsampled for analysis (see below). The data from these animals are not normally distributed and may be affected by animal size. Correlations will be calculated between animal size and metal concentration, and established procedures will be employed to calculate metal content of a standard sized clam for each collection to facilitate comparisons of metal exposure over time. Previous studies show that such data reduction procedures are necessary to account for biological factors (size and growth) that affect metal concentrations, thus allowing a clearer linkage between RWQCP discharges and responses of the clams. 16 Benthic samples will be washed on a 0.5mm screen, preserved in 10% formalin for two weeks and then transferred to 70% ethyl alcohol with Rose Bengal stain. Clams collected for reproductive analysis will be immediately preserved in 10% formalin at the time of collection. In the laboratory, the visceral mass of each clam will be removed, stored in 70% ethyl alcohol, and then prepared using standard histological techniques: tissues will be dehydrated in a graded series of alcohol, cleared in toluene (twice for one hour each), and infiltrated in a saturated solution of toluene and Paraplast for one hour and two changes of melted Tissuemat for one hour each. Samples will then be embedded in Paraplast in a vacuum chamber and then thin sectioned (10 micrometer) using a microtome. Sections will be stained with Harris’ hematoxylin and eosin. Analytical Methods Digested tissue and sediment samples will be evaporated to dryness and reconstituted in 0.6N hydrochloric acid. Most elements will be analyzed by (ICP-OES) (Table 1). Tissue and sediment samples will be subsampled and analyzed for total mercury by acid-digestion, BrCl oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry according to the EPA Method1631, Revision E (2002), and for selenium by acid digestion, hydrogen peroxide oxidation, hydride generation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HG-ICP-MS) according to a method modified from Liber (2011) and Elrick & Horowitz (1985). Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations were determined using a continuous flow isotope ratio mass spectrophotometer (IRMS) (table 1). Before the analysis, sediment samples were acidified with 12 N HCl vapor to remove inorganic carbon (Harris and others, 2001). To minimize metal contamination of samples, all glassware and plastic used for sample collection, preparation, and storage will be cleaned by sequentially washing with a detergent, deionized water rinse, followed by a 10-percent hydrochloric-acid wash and double-deionized water (18 mega-ohm-cm (MΩ-cm) resistivity) rinse. Materials will be dried in a dust-free positive-pressure environment, sealed, and stored in a cabinet. Quality control will be maintained by frequent analysis of blanks, analysis of National Institute of Standards and Technology standard reference materials (e.g., NIST 2709a, San Joaquin soils, and NIST 2976, mussel tissue) with each analytical run, and internal comparisons with prepared quality control standards. Method detection limits (MDL) and reporting levels (MRL) will be determined using the procedures outlined by Glaser and others (1981), Childress and others (1999), and 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Benthic samples will be sorted and individuals identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible (some groups are still not well defined in the bay, such as the oligochaetes), and individuals for each species will be enumerated. The stained thin sections of clam reproductive tissue will be examined with a light microscope. Each individual will be characterized by size (length in mm), sex, developmental stage, and condition of gonads, thus allowing each specimen to be placed in one of five qualitative classes of gonadal development (Parchaso 1993). Data Analysis The period of sample collection is the calendar year. Annual data will be compiled, summarized, and appended to the long-term dataset. Data for sediment chemistry and metal concentrations in the bioindicator, M. petalum, will be assessed within the context of the long-term record as well as data collected since 1994. Changes in elemental constituents and associations among those constituents and with other environmental properties will be analyzed by parametric and non-parametric statistical models, such as correlation and ANOVA. The seasonal benthic community data will be examined using multivariate techniques (Shouse 2002). Multivariate analyses will be used to identify connections between the environmental variables (including body burdens of trace elements in bivalves and copper and silver sediment concentrations) and benthic community structure. Data for individual species will also be examined to determine if there are any population changes as a result of metal concentration changes. The time series for individual species will be examined using annual and seasonal trends, and will be examined in conjunction with time series of trace metal concentration. The reproductive stage data will be similarly analyzed as a time series in conjunction with trace metal concentrations and benthic community data. Products Data will be summarized and reported to the City of Palo Alto at the completion of each annual sampling period (i.e., calendar year). Annual reports will be consistent with the RMP reporting format. Appendices will include basic analytical data and computations, quality assurance data, species lists, 18 species counts, species analysis by functional group, and basic analytical and computational data for the benthic community and reproductive data. To meet the objectives of the study, the report will include interpretive figures, tables and narrative descriptions of the most recent data in relation to the long- term time series. Budget The budget for the proposed project is outlined in Table 2. This budget includes charges only for the basic monitoring program of 3 sediment and clam tissue collections per year and for 4 benthic community collections per year. The USGS will complement the study with additional collections in each year which is reflected in the sampling frequency (Table 1). This proposal describes work that will begin January 2016 and continue for five years, through December 2020. Renewal each January will be at the discretion of the City of Palo Alto. 19 Cited Literature California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.shtml Cain, D. J., and Luoma, S. N., 1990, Influence of seasonal growth, age and environmental exposure on Cu and Ag in a bivalve indicator, Macoma balthica, in San Francisco Bay: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 60, p. 45-55. Cain, D.J., F. Parchaso, J.K. Thompson, S.N. Luoma, A. H. Lorenzi, E. Moon, M.K. Shouse, M.I. Hornberger, J.L. Dyke, and R. Cervantes, 2005, Near field receiving water monitoring of trace metals and a benthic community near the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant in South San Francisco Bay, California: 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006-1152, 120 pp. Cloern, J.E., Jassby, A.D., Thompson, J.K, Hieb, K. 2007. A cold phase of the east Pacific triggers new phytoplankton blooms in San Francisco Bay: Proceedings National Academy of Science, v. 104, no. 47, p. 18561-18565. Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p. Glaser, J.A., Foerst, D.L., Mckee, G.D., Quave, S.A., and Budde, W.L., 1981, Trace analyses for wastewaters: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 15, no. 12, p. 1426–1435. Hook, S.E. and Fisher, N.S., 2001a, Sublethal effects of silver in zooplankton: importance of exposure pathways and implications for toxicity testing: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v20: 568- 574. Hook, S.E. and Fisher, N.S.,2001b,. Reproductive toxicity of metals in calando copepods: Marine Biology, v.138:1131-1140. Hornberger, M., S. Luoma, D. Cain, F. Parchaso, C. Brown, R. Bouse, C. Wellise, and J. Thompson, 1999, Bioaccumulation of metals by the bivalve Macoma balthica at a site in South San Francisco Bay between 1977 and 1997: Long-term trends and associated biological effects with changing pollutant loadings: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-55, 42p. 20 Hornberger, M., Luoma, S. Cain, DParchaso, .F. Brown, C. Bouse, R. Wellise, C. and Thompson, J. 2000, Linkage of bioaccumulation and biological effects to changes in pollutant loads in South San Francisco Bay: Environmental Science and Technology, v.34:2401-2409. Irving, E.C., Baird, D. J., and Culp, J.M., 2003, Ecotoxicological responses to the mayfly Baetis tricaudatus to dietary and waterborne cadmium: implications for toxicity testing: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v.22: 1058-1064. Kennish, J.K., 1998, Pollution impacts on marine biotic communities: CRC Press, New York. 310 pp. Liber, K, 2011, Cold Digestion of Invertebrates for the Selenium Project. Method developed C.W. and E.F. 2007. Revised Mar 2011 MK: Water Quality Laboratory, Toxicology Center, University of Saskatchewan Luoma, S.N. and Bryan, G.W., 1982, A statistical study of environmental factors controlling concentrations of heavy metals in the burrowing bivalve Scrobicularia plana and the polychaete Neris diversicolor: Estuararine Coastal and Shelf Science, v.15: 95-108. Luoma, S.N., Cain, D.J., and Johansson, C., 1985, Temporal fluctuations of silver, copper and zinc in the bivalve Macoma balthica at five stations in South San Francisco Bay: Hydrobiologia, v. 129, p. 109– 120. Luoma, S.N., Y.B. Ho, and G. W. Bryan, 1995, Fate, bioavailability and toxicity of silver in estuarine environments: Marine Pollution Bulletin, v.31:44-54 Moon, E., Shouse, M.K., Parchaso, F., Thompson, J.K., Luoma, S.N., Cain, D. J., and Hornberger, M. I. , 2004, Near field receiving water monitoring of trace metals and a benthic community near the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant in South San Francisco Bay, California: 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1279, 115 pp. Morrisey, D.J., A.J. Underwood, and L. Howitt, 1996, Effects of copper on the faunas of marine soft- sediments: an experimental field study: Marine Biology v.125:199-213 Nichols, F.N, and J.K. Thompson, 1985a, Persistence of an introduced mudflat community in South San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Ecology Progress Series, v.24:83-97. Nichols, F.N, and J.K. Thompson, 1985b, Time scales of change in the San Francisco Bay benthos: Hydrobiologia, v 129:121-138. 21 Rygg, B., 1985, Effect of sediment copper on benthic fauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series,. V.25:83- 89. Shouse, Michelle K., 2002, The effects of decreasing trace metal concentrations on benthic community structure: Master's Thesis, San Francisco State University. 177pp. Shouse, M.K., Parchaso, F., and J.K. Thompson, 2003, Near field receiving water monitoring of benthic community near the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant in South San Francisco Bay: February 1974 through December 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 03-224, 52pp. Thomson, E.A., S.N. Luoma, C.E. Johansson, and D.J. Cain, 1984, Comparison of sediments and organisms in identifying sources of biologically available trace metal contamination: Water Resources, V.18, no. 6:755-765. Thompson, J.K., and Parchaso, F., 2012, Benthic invertebrate community assessment as a phytoplankton consumer and fish and bird prey source before and after the start of the restoration: South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Cooperative Agreement #2009-0211, 90 p. Thompson, J.K., F. Parchaso, and M.K. Shouse, 2002, Near field receiving water monitoring of benthic community near the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant in South San Francisco Bay: February 1974 through December 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-394, 117pp. USEPA, 2001, Appendix to Method 1631: Total Mercury in Tissue, Sludge, Sediment, and Soil by Acid Digestion and BrCl Oxidation: Environmental Protection Agency EPA-821-R-01-013, 13 p. USEPA, 2002, Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water EPA-821- R-02-019, 36 p. USEPA, 2004, Revised assessment of detection and quantitation approaches: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA–821–B–04–005, 254 p. 22 Figure 1. Map of Palo Alto sampling site and the surrounding region. The locations where benthic invertebrate samples and metals samples (sediments and M. petalum) will be collected are shown in panel B. 23 Table 1. Chemical and physical data, sampling frequency (per year), and analytical methodology proposed for monitoring the near-field discharge of the Palo Alto RWQCP. Constituent Matrix Frequency Method Ag Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES1 Al Sediment 6-9 ICP-OES Cd Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Cr Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Cu Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Fe Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Hg (total) Sediment and tissue 6 Atomic fluorescence spectrometry Mn Sediment 6-9 ICP-OES Ni Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Pb Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Se Sediment and tissue 6 ICP-MS coupled to hydride generation Zn Sediment and tissue 6-9 ICP-OES Particle size Sediment 6-9 Physical separation (>100 μm & <100 μm) TOC Sediment 6-9 IRMS2 Archive Sediment 6-9 Dry sediment storage 1 Indicatively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrophotometry 2 Continuous Flow Isotope ratio Mass Spectrophotometry (IRMS) Table 2. 2016-2020 Budget for Palo Alto Studies. Activity Salary Supplies Analysis Misc. Totals Sediment & Tissue Community & Reproduction Sediment & Tissue Community Sediment & & Tissue Reproduction Community & Reproduction Field Work $3,850 $3,400 $500 Sample Preparation $4,950 $4,700 $600 Chemical Analyses $4,700 $975 Invertebrate Taxonomy $500 Reproductive Tissue Processing $1,000 Total Organic Carbon $800 Data Analysis $3,450 $2,000 Instrument Maintenance/Repair $1,600 Final Report $4,300 $1,950 SUBTOTALS $21,250 $12,050 $2,075 $800 $1,500 $1,600 DIRECT COST/Year $39,275 INDIRECT COST/Year $22,748 TOTAL COSTS 2016 $62,023 TOTAL COSTS 2017 $62,023 TOTAL COSTS 2018 $62,023 TOTAL COSTS 2019 $62,023 TOTAL COSTS 2020 $62,023 TOTAL COSTS 2016 - 2020 $310,115 24 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6866) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Donation of a Surplus Ambulance to Oaxaca, Mexico Title: Approval of the Donation of a Surplus Ambulance to Oaxaca, Mexico From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution donating a surplus ambulance to Oaxaca, Mexico. Background NEIGHBORS ABROAD, a volunteer community organization operating under the auspices of the City of Palo Alto, directs the activities of Palo Alto’s officially recognized Sister Cities program. Its purpose is to promote international and intercultural understanding. Neighbors Abroad was founded on January 18, 1963 after the Palo Alto City Council initiated a Sister City organization in concert with President Eisenhower’s Town Affiliation Program. Neighbors Abroad has received recognition from the United Nations and was given the Tall Tree Award from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce for Outstanding Community Organization. It has also received awards from Sister Cities International for several of its programs, including the 25th Anniversary Celebration, the Observatory and Planetarium in Oaxaca, a Reforestation Program in Oaxaca, and the Vocational Resource Center in Palo. Oaxaca became a sister city in 1964. Summer exchanges by groups of high-school students have been a longtime tradition, along with periodic visits by groups of Palo Altans organized by Neighbors Abroad. The City of Palo Alto has contributed surplus fire equipment to Oaxaca and provided training for its firefighters. The Fire Department will soon have a surplus ambulance that is no longer used by the Fire Department as it has exceeded its useful life. Discussion The Fire Department recently purchased two new Leader ambulances to add to the fleet of fire apparatus. This will provide 6 nearly identical ambulances for the Palo Alto Fire Department to deliver services to the citizens of Palo Alto. We anticipate taking possession of the new ambulances in spring 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The 2003 Ford F-450 ambulance with about 155,000 miles on it is being removed from reserve status and reduced from the City fleet. Although beyond its useful life for the City of Palo Alto, this ambulance would be of great benefit to the city of Oaxaca. Neighbors Abroad have agreed to coordinate the delivery of the ambulance to Oaxaca. Timeline After Council’s approval of the resolution and the receipt of the replacement ambulances, Neighbors Abroad will support the transportation of the vehicle to the Mexico/United States border where the balance of the transportation will be provided by the State of Oaxaca. The goal is to transfer the vehicle in time for a May 2016 delivery. Resource Impact The ambulance has a salvage value of $10,000. Neighbors Abroad asks the City to make an in- kind contribution of $7,000 toward the salvage value, Neighbors Abroad will make a $2,000 donation to the City for the benefit of Oaxaca and the State of Oaxaca will purchase the vehicle for the net of $1,000. Policy Implication This donation is consistent with existing City policies and furthers international and intercultural understanding. Attachments: Attachment A: Oaxaca Ambulance (PDF) Attachment B: Oaxaca Engine Donation Resolution (DOC) Attachment B 1 | P a g e RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLTUION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DONATING SURPLUS FIRE EQUIPMENT TO OAXACA, MEXICO WHEREAS, the Council did in 1964, establish a sister city affiliation with Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, 2016 marks the 52nd anniversary of the sister city relationship between City of Palo Alto and Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue to serve the community interests of international and intercultural understanding; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department has a surplus ambulance; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad is a volunteer organization that maintains and carries out the activities of the City of Palo Alto’s officially recognized Sister City Program; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad has collaborated with the Fire Department to donate this surplus ambulance to Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the surplus ambulance would serve the Fire Department of Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Fire Department has communicated with the Fire Chief of Oaxaca and has confirmed the desire to accept the ambulance; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad has agreed to coordinated the transfer of said ambulance; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 3711.0 authorizes a city to spend money for promotion of sister city and town affiliation programs. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. To authorize the City Manager to cause the donation and transfer of the surplus ambulance to the City of Palo Alto’s Sister City of Oaxaca, Mexico. SECTION 2. To authorize the Fire Chief of Palo Alto to coordinate with the Fire Chief of Oaxaca, Mexico, and the Palo Alto Neighbors Abroad for the delivery of the surplus ambulance. Attachment B 2 | P a g e SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES; NOES; ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ City Manager ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney Fire Chief City of Palo Alto (ID # 6836) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) Fund Allocation Title: Approval of Allocation of $1 Million to the Palo Alto Unified School District in the Event the City of Palo Alto Wins the $5 Million Georgetown University Energy Prize From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approve the allocation of $1 million of the $5 million Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) award funds to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), should the City of Palo Alto win the GUEP competition. All award funds, including those allocated to PAUSD, would be used in accordance with GUEP competition guidelines (Attachment A). Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto is currently one of the 50 small- and medium-sized communities throughout the United States that are competing for the Georgetown University Energy Prize. The winner of the GUEP is chosen not just for energy savings during the competition period, but on criteria such as how innovative and replicable the programs are and the level and diversity of community engagement. Getting PAUSD and the students actively involved should increase the City’s chances of winning the prize since the selection criterion awards points based on student engagement and students are ideally situated to influence energy savings both in their homes and at their schools. In addition, school programs are broadly transferrable as schools are typically a nexus for communication in communities across the nation. Since schools can be one a very effective entry point for energy efficiency program adoption and success, staff proposes to direct 20% of the prize money ($1 million of the $5 million prize money) to the school district, should Palo Alto win the competition. Staff believes that announcing this allocation to schools would increase engagement with the school community in efforts to reduce overall energy use. Staff feels that this will stimulate community involvement and increase the City’s chances of winning the prize. Prize funds allocated to PAUSD would have City of Palo Alto Page 2 to be used for the installation of either energy efficiency and/or renewable energy projects in accordance the competition guidelines. Background Palo Alto is a semi-finalist—along with 50 other small- and medium-sized communities nationwide—in the Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) competition. Participation in the GUEP competition was endorsed by City Council in a December 2013 City Council meeting. As of the end of September 2015, Palo Alto was ranked 15th in the competition. Palo Alto hosted one of five regional GUEP workshops to share ideas on March 17. The City has always worked closely with PAUSD and, when Palo Alto entered the GUEP competition, the Sustainable Schools Committee, which is a mixture of District employees, parents and volunteers, and local non-profits brainstormed how PAUSD could help the City’s GUEP effort and came up with the idea of providing part of the prize money to the schools. City Utilities and Zero Waste employees are regular attendees of the Sustainable Schools Committee as well. A GUEP representative strongly supported the idea as Georgetown wants to see students involved in the competition. Currently staff is working with a group of interns from Palo Alto High School who are helping to market the City’s energy saving programs to students and their families. Discussion The goal of the competition is to encourage communities to develop energy (electricity and natural gas) saving programs that are innovative, replicable, scalable, and continual, thereby reducing per capita energy use. The first place prize of $5 million will be awarded based on seven weighted selection criteria, as follows: Energy Savings (25 points): The reduction in energy consumption for the single-family residential, multi-family, municipal, and schools sectors between January 2015 and December 2016 compared to baseline years of 2013-2014 Innovation (15 points): Evaluation of new, different, and effective programs Replicability (15 points): Extent to which the programs are transferable to other communities Future Performance (10 points): Likelihood that the energy savings will continue and be permanent Equitable Access, Community/Stakeholder Engagement (10 points): Whether the energy saving programs reach all demographic groups in the community and the level of diversity of the community members engaged in the programs Education (10 points): The extent to which the local school district students are engaged and whether there is an educational component for both students and residents Overall quality and success (15 points): All of the above and anything else! City of Palo Alto Page 3 To address these contest criteria, and to create energy saving programs with the highest participation rates among Utility customers, staff is working with schools to engage students as messengers and also to encourage participation by students—and their families—to reduce energy usage in homes and schools. Announcing that schools would get $1 million (20%) of the prize funds will provide a significant incentive for schools to actively participate in the competition. The main reasons staff recommends allocating $1 million of the $5 million GUEP money to PAUSD are described below. 1. Alignment with GUEP competition criteria The GUEP prize is based on energy savings from 1) residents, 2) City-owned facilities and 3) public schools. PAUSD can play a large role in helping the City’s prize bid by finding savings at their facilities and encouraging students to find savings at home. As noted above, education is 10% of the GUEP evaluation criteria. Involving students in marketing efforts for energy-saving programs serves the dual purpose of incorporating an element of education into the programs and increasing the effectiveness of programs by reaching a large number of community members through the students and their families. Georgetown University made it very clear in the Competition Guidelines that “In keeping with Georgetown University’s role as an educational institution, GUEP competitors are required to involve their local school system, and the effectiveness of that involvement is one of the criteria for selecting winners.” 2. Serving the Community Funds for schools benefit the community at large by supporting improvements that have lasting impacts, reducing operating cost, and providing learning tools for schools with new technologies. Saving energy saves money—and it benefits the community when schools can spend its funds for things that will help students. The prize money could also be used for solar photovoltaic systems on PAUSD buildings, an idea that has been discussed for over 15 years and would further reduce energy costs. 3. Motivation of PAUSD PAUSD has been a great partner in promoting efficiency. They recently received the Mayor’s Green Business Leader Award for having 14 schools become Energy Star certified and a Silicon Valley Water Conservation Award. Staff feels that “The Million Dollar Promise” can be a great marketing tool to help motivate the community, and staff is working with a variety of school stakeholders that are positioned to leverage interest in this potential funding. Without a highly motivated school district, Palo Alto’s chances of winning the GUEP prize are diminished. Next Steps The competition goes from January 2015 to December 2016, with the winner expected to be announced in late summer of 2017. If Council approves the proposed allocation of funds if the City wins the GUEP, staff will announce the plan publicly. Announcements would also be made in school publications, which are widely read by residents. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy Impact Promoting energy savings is consistent with the Council-adopted Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (Staff Report 2710), the Gas Long-term Utility Plan (Staff Report 2552), and support achievement of the Council-adopted 10-year electric and gas efficiency goals (Staff Report 3358). Resource Impact There is no resource impact if the City does not win GUEP competition except for staff efforts to make the announcement. If the City wins the prize, then $1 million of total $5 million prize would go to schools for energy efficiency and renewable investments consistent with the GUEP guidelines and $4 million would go to the City for programs consistent with the GUEP guidelines. Environmental Impact Approval of allocating a portion of the potential GUEP prize funds to the PAUSD does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a “project” set forth in California Public Resources Code sec. 21065, thus no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A:Georgetown University Energy Prize Competition Guidelines (PDF) The Georgetown University Energy Prize Competition Guidelines Version 8.2, 5 May 2015 Introduction Energy efficiency is the single most important source of energy available to the world’s economies for years to come. To help tap that resource, Georgetown University’s Program for Science in the Public Interest, Global Social Enterprise Initiative, and Environment Initiative are launching the Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP), a projected $5M national incentive prize for small to medium size residential communities. The competition will challenge communities to achieve innovative, replicable, scalable and continual reductions in the energy- consumed by residential and municipal customers from local natural gas and electric utilities. For a brief overview, see the Competition Summary in these Guidelines and also the GUEP website http://www.guep.org. The GUEP will: Challenge a large number of communities to work together with their local governments and utilities to create and begin implementing long-term plans for the continual improvement of energy efficiency; Stimulate replicable innovations in community energy efficiency; Educate the public about the total energy and environmental costs of the full fuel cycle; Educate the public and engage students in energy efficiency issues, methods, and benefits, and encourage lasting behavior change; Help to grow markets for products and services that facilitate energy efficiency and renewable, clean energy production; Reward the community as a whole, and not specific individuals. This document provides a description of the prize design and requirements for competitors. What’s New in Version 8.2? In addition to minor clarifications and corrections, this draft release of the Competition Guidelines includes the following significant changes with respect to Version 8.0: Clarifications regarding the identification of residential accounts and the required accuracy (see “Residential Accounts”); Revised definition of the basic figure of merit, which is now the Adjusted Source Energy Use (ASEU); this includes an adjustment for the energy consumed in the full fuel cycle (so-called “source energy”); this change is being made to better align the competition with advice from energy experts and the EPA; see “Basic Figure of Merit (Adjusted Source Energy Use per Residential Bill”); Revised templates and procedures for data reporting, and discussion of data exceptions (see “Format of Data Provided by Utilities”); ATTACHMENT A 2 Competition Summary The Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) challenges U.S. communities to work together with their local governments and utilities in order to develop and begin implementing plans for innovative, replicable, scalable and continual reductions in the energy-per-residential-account consumed from local natural gas and electric utilities. Communities are encouraged (but not required) to strengthen their plan via partnerships with businesses, foundations, local colleges and universities, as well as by exploiting other resources (see “Energy Efficiency Resources for Communities”). For this competition, a “community” is defined geographically by the limits of a municipality – a town, city, or county that has corporate status and local government. All small to medium municipalities in the U.S.A. with populations between 5,000 and 250,000 were eligible to apply.1 The competition comprises four stages over a three year period that started April, 2014. It challenges communities to develop a long-term energy efficiency plan and to demonstrate initial effectiveness. The winning community will receive a projected $5M prize purse, to be spent on energy-efficiency programs that reward the community as a whole, for example to ensure the continuing implementation of long term plan. Here is an overview of the GUEP competition stages (for details and discussions of issues, see subsequent Sections, including FAQs): Pre-Launch – Letter of Intent (July, 2013 – April, 2014) Fifty-two communities submitted a Letter of Intent (LOI) during this stage of the competition, which is now closed. Stage 1 - Applications (April – July, 2014): Using a template provided by the GUEP, communities submitted basic applications. After a review by the Energy Prize team, credible applications that included commitments from local government, utilities, and community organizations in eligible communities have been selected as Quarterfinalists and invited to compete in Stage 2 by submitting detailed Program Plans. Stage 2 - Quarterfinalist Energy Efficiency Program Plans (August – November, 2014): On 10 November, 2014, Quarterfinalists submitted a detailed Program Plan for their community’s energy-saving program. Basic Plan requirements included: Plans should be long- term Plans, with commitments by residential associations, governments, institutions, or businesses in the community to policies and projects that will yield continual improvement. 1 These limits of community size include approximately 65% of the U.S. population. 3 Energy-saving Plans could be a part of a larger pre-existing plan that the community has begun, or they could be new plans that will be implemented specifically to meet the GUEP challenge. In addition, Quarterfinalist communities had opportunities to apply for seed grants from GUEP partners and other organizations to help them implement their Plan. Based on the submitted Program Plans and seed-funding proposals, the Energy Prize team has invited 50 communities to compete as Semifinalists in Stage 3. Stage 3 - Semifinalist Performance Competition (January, 2015 – December, 2016): The Semifinalists will compete for 2 years to reduce their utility-supplied energy consumption in a manner that is likely to yield continuing improvements within their own community and replication in other communities. Consumption over the 2 year period will be compared with baseline consumption over the 2 years preceding the start of the Semifinals (i.e. 2013-2014). For purposes of this prize, community energy consumption measurements are restricted to energy supplied by gas and electric utilities directly to all residential and municipal customers. It is not a requirement that communities have both gas and electric utility services. Stage 4 - Finalist Selection, Judging and Awards (January – June, 2017): Up to 10 Finalists will be selected based primarily on energy-saving performance during Stage 3. 2 These Finalists will be invited to submit Final Reports covering relevant aspects of the community’s plan, performance, and future prospects. The Judging Panel will score the final reports in specific, weighted categories and select the winners based on a combination of these scores and the Stage 3 energy-saving performance. The highest-ranking community will be awarded first place, with the requirement that the prize purse benefit the community at large in accordance with spending proposed in the community’s Stage 2 Program Plan. Second and third place will also be awarded; these additional winners will receive special recognition and additional benefits, which may include cash purses. Eligible Communities For purposes of the GUEP, a “community” is normally defined geographically by the limits of a single municipality – a town, city or county that has corporate status and local government. All municipalities in the U.S.A. with populations between 5,000 and 250,000 were eligible to apply. Eligibility was based on the 2010 Census. We also considered applications from “combined communities”: multiple, contiguous municipalities that together have a total population between 5,000 and 250,000. The geographic border of such a combined community must surround a single, contiguous region that contains the entirety of every participating municipality, and no portion of a non-participating municipality. Such combined communities had to provide additional information in their application as follows: Evidence that the communities can work together successfully (ideally by citing previous cooperation); The Judging Panel will select the appropriate number of Finalist communities based on the performance data and the final judging criteria outlined in this document. 4 An explanation of how the local governments, utilities, and relevant community organizations will work together on GUEP. A description of how the purse would be shared or jointly-used, if won. In the case of communities with overlapping jurisdictions (e.g., both a town and its county apply), only one community could apply and compete. If however, every municipality within a county commits to participating, then the county and its municipalities could be considered as a “combined community”, discussed above. Energy Consumption Reporting During Competition Stage 3 (Semifinal) Data from Local Utilities In order to compete for the GUEP, a community must obtain the cooperation of all natural gas and electric utilities that serve the community (note a community need not have both gas and electric services). The utilities must have or commit to develop the capability of reporting quarterly to GUEP the total (aggregate) monthly energy directly supplied by natural gas and electric utilities to all of their residential and municipal customers in the community, as well as the monthly number of residential bills issued, i.e.: ERE = total residential kWh of electrical energy billed in a given month (regardless of the number of different billing dates with the month). EME = total municipal kWh of electrical energy billed in a given month (regardless of the number of different billing dates with the month) NE = number of residential electric bills issued during that month ERG = total residential Therms of gas energy billed in a given month (regardless of the number of different billing dates with the month) EMG = total municipal Therms of gas energy billed in a given month (regardless of the number of different billing dates with the month) NG = number of residential gas bills issued during that month Utilities will report electrical energy in kWh and gas energy in Therms, which GUEP will convert to kBTUs using the conversion factors 3.412 and 100 respectively.3 Note that aggregate energy consumption data will be reported separately for the residential and municipal sectors. (For a discussion of the limitation to residential and municipal sectors, see the FAQ “Why restrict the energy consumption to residential and municipal?”). Quarterly reports are due within 45 days of the quarter’s end (see timeline on p. 18). Communities must work with utilities to ensure accurate, timely, data reporting to GUEP. For purposes of the GUEP, a given month’s aggregate energy use is defined as the total energy billed during that month. That is, if a bill is issued anytime between the first and last days of the 3 https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/Thermal%20Conversions.pdf 5 month, the billed energy is counted in that month’s aggregate energy use. Aggregate energy use (vs. use in individual buildings or residences) is used for simplicity and to avoid privacy concerns. Note that energy billed during a given month is not the same as energy actually consumed during a given month, because energy billed is affected by such things as billing periods, estimated readings, missed readings, erroneous readings, etc. It is, however, easy for utilities to determine, and it’s a sufficiently good estimate of energy consumed to serve the purposes of the Performance Dashboard. Moreover, final scoring will be based on the aggregate billed energy for the full 24 months of the competition period, which will be very close to the aggregate energy used. The first quarterly report must include the community’s baseline energy use; i.e., the energy data (listed above) for the 24 months prior to the start (i.e., for 2013-2014). For a discussion of the required data format, see “Format of Data Provided by Utilities.”. To enable energy-cost estimation in the Performance Dashboard, we will use the average cost per electrical and per gas energy unit over the 12 months preceding the start of Stage 3 Performance Competition. Accordingly, the first quarterly report must also include the average gas and electricity costs (per energy unit) during 2014 (i.e., averaged over the entire year). It is up to the community to obtain these two average costs – e.g. from the utilities, from public data, or from some combination. Since the cost data will be used in the Performance Dashboard for educational purposes only, and will not be used in any way for performance scoring, the cost information not have to be exact. Similarly, this baseline cost information will be used throughout the competition – i.e., it won’t be adjusted to reflect possible rate changes. Communities are encouraged to let the GUEP know if any data reporting problems arise during the competition; so that we can do our best to resolve them. We recognize that data collection is non-trivial, and that communities may have special circumstances that make it difficult in ways that we may not have anticipated. We want to work with you to address these circumstances. If you have not already done so, please ask your utilities to fill out the Data Collection Methodologies Form (downloadable at www.guep.org/rules- timeline), and then send it to us along with a discussion of any difficult issues that arise. Apart from the general incentive of good community relations, some utilities will have additional motivations to support GUEP communities. This is clearly the case for publically owned utilities, but it’s also true for many investor-owned utilities. For example, if a utility has a regulatory- approved Energy Efficiency Program, cooperation with the community’s GUEP effort should lead to increased customer participation in the utility’s Program. Another point is that most utilities have a desire to get their customers to engage with them online, something that’s likely to occur naturally in the case of GUEP competitors. Residential Accounts Since utilities generally have a specific billing rate for residential accounts, most residential customers can be identified by selecting bills that satisfy two criteria: (a) The service address is in the municipality. Ways in which this can be determined include: Selecting for the municipality name in the address to which the bill is sent (or the address where the meter is installed). Selecting via a list of zip codes. 6 Selecting via a list of tax districts. Note that units of counting like zip codes or tax districts at the boundary of the municipality may extend beyond the municipality. It is acceptable to exclude or include such counting units provided that the population excluded or the additional population covered does not exceed 5% of the total population of counting units that are entirely within the municipality. In general, for any proposed method of determining service addresses, communities must show that it is accurate to within 5% (b) The bill is computed using residential rates or multifamily residential rates Note that this selection will include both renters and owners. Compared to owners, renters typically have limited abilities to install retrofits, install energy-saving appliances, and take other measures. But renters are part of the community, and there are energy-saving measures that they can take. Apartment buildings that are charged residential or multifamily rates will be included in the above selection. In apartment and condominium (or co-op) buildings where residents are billed individually, there will usually be one or more additional accounts that are billed for energy consumed in the building infrastructure (common areas, parking, etc.). Ideally, these accounts should also be included by enumeration (unless they are charged residential rates, in which case they will be included in the selection described above, but if including them is difficult it is permissible to exclude them, subject to the overall aggregate energy error rate discussed below, Regarding apartment buildings, complexes, or resort communities that do not have residential sub-meters billed at residential rates, in some cases a utility can identify the accounts via a special rate class. In other cases, the accounts are charged a standard commercial rate and can’t be distinguished from non-residential accounts. Given the importance of widespread community engagement (see “Final Report” and “Final Judging”), such accounts can be identified by enumeration, so a list can be provided to the utility for inclusion in the residential energy aggregate. We prefer that communities take this approach, but we recognize that doing so may be onerous or impossible. Accordingly, it is permissible to exclude apartment buildings that are charged commercial rates, again subject to the overall aggregate energy error rate discussed below. . Hotels, including long-term stay hotels, may be excluded. Although we encourage the involvement of local colleges and universities, on-campus housing is excluded (primarily because billing practices generally make it difficult to report their energy use). Students and faculty who live off-campus are included (and would not be distinguished from other residents). Military bases (including on-base military housing) are excluded. Military personnel who live off-base are included (and would not be distinguished from other residents). In addition to the cases discussed above, other special circumstances may make it impossible or extremely difficult to identify \ accounts that provide energy to residential users. In general, 7 communities must be able to show that accounts excluded or included do not amount to more than 5% of the total aggregate residential energy that is reported to GUEP. Note that, should the community advance to the Finals, the data collection procedures will be subject to an audit. Municipal Accounts Municipal Accounts - Definition For purposes of the GUEP, municipal energy use is defined as the aggregate energy billed to accounts that purchase gas or electric energy satisfying any of these criteria: The account is paid for by the municipality or by a government entity that is governed by or reports to the municipality. The energy is consumed by municipal employees in the course of their work as well as by the facilities in which they work. The energy is consumed in delivering municipal services to the community. The energy is consumed by contractors working for the municipality and by their relevant facilities, provided that the municipality has an ability to influence consumption directly or indirectly. Note that relevant accounts must be included whether or not the municipality actually pays a bill for that account. For example, some municipalities have franchise agreements with utilities that only require the municipality to pay bills for revenue-generating buildings (e.g., parking garages). Examples of municipal energy use include: All offices and buildings used by the municipality, whether owned, leased, or rented by the municipality, regardless of whether the facilities are located within the municipal boundaries. – examples include., municipal offices, police stations, fire stations, public schools, libraries, parking garages, water treatment and delivery facilities, chilled water facilities, airports, etc.; Vacant offices and buildings that are owned, owned, leased, or rented by the municipality. Infrastructure such as street lighting, traffic lighting, etc.; Parking garages; Parks and recreation; All (K-12) public, charter, and private schools located within the municipal boundaries and attended by community residents should be included, whether or not the municipality owns the buildings, pays the utility bills, or has education-related jurisdiction over the schools; If the utilities require permission from a school district (or from schools themselves) to include their energy use in the municipal aggregate, it is up to the municipality to secure permission. In special circumstances (e.g., privately-operated schools that refuse to cooperate), a school may be excluded, but in each case 8 permission must be obtained from GUEP. Overall, excluded schools cannot together serve more than 20% of the school-aged children in the community. Public housing that is not charged a residential rate; Municipal energy use does not include energy used by: State, and Federal buildings that happen to be in the municipality; likewise County buildings unless the GUEP entry is the County Military bases; Colleges and universities; Preschools (i.e., before kindergarten) that are not located within a K-12 school. K-12 schools of any type that are within municipal boundaries but are not attended by community residents Buildings owned by the municipality but leased to others (and not used by the municipality or in ways that deliver municipal services); Utilities owned by the municipality. Accounts paid by a municipal transit authority; Accounts that pay for energy used in transportation. Public housing that is charged a residential rate (these accounts are to be included in the residential energy aggregate); For some municipal accounts, it may be that only a portion of the energy is used as specified above. Ideally, if the relevant utilities can implement it, the community should propose an equitable method of apportioning the energy use. We recognize, however, that utilities may be unable or unwilling to include only a portion of an account in the energy aggregations. In such cases, it is permissible to exclude the account if the community can show that this portion is less than 20% of the energy billed to the account. However, we prefer that such accounts be included, especially in cases where the other tenants are likely to be cooperative – e.g., when a facility is used by both city and county staff (and it’s the city that is competing). Other examples include facilities for water delivery and wastewater treatment. For some municipal or residential buildings, cooling or heating is achieved in part or whole via a chilled water or steam loop serving multiple buildings, thereby reducing the building’s requirement for energy consumed directly from utilities. However, if the chilled water or steam is produced by a municipally-owned facility, then the energy consumption of that facility will be included in the municipality’s total energy consumption (assuming the facility consumes gas or electric energy). Regardless, this is not likely to be a significant issue since judging is based on the percentage change in energy consumption. If in fact it’s a significant issue, the community must bring it to the attention of GUEP. If any bills are based on negotiated pricing rather than measured use, these should be identified and explained, and the community should propose how to handle this in the competition. For example, street lighting is sometimes handled this way, with municipality being charged per streetlight per year. If it is ambiguous or uncertain whether an account should be included in the municipal energy use aggregation, the accounts must be included unless the exclusion is agreed to by GUEP. 9 Municipal Accounts - Identification Since municipal accounts typically do not have a unique, special rate (e.g., distinct from residential, commercial, or industrial rates), it’s unlikely that a rate-based approach can be used to identify the municipal accounts. However, since there will be a relatively small number of relevant accounts, the municipal accounts can be identified by enumeration. It is the responsibility of the municipality to provide the local utilities with a list of all such accounts or, with assistance from the utilities, to select another method for accurately identifying the accounts. As is the case with residential accounts, the list or method will be subject to audit if the community advances to the Finals. If existing but previously-overlooked municipal accounts are discovered during the Stage 3 Performance Competition, they should be included in the energy aggregation for the remainder of the competition. If new municipal accounts are established during the Stage 3 Performance Competition, they should be included in the aggregation thenceforth, and reported to GUEP via an amended list of municipal accounts, together with an updated report on the aggregate energy used during the baseline period and used since the start of the competition. Format of Data Provided by Utilities To deliver data for the 24 months of baseline energy use and for the quarterly reports of monthly energy use during the 24 months of Stage 3 (Semifinalist Performance Competition), utilities must upload a standard GUEP CSV template. Two approaches are available. Large utilities that serve multiple communities may prefer to upload a single CSV file that reports both gas and electric energy usage for all competing communities in their jurisdiction. Smaller utilities may prefer to upload a CSV file that reports one type of energy usage (gas or electric) for a single community. Both types of templates are available at https://guep.org/about-the-prize/, and data will be uploaded at https://guep.org/energydata. Communities should contact the GUEP staff quickly if their utilities have any issues with the available templates. For simplicity, accuracy, and accountability, GUEP’s strong preference is that the CSV files be uploaded directly by utilities. However, we understand that unavoidable technical, legal, or policy limitations may prevent direct uploading, requiring that the CSV files prepared by utilities be transmitted to the community leaders for uploading into the GUEP system. In such cases, with the prior approval of GUEP, communities will be able to create accounts at https://guep.org/energydata/ and upload the CSV files that they receive from their utilities. Regardless of whether the community or the utility uploads the data, the utility must retain original copies of the data generated for the competition until December 31, 2017. This original data must be available to the GUEP team upon request. The GUEP team does recognize that additional paperwork may be required for a utility to release the data directly to GUEP, if requested. In addition, both the community and the utility should – to the extent possible – retain any supplementary data, records, or internal communications related to data collection and submission for future verification and auditing, if required by GUEP at any point in the competition, especially during the Finalist round. 10 Data Exceptions GUEP recognizes that reported monthly energy use may have inaccuracies or errors – examples include estimated (vs. actual) meter readings, inadvertently excluded readings, inadvertent multiple readings, etc. In most cases, such inaccuracies will be self-correcting when reports for later months are submitted, and therefore will not affect final scoring since that is averaged over 2-year periods (see “Selection of Finalists”). However, if there is any reason to suspect or believe that accumulated errors or other reporting difficulties may result in more than a 5% error in the total reported energy use for either the 2-year baseline or 2-year competition periods, that must be reported to GUEP in detail. Otherwise, utilities will simply need to affirm in writing that there’s no reason to suspect such errors in reporting. Community Generation of Electricity In some communities, the electric power drawn from utilities by certain residential or municipal accounts is reduced by locally-generated power (e.g., rooftop solar, wind turbines, etc.). Such reductions will automatically be reflected in the aggregate energy billing reports produced by utilities, and will therefore improve the communities’ energy-use score. In the event that such local-generation produces excess power – i.e., more power than consumed by the relevant account – some utilities provide a mechanism (often called “net metering”) through which the utility purchases the excess power and provides a financial credit to the relevant account. Unfortunately, it’s not straightforward (or, in some cases, not possible) for utilities to convert the financial credit to an energy credit. Moreover, not all utilities support net metering (i.e., excess energy is not fed back to the grid). So in fairness to all communities, GUEP does not attempt to provide credit for locally-generated power that exceeds the relevant account’s needs, especially since typically most of the benefit from such local-generation is in reducing the power drawn from the utility. In some cases, a community or municipality may operate facilities (e.g. solar or wind turbine farms) that sell energy directly to a utility rather than reduce the energy consumed from the utility. Such facilities are valuable and important because they can reduce the community’s overall environmental footprint (e.g. helping a community to reach a net-zero goal), but do not improve the efficiency of energy use and are not included in GUEP energy-use scoring They do not actually reduce the amount of energy consumed from the utility, which is the focus of GUEP. Basic Figure of Merit (Adjusted Source Energy Use per Residential Bill) The basic GUEP figure of merit for scoring community energy use is the Adjusted Source Energy Use per Residential Bill. The (non-adjusted) Source Energy Use per Residential Bill is defined as SEU = SE * (EUE / NE) + SG * (EUG / NG) where EUE = total residential and municipal BTUs of electrical energy billed in a given month (regardless of the number of different billing dates with the month); in technical terms, this is “site energy”; 11 = ERE + EME (these values ae delivered to GUEP by community utilities. (see Data from Local Utilities) NE = number of residential electric bills issued during that month; this value is delivered to GUEP by community utilities. EUG = total residential and municipal BTUs of gas energy billed in a given month (regardless of the number of different billing dates with the month); again, this is “site energy”; = ERG + EMG (these values ae delivered to GUEP by community utilities. (see Data from Local Utilities) NG = number of residential gas bills issued during that month; this value is delivered to GUEP by community utilities. SE = source energy factor for electricity (national average – see below) SG = source energy factor for gas (national average – see below) As mentioned earlier (see “Data from Local Utilities”), energy billed during a given month is not the same as energy actually consumed during a given month. We use energy billed because that’s what utilities can easily determine, and because the aggregate energy billed over the full 24 months of the competition period will be very close to the aggregate energy used. To provide fair comparisons between communities, the figure of merit is normalized to adjust for population size. Ideally, this would be done by using energy use per capita, but that’s not possible because census figures are several years old and also because there’s no accurate way to measure changes in population size during the 24 month competition period. So GUEP uses the number of residential utility bills issued as a proxy for the population of the community, analogous to the number of households in the community – although not exact, it’s easy to measure and will rise and fall with changes in population of the community. Note that we also normalize the municipal energy use by the number of residential bills. This is because the municipality exists to serve the community residents, and the number of municipal accounts may not reflect changes in residential population size. For more information, see the FAQ “Why normalize the total residential and municipal energy use by the number of residential bills?” Source energy differs from site energy in that source energy includes contributions from energy production, transportation, and delivery – all important factors in the whole picture of how energy consumption affects personal, community, and national resources. We are using the ASEU because that’s what is recommended by energy experts and the U.S. Government, and because an important goal of the GUEP is to educate energy consumers nationwide about the full consequences of energy consumption. For a more-detailed explanation of the difference between source energy and site energy, including the rationale for why the U.S. government recommends using source energy with national average source energy factors, see the EPA’s website here4. For additional discussion of GUEP’s use of national (vs. regional) source energy factors, see the FAQ “Why use fixed 4 http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio- manager/understand-metrics/difference 12 national rather than varying regional source energy factors?” For the constant, national average source energy factors values that GUEP will use throughout the competition, see here5. The (non-adjusted) Source Energy Use per Residential Bill is then adjusted to account for weather differences (heating/cooling demands), yielding the Adjusted Source Energy Use per Residential Bill (ASEU). Both the source energy calculation and the weather normalization will be performed using EPA’s Portfolio Manager6. Weather normalization will be based on both heating and cooling degree days, and will be calculated by inputting the monthly values of EUE and EUG. Although Portfolio Manager is intended primarily to benchmark the performance of a commercial building or a portfolio of buildings, its normalization features apply generally to any input set of utility bills. We recognize that electricity and gas do not account for all residential and municipal energy usage, the primary omissions being oil and propane used for heating. Unfortunately, measurable energy use is essential to the prize design, and there’s no straightforward way to measure the use of these other energy sources with adequate accuracy. For some of the reasoning behind this basic figure of merit, see the FAQ “Why normalize the total residential and municipal energy use by the number of residential accounts?” Energy Consumption Reporting – The Performance Dashboard During the Semifinalist Performance Competition (Stage 3), the GUEP website will maintain an energy-consumption performance “dashboard” that tracks the following: The Adjusted Source Energy Use per Residential Bill (ASEU) The carbon (greenhouse gas) emissions resulting from the full fuel cycle (i.e., like source energy, including contributions from energy production, transportation, and delivery). The (weather-adjusted) site-energy use per residential bill, i.e., EU = (EUE / NE) + (EUG / NG) with weather adjustments performed by EPA’s Portfolio Manager. As mentioned, site energy is the actual energy consumed by the community. The financial cost of the energy as paid by consumers. This will be estimated from the average cost of energy that utilities report for the 12 months prior to the start of Stage 3 (see “Data from Local Utilities”). The performance dashboard will be based on the monthly energy-consumption data provided quarterly by utilities (see below). The dashboard will include separate displays for electrical energy, gas energy, and total (gas + electric) energy. Graphical and dynamic, it will allow viewers to track the performance of single communities and compare the performance of multiple communities. It will also show the current performance relative to the performance during the baseline (24 months prior to the Stage 3 competition). Note that while the dashboard will compare the current competition performance to the baseline, and estimate the rankings of communities, because the Overall Energy Score (OES) is based on 24 month averages for both 5 https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/Source%20Energy.pdf 6 http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager 13 the baseline and the competition period (see below), the figures and rankings in the dashboard won’t show the complete competition picture until the end of the competition. As mentioned, the full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions include contributions from energy production, transportation, and delivery. For natural gas, it’s appropriate to use national averages. For electricity, fair comparisons are highly-dependent on location; GUEP will use estimates based on the eGRID7 location of communities: To estimate the full fuel cycle emissions, we will use the emissions data such as provided here8 Electric and Natural Gas Vehicles Since the GUEP is based on the residential and municipal use of energy delivered by electric and natural gas utilities, and does not attempt to include transportation uses of energy, widespread adoption of Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles could result in a significant increase in energy consumed from local utilities, and therefore could unfairly penalize the community. In most cases, we believe that the effect would be small, so we do not include a general mechanism to account for adoption of EVs and CNG vehicles. 7 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html 8 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf 14 However, if a community that has competed in Stage 3 believes that the effect would be significant, they may offer supporting evidence and propose a method for taking the effect into account when selecting Finalists.9 It will be up to the Judging Panel to accept or reject the proposed method (which, if accepted, would be subject to audit). Should the community be selected as a Finalist, the Final Report, electric and natural gas vehicles should be discussed in detail (including the information submitted prior to Finalist selection). Natural Disasters Energy use data may be skewed by natural disasters, e.g., earthquakes, extreme weather, failures of local energy production or distribution facilities, etc., GUEP will deal with these on a case by case basis, allowing petitions from affected communities. Petitions should include a description of the disaster, information about any official U.S. or State disaster declarations, and a justified estimate of the effect on energy usage. Possible remedies include extrapolation from past data, possible removable of a 1-3 month segment of the prize timeframe, etc. Competition Timeline For details on dates, please see “Competition Summary”. Pre-Launch The Letter-of-Intent (LOI) stage is now closed. Fifty communities submitted LOIs and supporting information. Participation in the LOI program is not a prerequisite for competing in the GUEP. Stage 1 – Applications Eligible communities (including LOI communities) submitted a standard-form application available here10, covering the following: 9 For EVs, since the installation of (240V) Level 2 charging stations requires utility involvement, the utility may have relevant information. 10 http://guep.org/apply 15 Brief description of the community and brief biographies of key community and municipal leaders. (LOI communities need not include the community description, since that was submitted with the LOI.) Brief description, history, and current status of existing community energy-savings programs, if any. Description of the process that will be used to develop the energy-savings Program Plan if the Application is accepted. (As part of the planning process, some communities may find it useful to consult the ACEEE Local Energy Efficiency Self-Scoring Tool11.) Letters of commitment from municipal leaders, utility officials, and (optionally) other community organizations that will support the effort. Combined Communities must also submit the following: (1) Evidence that the communities can work together successfully (ideally by citing previous cooperation); (2) An explanation of how the local governments, utilities, and relevant community organizations will work together on GUEP; and (3) A description of how the purse would be shared or jointly-used, if won. After a review by the GUEP Team, fifty two credible applications from eligible communities were selected as Quarterfinalists and invited to compete in Stage 2 by submitting detailed plans. Stage 2 – Quarterfinals (Energy Efficiency Program Plans) Program Plan Quarterfinalists prepared and submitted a Program Plan based on the outline provided below. This outline is based in part on the Final Report that communities will submit should they become Finalists, and it was intended to help you prepare an effective and competitive Plan. That said, this outline was not prescriptive. Incentive prizes work in part because they encourage innovation and do not pre-judge how the challenge is best met. Therefore, while Plans were to include all 8 Sections, they were not required to address all of the points or issues mentioned in the outline. Some of these may not be relevant in your community, or to your community’s innovative approach. Furthermore, we encouraged you to include additional Sections addressing topics that apply to your innovations. Plans were submitted in PDF format via the website (http://www.guep.org/plan-submission ). Each plan was to include a title page, immediately followed by a table of contents with page numbers (ideally, with hyperlinks). Each page was to contain the name of the community in the header or footer and a page number consistent with the table of contents. There was no minimum or maximum length for the Plan. We encouraged brevity wherever possible, but not at the expense of providing important relevant information. 1. Program Management and Partners – topics for this Section include: Description of Program leadership and management; How it will be staffed and funded; 11 http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e13l 16 How the community at large will be engaged and motivated; How the local government will be involved, and what commitments they will make; Any municipal incentives that are planned via local regulations, zoning, taxation, etc.; Involvement of businesses or business-groups (even though their energy use isn’t counted); Any benefits and incentives available from local utilities via official Energy Efficiency Programs (which are mandated in many states); Involvement by citizen groups and major landlords; Involvement of other partnering organizations (including letters of commitment, if available; 2. Energy Savings Plan – topics for this section include: An overall summary of the planned program, including relevant methods and technologies. How the program will reach diverse aspects of the community - geographic, demographic, economic, functional, etc.; How energy retrofits and other capital improvements will be included in the Program. (Diverse retrofit technologies are widely available, but adoption rates historically have been low.) This portion of the Plan should include: Types of retrofits that will be encouraged; Retrofit financing (preferably with no cash from current property owners); Retrofit business resources; Retrofit marketing and sales strategies; Adoption goals. How the Program will target high-return opportunities (if available), for example: Affordable housing; (It has been reported that public housing typically uses almost 40% more energy per square foot than privately-owned housing.12) Residential rentals; (Short-term renters have little incentive to invest in retrofits.) Buildings in historic neighborhoods (neighborhoods that have been formally designated as “historic” by the municipality prior to 2014); Many buildings in such neighborhoods are energy inefficient, and historic-preservation restrictions can impede retrofits. How the community will measure and evaluate the success of the Program (including the contribution of retrofits and capital improvements? Does the Program include long term components that won’t affect energy usage during the two years of Stage 3? 12 http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/08/energy-efficiency-can-help-affordable-housing/ 17 3. Utility Data Reporting – please make sure that this Section does address the following: How will the Program leadership be working with the electric and gas utilities that serve the community? How will the utility identify residential energy consumers in order to aggregate their energy use? Is any multi-unit residential housing being excluded because of difficulties in identifying accounts and securing permissions (e.g., apartment buildings, condos, vacation communities, etc.)? If so, provide a rough estimate of the number of community residents that won’t be included in the residential energy aggregation, and explain how the estimate was obtained. . How have the community and the utilities identified municipal accounts in order to aggregate their energy use? Are there any accounts where only a portion of the energy is used by the municipality (according to the criteria discussed in “Municipal Accounts”? If so, include a list of these accounts, noting which ones are being included (in whole or part) and which ones are being excluded (e.g., because the municipality consumes less than 20% of the energy billed to the account). A list of the municipal accounts (this list must be updated as appropriate during the competition, with GUEP being informed of all updates). 4. Innovation – What’s innovative about the Program? Relevant innovations include aspects of the plan that are completely new and different, as well as creative ways of implementing existing approaches. For example, existing approaches for financing energy retrofits have not been very effective, and experts believe that innovative financing could increase adoption rates significantly. 5. Potential for Replication – Identify planned resources that could become a model for other communities. Examples include such resources as community-engagement or other systems, websites, documentation, personnel, etc. Identify any procedural aspects of the plan may be particularly well-suited for replication in other communities. Examples might include an innovative retrofit program, an innovative partnership between the community and the utilities that serve it. 6. Likely Future Performance - Why are the energy-savings that will be achieved under the Program likely to be permanent? And why is the Program likely to yield additional savings, continually, after the competition? Here are some examples of topics that might be relevant: How aspects of the Program could become institutionalized through policies and other means. One source for inspiration is ACEEE’s Local Energy Efficiency Self-Scoring Tool. Another source that might be useful is ISO 18 5000113, a standard that provides organizations with a framework for integrating energy performance into their management practices Plans to “build capacity” to support continued efforts, such as professional development and business development efforts. What systems or approaches will be used to collect, manage, manage, and exploit relevant data? One possible example is the increasingly-common use of Green Button14, an industry-led effort to provide electricity customers with easy access to their usage data via a “Green Button” on their utility’s website. Green Button was developed in response to a White House call-to-action15. Some electric utilities have already adopted or committed to adopting Green Button.16 For more information about Green Button, see the NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Wiki17. Another example is EPA’s Portfolio Manager18 – an online tool for measuring and tracking the energy consumption of a building or portfolio of buildings. For other possible examples, see the Section “Energy Efficiency Resources for Communities.” 7. Education – How will the local K-12 school system be involved? What community-wide educational programs are planned? 8. Prize Purse – Briefly describe preliminary ideas for how a prize purse would be used to promote and implement continued energy efficiency measures in a way that benefits the community as a whole, including all demographic and economic sectors. Communities that are selected later as Finalists for Stage 4 will have to include a detailed proposal in their Final Report For additional details and examples of what might be included in the Program Plan, see the discussion of the Final Report that will be required from communities that advance to Stage 4 – “Final Judging”. Note that final judging will be based on the information in the Final Report, and not on the extent to which the community stayed with the original Program Plan. Communities are free to deviate from the Program Plan, but should keep GUEP informed about major changes. Optional Proposal for Funding In addition to their proposed Energy Efficiency Program Plan, communities were invited to submit a proposal to receive seed funding from certain GUEP sponsors and partners. Some communities are also working to obtain seed funding from their local utilities, from local businesses, or from the community itself (e.g., via Kickstarter). There were two specific seed-funding opportunities available to select GUEP communities. 14 http://www.greenbuttondata.org/ 15 http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/15/modeling-green-energy-challenge-after-blue-button 16 http://www.greenbuttondata.org/greenadopt.html 17 http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/GreenButtonInitiative 18 http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager 19 1. Joyce Foundation Grants for Great Lakes Communities – These small seed grants ($5,000 - $30,000) were available to communities in WI, MN, IL, IN, MI, and OH. Applications for a seed grant, were to include a budget and summary of how the funds would be used specifically to advance an innovative and replicable portion of the overall Program Plan. 2. American Public Power Association DEED Grants for Public Utilities – Communities served by a publicly owned utility that is a member of APPA’s DEED program, could apply for a seed funding grant to support their GUEP Program Plan19. Grants under these programs have already been announced. If additional funding opportunities become available, they will be immediately sent to all competing communities as well as posted on guep.org. Selection of Semifinalists Based on the Program Plans and seed-funding proposal reviews, the GUEP Semifinalist Selection Committee invited 50 communities to compete as Semifinalists in the Stage 3 performance competition. Semifinalist selections were based primarily on the overall quality of the Program Plans and the extent to which they are innovative and replicable. We also tried to achieve regional diversity, population-size diversity, and diversity of the proposed energy-savings program approaches. All communities selected for the Semifinals must sign and return the Semifinalist Acknowledgement Letter by January 9, 2015. The letter is being provided to all communities along with the distribution of v8.0 of these Competition Guidelines Stage 3 – Semifinalist Performance Competition During the 24 month Competition phase, participating utilities will provide the GUEP administrators and local community leaders with monthly aggregate community energy data (see “Energy Consumption Reporting During Competition Stage 3”), and the community will provide informal progress reports (blog, video, etc.) at least once every two months. As mentioned in the Section “Data from Local Utilities”, the first quarterly report, must include the community’s baseline energy use for the 24 months prior to the start), and the gas and electricity cost (per energy unit) averaged over the entire baseline period. All communities will also be required to supply a formal annual report after the 12th and 24th month of the Semifinalist competition. Annual reports will be brief summaries of actions taken during the year, including the number of residential energy efficiency retrofits, as well as any lessons learned and adjustments to the Program Plan that are made along the way. A template for the annual report will be provided at the beginning of the Semifinalist phase of competition. Here is the full schedule of quarterly reports: May 15, 2015: First Quarterly Report (Jan - Mar, '15), including the 2013 and 2014 monthly baseline data, plus baseline average cost data 19 http://www.publicpower.org/Programs/Landing.cfm?ItemNumber=31245&&navItemNumber=37529 20 Aug 15, 2015: Second Quarterly Report (Apr - Jun, '15) Nov 15, 2015: Third Quarterly Report (Jul - Sep, '15) Feb 15, 2016: Fourth Quarterly Report (Oct - Dec, '15), Plus Annual Qualitative Report May 15, 2016: First Quarterly Report (Jan - Mar, '16), Aug 15, 2016: Second Quarterly Report (Apr - Jun, '16) Nov 15, 2016: Third Quarterly Report (Jul - Sep, '16) Feb 15, 2017: Fourth Quarterly Report (Oct - Dec, '16), Plus Second Annual Qualitative Report GUEP will publicize the competition status via a generally-available website. The informal progress reports will be posted there, and the monthly energy data will feed the performance dashboard (see “Energy Consumption Reporting - The Performance Dashboard”). The website will also offer general educational information about energy and energy efficiency, as well as links to relevant resource materials. Stage 4 – Finalist Selection, Judging and Awards Selection of Finalists Based on 48 months of data (24 months baseline, 24 months Stage 3), up to 10 Finalists will be selected as follows: All Semifinalists will be ranked by an Overall Energy Score (OES) that quantifies their energy- saving performance relative to the community’s baseline as a percentage change. The OES is based on the Adjusted Source Energy Use per Residential Bill (ASEU) averaged over the baseline and Stage 3 Performance Competition periods. In particular, given ASEUB = ASEU averaged over the 24 months before the start of the Stage 3 Competition and ASEUC = ASEU averaged over the 24 months of the Stage 3 Competition, the Overall Energy Score (OES) is defined as OES = 100 x (ASEUC – ASEUB) / ASEUB Decreased energy use will result in a negative OES, and the more negative the better. Note that for some communities the OES may be positive (increased energy use); the more positive the Energy Score, the lower the ranking. The Energy Prize Team will select up to 10 Finalists from the top Semifinalists (i.e., the communities with the best Energy Scores, with the Energy Score being the primary factor. That is, all other things being equal, the highest ranking Semifinalists will advance to the Final. However, the Judging Panel may consider other outstanding factors, including extent of innovation, diversity of approach, size and geographic diversity, information about electric and gas vehicles (see Electric and Gas Vehicles), etc. 21 Additional Recognition The Prize Judges will also identify exceptionally worthy Semifinalists that did not make the Finals. The GUEP will recognize and publicize these communities by awarding an Energy Plan Certificate of Accomplishment. Stage 5 – Finalist Judging Final Report Finalists will be invited to submit a Final Report within 60 days, addressing the following: Competition Performance Summary of the energy-savings program, including any short- or long-term changes introduced during the two-year Stage 3 Performance Competition. General discussion of how well the energy-savings program has worked to date. Results of a certified, third-party audit of the (non-adjusted) Energy Use per Residential Bill data that was provided by utilities. (Issue: how to arrange and finance this.) Discussion of the role and effectiveness of energy retrofits and other capital improvements. Discussion of the role and effectiveness of any municipal incentives that were provided via local regulations, zoning, taxation, etc.; Discussion of the implementation and success of any program components that target high-return opportunities, for example: Affordable housing; Residential rentals; Buildings in historic neighborhoods (neighborhoods that have been formally designated as “historic” by the municipality prior to 2014); Optionally, if energy retrofits or other capital improvements were a particularly important and effective component of the community’s Program Plan, the community may also submit an Energy Retrofit Report that includes – An accounting of the number and types of retrofits and capital improvements that were installed prior to the end of the Semifinal, and a description of how the data were collected. A description and accounting of any formal energy audits that were conducted – examples include the DOE Home Energy Score20 and audits according to the Building Performance Institute21 or the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET)22. The total energy savings predicted by such audits for the 12 months following the end of the Semifinal. 20 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/residential/hes_index.html 21 http://www.bpi.org/what.aspx 22 http://resnet.us/energy-audit 22 Optionally, if the community provided information about electric and natural gas vehicles after Stage 3, prior to the selection of Finalists (as mentioned earlier in the section Electric and Natural Gas Vehicles), the supporting evidence and proposed method for taking the effect into account should also be included in the Final Report. Again, it will be up to the Judging Panel to accept or reject the proposed method (which, if accepted, would be subject to audit). Innovation Discussion of what’s innovative about the energy-savings plan, and how effective the innovations were. Relevant innovations include aspects of the plan that are completely new and different, as well as creative ways of implementing existing approaches. For example, existing approaches for financing energy retrofits have not been very effective, and experts believe that innovative financing could increase adoption rates significantly. Potential for Replication Discussion of the likelihood of replication in other communities; here are examples of topics that might be relevant: What resources were developed that other communities might use? Such resources might include community-engagement or other systems, websites, documentation, personnel, etc. Are there aspects of the energy-savings program that are particularly well- suited for replicated in other communities? Lessons learned, and advice for other communities Likely Future Performance Discussion of why the energy-savings achieved to date by the program are likely to be permanent, including evidence of widespread behavior change, and discussion of why the energy-savings program is likely to yield additional savings, continually in future years. Here are some examples of topics that might be relevant: How have aspects of the energy-savings program been institutionalized through policies and other means? For example, this discussion could include the results of applying ACEEE’s Local Energy Efficiency Self-Scoring Tool.23 To what extent has there been “capacity building” to support continued efforts? Examples might include professional development and business development efforts. What systems or approaches are being used to collect, manage, manage, and exploit relevant data? Equitable Access; Community and Stakeholder Engagement. Discussion of how the program was designed to reach diverse aspects of the community - geographic, demographic, functional, and economic (e.g., income distribution, owners vs. renters, etc), etc. – and to what extent it succeeded. 23 http://www.aceee.org/research-report/e13l 23 Summary of how the community at large was engaged (including material used to engage) and evidence of how well it was engaged (e.g., how many people took a documented action a part of the program?). Summary of the role of the utilities (all electric and gas utilities serving the community) and evidence of how well they were engaged. Summary of the role of the municipal government, and evidence of how it worked together with the community). Education Summary of how the local K-12 school system was engaged (including educational materials), and evidence of how well it was engaged. Summary of any community-wide educational programs. Prize Purse How would the projected prize purse be used to promote and implement continued energy efficiency measures in a way that benefits the community as a whole, including all demographic and economic sectors? This was covered briefly in the Program Plan, but may have changed in the subsequent two years. Regardless, a detailed proposal should be included in the Final Report. Final Judging The Judging Panel will review the Final Reports and score them in seven categories, with a maximum score of 100: Category Points Competition Performance 25 Innovation 15 Potential for Replication 15 Likely Future Performance 10 Equitable Access, Community and Stakeholder Engagement 10 Education 10 Overall quality and success 15 The highest-ranking community will be awarded first place, with the requirement that the purse benefit the entire community at large in accordance with spending proposed in the community’s Stage 2 Program Plan. Second and third place will also be awarded; these additional winners will receive special recognition and additional benefits, which may include cash purses. 24 All finalists will be subject to audits by the GUEP, e.g. to verify the performance data, to verify the enumeration of the utilities’ municipal customers, etc. The Judging Panel The GUEP Judging Panel will comprise distinguished, reputable, well-known individuals with diverse backgrounds in business, NGOs, education, and government. Collectively, the Judging Panel will have expertise in the technical, educational, business, political, and regulatory aspects of energy efficiency. It will also have expertise in existing community-wide energy-efficiency programs at both the city and state levels. The Judges are likely to be individuals with many demands on their time, so GUEP will support them with a Judges’ Advisory Council. The Council will respond to questions; provide summaries, perhaps provide recommendations, and generally be helpful based on detailed knowledge of the GUEP, the competitors, and the Final Reports. Georgetown University Engagement In addition to managing the GUEP, Georgetown University will support the competitors by offering webinars at least quarterly, skills workshops, templates for news releases and other publications, and similar services. Georgetown University is collaborating with partners to provide each community with technical support, resources, and other support that can help with the development and implementation of their energy efficiency plan. In addition, Georgetown University students, with the support of partners, will serve as Community Liaisons who will provide information and assistance to communities, while working to connect them with the full range of community resources and technical assistance that GUEP partners have available. In addition Georgetown University students will work directly on the prize by: Spending time in a community, providing on-the-ground assistance and participating in experiential learning opportunities; Working with sponsors and partners to ensure that their resources and engagement are enhancing the educational, energy efficiency, and innovation objectives of the Prize; Serving as members of the Judge’s Advisory Council (see “The Judging Panel”), and being represented on the final Judges Panel. At the start of the two-year Stage 3 competition and at the end of the first year, we will host a forum at the University for GUEP competitors – an opportunity for them to exchange ideas, hear from experts and opinion leaders, and present progress. It will also provide an opportunity for visits with their House and Senate Members, as well as with DOE, EPA, and other relevant Executive branch offices. In keeping with Georgetown University’s role as an educational institution, GUEP competitors are required to involve their local school system, and the effectiveness of that involvement is one of the criteria for selecting winners. As mentioned earlier, Final Reports must address “how the local school system was engaged (including educational materials) and evidence of how well it was engaged. 25 To make it easier for communities to address these educational requirements, we are looking into coordination with the American Home Energy Education Challenge (AHEEC), a competition that was sponsored by DOE in partnership with the National Science Teachers Association, in which students work to reduce the energy consumption of their home. Likewise, we would like to coordinate with two organizations that specifically address energy education (and that support the AHEEC): EnergyTeachers.org and the National Energy Education Development Project24 (NEED). Long term, data from the GUEP will provide a research opportunity – for example, educators who are studying what does and doesn’t work in energy education. All such shared data will be aggregate data that does not contain private information. Energy Efficiency Resources for Communities One goal of the GUEP is to stimulate replicable innovations in community energy efficiency, but this does not mean that competing communities should start from scratch. Communities (together with their local governments and utilities) can and should learn from and, as appropriate, use the many resources that are available from governments, non-profits, and commercial companies. We will publicize these and other resources in a section of the GUEP website25. We encourage their use, but there’s no requirement to do so. Examples include: DOE’s Better Buildings Neighborhood Program26 - a collection of information developed for and by state and local governments describing successful strategies for designing and implementing residential retrofit programs. (DOE is also launching a peer sharing network and Solution Center that all GUEP competitors will be invited to use as beta testers of in 2014.) DOE’s Home Energy Score27 – a quick and easy tool that allows qualified assessors to Generate clear, credible home energy assessments at a reasonable cost; Recommend customized upgrades and other cost saving tips; and, Help consumers compare the energy use of different homes; Various DOE guides, including Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide (AERG) for K-12 Schools28 Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide (AERG) for Office Buildings29 24 http://www.need.org/ 25 http://guep.org/resources-for-competitors 26 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/betterbuildings/neighborhoods/ 27 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/residential/hes_index.html 28 https://buildingdata.energy.gov/cbrd/resource/17 29 https://buildingdata.energy.gov/cbrd/resource/19 26 Community Strategic Energy Planning Guide30 Strategic Energy Planning Guide for the Public Sector31 EPA’s Portfolio Manager32 – an online tool for measuring and tracking the energy consumption of a building or portfolio of buildings. In the case of GUEP, this is applicable to municipal buildings. HUD’s Guide to Energy-Efficient and Healthy Homes – a consumer guide describing how to improve a home’s energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality. ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability33 – an association of cities and local governments dedicated to sustainable development Sources for energy education curricula, such as EnergyTeachers.org and the National Energy Education Development Project34 (NEED) Energy saving cloud services and apps (We believe that the Internet, the cloud, social media, GPS, and smart-phones have come together in way that can provide new technology for crowd-sourced energy efficiency among a community of users). Some emerging examples: DOE’s “Apps for Energy” competition35; City of Chicago apps competition36; The DOE-Livermore-Laboratory Home Energy Saver37; EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager38; The Delaware Electric Co-Op “Beat the Peak39” indicator light (for communicating load information to utility customers Commercial companies that help consumers to understand, track, and reduce their energy consumption; examples include: Opower – partners with utilities to provide household-specific energy-efficiency information and advice EcoFactor40 - works with utilities and homeowners to reduce energy consumption via internet-connected programmable thermostats C3 Energy41 - offers software solutions to help organizations understand, optimize, and report on their energy use. 30 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/solutioncenter/strategic_energy_planning_guide.html 31 http://www4.eere.energy.gov/alliance/activities/public-sector-teams/community-strategic-energy-planning 32 http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager 33 http://www.iclei.org 34 http://www.need.org/ 35 http://appsforenergy.challenge.gov/ 36 http://www.appsformetrochicago.org/ 37 http://homeenergysaver.lbl.gov/consumer/ 38 http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager 39 http://www.delaware.coop/beat-peak/indicator-light 40 http://www.ecofactor.com 41 www.c3energy.com 27 Itron42 – provides utilities with energy-management products, services, and analyses Enterprise Community Investment43 - a for-profit company dedicated to affordable housing, with a specific program for Green Communities44. AmericanEfficient45 Building Energy, Inc. – provides software tools for exploiting data about energy yse Non-profits with a focus on energy-efficiency; examples include: The Joyce Foundation46 – focused on improving the quality of life in the Great Lakes region, including community energy-efficiency. SmartPower47 - a non-profit marketing firm dedicated to promoting clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation48 - a nonprofit dedicated to reducing the economic and environmental costs of energy consumption, VEIC designs programs that reduce energy use through energy efficiency and renewable energy. VEIC is member of DOE’s Technical Assistance Program team. The Home Performance Resource Center49 - a national not-for-profit organization formed to conduct research and education concerning the field of home energy performance The Energy Foundation50 – awards grants to promote the transition to a sustainable energy future by advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy Enterprise Community Partners51 – a non-profit associated with Enterprise Community Investment (see above), with a particular focus on financing Living Cities52 – a collaboration of the world’s largest foundations and financial institutions, dedicated to improving low-income communities JPB Foundation53 – focused on improving the quality of life in low-income communities, including environmental sustainability Retrofit technologies, installation examples, and services (e.g., see DOE’s Building America program Solution Center54) Retrofit financing models 42 https://www.itron.com/ 43 http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/ 44 http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities 45 http://www.americanefficient.com/ 46 http://www.joycefdn.org/ 47 http://www.smartpower.org/ 48 http://www.veic.org 49 http://www.hprcenter.org/about-us 50 http://www.ef.org 51 http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/ 52 http://www.livingcities.org/ 53 http://jpbfoundation.org/ 54 http://basc.pnnl.gov 28 Other innovative financing mechanisms (e.g., Kickstarter)55 Certified energy audits Alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) Long-term energy-saving devices (appliances, lights, smart thermostats, etc.) ISO 50001 FAQs Although we have reasons for the choices we’ve made, we acknowledge that a more expansive competition could lead to greater change. But we can’t do it all – complexity goes way up and with it goes manageability, gaming issues, resource issues, judging controversies, etc. Keeping the competition’s long term goal in mind (community energy efficiency), we think that the restrictions we’ve made are a reasonable balance between complexity and expansiveness. Why restrict the competition to municipalities with populations between 5,000 and 250,000? First, note that this definition of eligible communities includes 65% of the U.S. population. Regarding cities with populations greater than 250,000, many such cities already have long- term energy and environment programs (with major funding and staff), which would give them an unfair advantage. It might be possible to create a fair competition, but that would complicate the prize rules and administration. Large size disparities between competing communities could easily lead to unforeseen advantages that spoil the competition. Furthermore, the need is greater in smaller communities, which typically do not have such aggressive energy and environment programs (with major funding and staff). At the other extreme, some towns with very small populations could easily achieve high participation rates, giving them an unsurmountable advantage; hence the lower limit of 5,000. Note, however, that GUEP will also consider applications from “combined communities” – communities with common borders that together have a total population greater than 5,000 (see “Eligible Communities”). Why normalize the total residential and municipal energy use by the number of residential bills? To enable fair comparisons, it’s essential to adjust the total gas and electric energy use to account for differences in community size. One obvious approach (indeed, our initial approach) is to compute the total energy use per capita. But this has two major problems. One is that community populations can change significantly during the two-year competition period, but there’s no easy and authoritative way to measure that. The other problem is fuel-switching. For example, if there’s a trend to switch from heating via fuel oil to heating via gas or electricity, the total gas and electric energy per capita would increase, thereby penalizing the community unfairly. (Indeed, depending on the situation, such fuel- switching can increase overall energy efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be particularly pernicious for the GUEP to penalize such a trend.) 55 http://www.kickstarter.com / 29 To avoid these problems, we will normalize by the number of residential bills. This has several advantages: It avoids penalizing communities for switching to gas or electricity. (The total energy use increases, but so does the number of residential accounts.) It avoids penalizing (or rewarding!) communities for changes in population size. (The number of residential bills is highly correlated with population size.) The number of residential utility bills is easily measured as it changes over time. Note that we will normalize both residential and municipal energy use by the number of residential bills (rather than normalizing residential use by the number of residential bills, and normalizing municipal use by the number of municipal bills). This makes sense because the main purpose of the municipal government is to serve the residents. It’s also simpler. Why not adjust for inherent advantages or disadvantages that could stem from having (or not having) a pre-existing community-wide energy efficiency program? Some communities may have a “head start” – inherent advantages such as existing energy efficiency programs with existing municipal staff, smart meters, and access to State funds for clean energy deployment56. Why not take this into account? On the other hand, communities that don’t have such a “head start” may have a different inherent advantage: the availability of “low hanging fruit” that “head start” communities have already picked. Why not take this into account? So it’s unclear whether it’s more advantageous to be a “head start” community or a “fresh start” community. It may be true that “fresh start” communities have an advantage with respect to reducing the Adjusted Energy Use per Residential Bill. On the other hand, an important Final Judging criterion is the likelihood of continuing change, not just two years of change. And in this respect “head start” communities with well-established energy-efficiency programs may have an advantage. We believe that possible advantages or disadvantages of “head start” vs., “fresh start” will balance. Besides, it would be complicated, difficult, and controversial to specify entrance or judging criteria that address this issue. That said, the selection of semifinalists for Stage 3 includes a subjective component, and the GUEP Judging Panel could choose to exclude communities that have too much of a head start (and in fact really don’t need GUEP) and likewise exclude communities that have achieved dramatic improvements in energy-efficiency but haven’t implemented a long-term energy- efficiency program. Why not adjust for economic differences? Since major economic changes can lead to reduced or increased energy use independent of community efforts, and since rich communities have more resources than poor communities, 56 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49340.pdf 30 we considered having the Adjusted Energy Use per Residential Bill include an adjustment based on economic considerations. This would have been essential if industrial and commercial energy use were to be included (vs. just residential and municipal). For example, the opening or closing of a major factory could have significant effects. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for excluding industrial and commercial energy use. Even with the restriction to residential and municipal energy use, one can argue that an economic adjustment should still be made. For example, in the absence of creative financing models, wealthy communities may have an advantage in being able to afford more retrofits and energy-saving appliance replacements. But there are counterarguments; for example, wealthy communities may have the means to purchase retrofits, but they also generally buy newer, more efficient houses to begin with. On the other hand, GUEP challenges communities to develop creative financing models for retrofits that do not require cash from residents, and we want to retain the incentive to do so. Similarly, we hope that lower-income communities will be creative in the cost or financing of other energy saving measures. For these reasons, and also because it would add considerable complexity to the GUEP rules, we chose not to adjust for economic differences. Does a community in a temperate zone have a disadvantage? No, because the basic figure of merit adjusts for weather based on the number of heating and cooling days. Why use fixed national rather than varying regional source energy factors? An alternative to using national average source energy factors would have been to use factors that are more community-specific, which in principle could account for regional or even local variations in energy generation. Unfortunately, such regional factors can be controversial, as they’re based on estimates, averages, and modeling assumptions, and there’s no single, validated, nationally accepted standard. In principle, regional source energy factors could also account for changes in energy generation that utilities might make during the course of the 24-month Performance Competition, but that’s not possible because the approaches for determining regional factors are based on data that’s several years old, and there’s no nationally accepted means of updating regional factors on an annual basis. Using regional source energy factors would have been complicated and confusing, and would result in real or perceived unfairness in comparing communities, which is why GUEP has accepted the U.S. government recommendation to use national averages that are fixed for the duration of the competition. Overall, including source energy in the figure of merit via national factors should create additional incentives for communities to reduce their utility-supplied-energy, while educating the public on the full-fuel-cycle effects of the energy they consume, and the importance of working toward a more efficient national energy grid. 31 The prize is awarded based on a combination of objective figures of merit and subjective judging. Why not award the prize entirely based on objective figures of merit? We want the GUEP to lead to continuing improvements after the competition, and to replication in other communities. These aspects require subjective judgments following the Competition Stage – to develop an objective figure of merit would be difficult and controversial. Note that we do specify the judging criteria and the quantitative weights that will be applied to the judged score for each criterion. Why restrict the energy consumption to residential and municipal? Why not commercial, industrial, transportation, etc. We omitted transportation because it is too difficult to measure in a simple way (unlike energy from utilities). We chose residential plus municipal because our focus is on communities, including public schools, and we believe that long-term energy-saving actions will require the cooperation of community citizens and community-selected municipal leaders. Municipal energy use is included in the scoring to provide an incentive for the municipality and the community to work together, and providing seed funding will facilitate that work. Another reason is to keep the playing field relatively level. Including commercial and industrial energy uses complicates things because these sectors are more likely to be responsive to economic and business forces outside of the community (market conditions, ownership, etc.). In addition, including these sectors could give certain communities an overwhelming advantage (since committed commercial and industrial consumers can produce relatively large increases in efficiency). Finally, excluding these sectors reduces the problem of economic normalization (what if a big factory opens or closes?; likewise large commercial consumers). Of course we hope that the community efforts spread to these other sectors, and it seems reasonable that to some extent this will happen – thus, in some way we are affecting commercial/industrial usage even though we exclude them from the competition. Why restrict the measurement of energy consumption to electricity and gas? We recognize that electricity and gas do not account for all residential and municipal use, the primary omission being oil and propane used for heating. Unfortunately, measurable energy use is essential to the prize design, and there’s no straightforward way to measure the use of these other energy sources uniformly and with adequate accuracy. Note that it is not required that a community has both gas and electric services. Also, there’s no inherent advantage to having both, since performance is measured by the percentage reduction of energy used during the competition period vs. the baseline period. What happens if the municipal or community leadership changes during the competition? We recognize that leadership changes are likely during the course of the competition, but we consider that to be something that the community has to deal with. 32 Acknowledgements A large number of individuals and organizations have contributed to the development of these Competition Guidelines. A credible and effective GUEP could not exist without their generous help. We are immensely grateful. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6807) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Community Plan to End Homelessness Title: Recommendation to Council to Adopt Two Resolutions: (a) Endorsing the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020; and (b) Supporting City Programs to Encourage and Fund Affordable Housing as Urged by the Santa Clara County Housing Task Force From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt a resolution supporting the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020. (Attachment A) 2. Adopt a resolution of the City of Palo Alto endorsing the resolution of the County of Santa Clara Housing Services Task Force finding that the problem of homelessness is a crisis in Santa Clara County and urging jurisdictions within the County to consider policy options for funding affordable housing for the purpose of housing the homeless. (Attachment B) Executive Summary All cities in Santa Clara County (County) have been asked to adopt two resolutions related to a County- wide approach to addressing homelessness. The resolutions include: 1) Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County - forwarded by Destination: Home, a public-private partnership focused on implementing strategies to end homelessness. 2) County of Santa Clara Housing Services Task Force – forwarded by the County of Santa Clara. This report includes background information on the process of developing both of these resolutions, related homeless research, and the specific requests for the City as part of these resolutions. In addition the staff report offers staff input on additional opportunities for future impact on the local homeless landscape. The two resolutions recommended for adoption identify ways for local cities to partner with the County and nonprofits to address homelessness using a cross jurisdictional approach. They would continue to advance the goal of supporting regional strategies in collaboration with other jurisdictions and agencies to end and prevent homelessness by creating permanent housing solutions. The Plan promotes a region- City of Palo Alto Page 2 wide outcome based effort so that individual cities are not self-reliant in addressing homelessness issues, and where individual persons are connected with the right housing opportunities and services across the county. The key opportunity for impact being introduced in this report, but to be considered as part of the FY17 Community Services Department proposed budget, is a request by the County to continue its collaboration with the City on a regional approach to address homelessness in which the County provides housing subsidies and the City provides funding for the accompanying case management. The resource impact is $125,000 annually. Background On January 11, 2016, an informational report titled Addressing Homelessness in Support of a Healthy and Safe Palo Alto (Attachment C: Staff Report - 6477) was included in the Council Packet. It included an update on the North County Cold Weather Shelter, outlined the City’s monetary support of homeless service organizations, provided general information on the depth and scope of the local homeless landscape, and outlined the outreach and enforcement efforts of Palo Alto Police Department’s Special Enforcement Detail coupled with the City Attorney office’s involvement in regards to Palo Alto Municipal Code Violations. The report reiterated that the homelessness issue is a complex and regional issue, one for which the City has considered and pursued numerous strategies over time. It briefly introduced several County-wide initiatives which local cities across the county were being asked to support via endorsing resolutions. In the report, Staff committed to returning to Council with resolutions in support of the two County- wide initiatives as well as options for the City‘s future involvement in the issue that was better coordinated and focused and took into account our significant past commitment to homeless services. Under the leadership of the County and Destination: Home, significant time, resources and expertise has been allocated to developing a broad ranging and regional approach to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. Another report that has influenced Destination: Home and the County‘s ongoing approach is the wealth of information contained in the report titled Homes not Found: The cost of homelessness in Silicon Valley; which is said to be the largest and most comprehensive body of information that has been assembled in the United States to analyze the public cost of homelesses to “guide strategies for stabilizing their lives, improving their wellbeing and reducing public costs for their care.” (Attachment D – Fact Sheet - Homes not Found report.) In brief, it found that during the six year period covered by the report, more that $3 billion worth of services (criminal justice, health & human services) went to homeless residents. Background information on the two County wide initiatives that the City is being asked to consider endorsing via resolutions is given below. Both initiatives outline a regional approach to ending and preventing homelessness in the County and have informed staff’s thinking as we consider options to positively impact the homeless landscape in Palo Alto. 1) Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County – 2015-2020. Destination: Home is a public-private partnership created in 2008 by the City of San Jose, the County of Santa Clara and other partners to implement the recommendations of the former Blue Ribbon City of Palo Alto Page 3 Commission on Affordable Housing and Homelessness, a task force of county, city and other representatives. Destination: Home identifies and coordinates resources to end chronic homelessness and is improving how systems work together to intervene with episodic and situational homeless individuals and families at risk of becoming chronically homeless. Destination: Home developed the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015- 2020 (“The Community Plan”) (Attachment E) in 2014 through a series of community summits related to specific homeless populations and issues in Santa Clara County. The Plan was created as a community- wide roadmap to end homelessness for the next five years, and is proposed to guide government, nonprofits and other community members as they make decisions about funding, programs, priorities and needs. The Annual Implementation Guide (Attachment F) for the Plan includes action steps for the first year of the Plan (the 2016 Implementation Plan is not yet available) as well as follow up action steps that will be incorporated in future annual implementation guides. The Plan is based on three central strategies: 1. Disrupt the System – Develop strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people. 2. Build the Solution – Secure the funding needed to provide 6,000 housing opportunities with services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. 3. Serve the Person – Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. The Plan has been endorsed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County Cities Association, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Cities of Campbell, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, Milpitas and Sunnyvale. Destination: Home is seeking the endorsement of the Plan by the Council. By endorsing and supporting the Plan, the City is not obligated to implement the Plan or adopt, expand or institute any programs. However, the Council’s endorsement of the Plan would continue to advance the goal of supporting regional strategies in collaboration with other jurisdictions and agencies to end and prevent homelessness by creating permanent housing solutions. The Plan promotes a region-wide outcome based effort so that individual cities are not self-reliant in addressing homelessness issues, and where individual persons are connected with the right housing opportunities and services across the county. The Plan is also consistent with current city programs and investments in homelessness prevention. Destination: Home intends to develop a more coordinated regional response and believes that the City’s endorsement will help in the effort to reduce homelessness and solve the problems related to homelessness. 2) Santa Clara County Housing Services Task Force Resolution Request In February, 2015, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (BOS) created a Housing Task Force (HTF) with the purpose of identifying solutions to the immediate housing needs of homeless families and individuals county-wide. Membership included representatives from the San Jose Silicon Valley City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chamber of Commerce, Working Partnerships USA, Housing Trust Silicon Valley, City of San Jose, Cities Association of Santa Clara County, and the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County. The HTF met on a monthly basis for nine months and provided a preliminary report and recommendation to the BOS on September 15, 2015 and its final report on December 15, 2015. The report included a wide range of recommendations to support three overarching strategies: 1. Develop a responsive and effective supportive housing system of care. 2. Support the development of new supportive and interim housing units to serve homeless men, women, families and youth. 3. Support regional and jurisdiction-specific efforts to increase affordable housing and supportive housing production countywide On December 10, 2015, City staff received a formal letter from the co-chairs of the Housing Task Force (Attachment G – Santa Clara County Task Force Request) and later from the Santa Clara County Cities Association requesting that the City bring a resolution to Council for adoption “thereby joining the County, other cities and agencies in acknowledging the crisis of homelessness and considering one or more strategy to reduce homelessness throughout the county.” The report outlines a regional framework to addressing homelessness and calls on cities specifically to consider taking action on a series of policy and revenue measures in support of affordable housing. The City has already implemented many of the measures recommended by the Task Force that are relevant to this area, including: Adoption of a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing (Inclusionary) Ordinance and Rental Housing and Housing Impact fees that are assessed on new market-rate residential rental and commercial development; Adoption of Affordable Housing Impact Fees Chapter 16.47 of Municipal Code – Approval of Projects with Impacts on Housing The City has recently completed Commercial and Residential Nexus Studies and will consider updates to its fees by the end of 2016. The two draft nexus studies were presented to the Finance Committee on 2/16/16. Link to staff report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50935 Consideration of Zoning Actions to: o Allow Second Unit Ordinance - The City is exploring a Second Dwelling Unit ordinance. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a Study Session on 1/27/16. Link to staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50714 o Incentivize affordable housing via zoning benefits - The City adopted Chapter 18.15: Residential Density Bonus of Zoning Code in January 2014. Link to code: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalco de?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca City of Palo Alto Page 5 The final Task Force recommendation is the approval of a resolution supporting the Community Plan, which is being considered as part of this agenda item. The Task Force resolution also includes a request that cities consider initiating ballot measures that would earmark funding for affordable housing or using boomerang funds. The City is not currently initiating any ballot measures and did not have an active Redevelopment Agency and therefore does not have access to boomerang funds. The City may explore the prioritization of surplus land for affordable housing development in the future. At this time Staff is not recommending any further follow up steps on any of the areas listed above. Discussion In past Council discussions on issues related to homelessness, several Council members have stated that they believe homelessness is most effectively addressed on a regional level and staff concurs. Aided by the research, analysis, and recommendations provided by the County and Destination: Home, we have not only learned much about the homeless landscape in the County, we have been given a clear roadmap, using a collective impact approach, for moving forward and making a lasting impact in the lives of the over 6,500 homeless men, women and children in the County utilizing a comprephensive cross-jurisdictional approach. In that regard, one positive step that the City can take in responding to this public health crisis is by formally supporting the resolutions included in this staff report; 1) Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020 (Attachment A). 2) County of Santa Clara Housing Services Task Force (Attachment B.) Additional opportunities for impact: As part of the Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal, staff will be including a formal request (Attachment H - Funding Request-SCC) from the County to continue its collaboration with the City on a regional approach to address homelessness called the North County Re-Integration Program. The request is for $125,000/year annually for two years ($250,000 total) The County has identified continuation of this collaboration as a high need request. This collaboration was first approved by Council on October 7, 2013 (Attachment I.) At that time Council stated that funding would be one time only. The goal of this program has been to house 20 Palo Altans who are chronically homeless. All individuals will have had involvement with the criminal justice system (due to the funding source on the County side) and have been referred by the Palo Alto Police Department and/or local social service agencies. In this collaboration, the County provides housing subsidies and the City provides funding for the accompanying case management. The term of the current contract is from 7/1/14 - 6/30/16. At present 13 individuals have been housed and it is hoped that 20 will be housed by June 20, 2016. This task has been quite challenging due to the tight housing market in the County and the backgrounds of the individuals to be housed. The program has also seen significant substance abuse and mental health issues with the clients under this contract. This can make engagement and follow through of case management tasks, including locating and applying for housing, challenging. This partnership laid the foundation for a broader program. At no cost to the City of Palo Alto, the County doubled the project’s capacity to 40 at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2016. There is now the flexibility in identifying individuals City of Palo Alto Page 6 for housing who are not involved in the criminal justice system. As of March 31, 2016, the County’s service provider is actively working with 25 homeless persons, ten of whom are housed and case managed by the County’s provider and three who were housed as part of this collaboration in a housing complex that provides its own case management. The goal is to reach program capacity by the fall of 2016. The County has also significantly increased assistance to address homelessness in North County, specifically Palo Alto, in the last two years in the following areas: Crisis Response (Shelter, Basic Needs, etc.) The County is: o Fully funding the North County Cold Weather Shelter Program, which includes developing a permanent site in North County and prioritizes referrals from North County service agencies. o Partially funding Project WeHOPE’s shelter in East Palo Alto as well as the organization’s Dignity on Wheels program (a mobile shower and laundry facility that is at the Opportunity Services Center on Saturday mornings, among other non- Palo Alto locations.) $50,000 in one-time funds to support the development and operation of Project WeHOPE’s Dignity on Wheels. o There is no year round shelter program in northern Santa Clara County other than Hotel de Zink, a rotating church shelter, in Palo Alto. Even though Project WeHope is located in San Mateo County, it is open to north county homeless individuals. Considering fully funding and expanding Hotel de Zink from 15 to 20 beds year round Homelessness Prevention Programs o Opportunity Services Center – Palo Alto Funding Housing/Eviction Prevention Specialist ($30,000 per year for two years) Funding eviction prevention funds ($30,000 per year for two years) Development o Set aside $14M to support efforts to maintain affordable housing at Buena Vista mobile home park o In discussions to improve operations, services and affordability at Opportunity Center Other opportunities for which no funding source has yet been identified that staff is exploring are programs and services that address the shelter/temporary housing needs of homeless families. Staff is exploring the concept of a hotel voucher program for families modeled after a program in San Mateo County operated by LifeMoves (formally InnVision Shelter Network.) In such a program the City could contract with a local service provider to oversee a hotel voucher program for homeless families to ensure that no child sleeps on the street or in a vehicle in our community. Another option would be to subsidize a transitional housing unit owned by LifeMoves at which a homeless Palo Alto family could live while receiving comprephensive services in order to become self sufficient again. Lastly, staff and the Human Relations Commission (HRC) are in the process of implementing next steps City of Palo Alto Page 7 in association with the summit on Veterans Homelessness held in October, 2015. That summit featured the executive director of Joining Forces, the White House initiative on supporting veterans and their families. On Veterans Day 2015, the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, Housing Authority and Destination: Home, launched the All the Way Home Campaign to work with landlords to get better access to rental units for veterans and their families. This campaign was inspired by the Mayor’s Challenge to End Veterans Homelessness, which former Mayor Karen Holman signed at the homeless veterans’ summit. Moreover, the Housing Authortity of Santa Clara County has created the “Be a Hero” Program as part of the All the Way Home Campaign, in which they are incentivizing landlords to rent to veterans through the possibility of guaranteed rent, security deports, renters insurance, vacancy payments and protection against other loses. An outreach event was held in San Jose last December and 10 of the landlords who attended committed 45 rental units for homeless veterans. Staff and the Human Relations Commission are in the initial process of planning a landlord outreach event in Palo Alto in early summer. Staff may be recommending further action in regards to addressing homeless veterans in collaboration with County partners but does not currently have any additional next steps beyond the event listed above. Resource Impact The $125,000 annual funding request by the County will be considered as part of the proposed FY17 Community Services Department budget request, but no additioanal resource impact is recommended as part of this staff report. The funding would be provided from the General Fund and any consideration of further resources that the Council may wish to consider related to these resolutions would be returned to Council accordingly. Policy Implications The actions recommended in this report implement the City’s adopted Housing Element policies and programs. Specifically, Program H3.3.6 calls for continuing to participate and support agencies addressing homelessness. In addition, this action is consistent with the City’s adopted 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan goal to support activities to end homelessness. Environmental Review For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this action itself is not a project; therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. Attachments: Attachment A - Resolution to Endorse Community Plan to End Homelessness (PDF) Attachment B - Resolution County of Santa Clara Housing Services Task Force (PDF) Attachment C - Staff Report # 6477 Homelessness Info Report (PDF) Attachment D - FactSheet -Homes Not Found Report (PDF) Attachment E - Community Plan to End Homelessness INSANTA CLARA COUNTY (PDF) Attachment F - Annual Implementation Guide for 2015 (PDF) Attachment G - Santa Clara County Task Force Request (PDF) Attachment H - Funding Request - SCC (PDF) Attachment I - Excerpt from Council Minutes 10-7-13 (2) (DOCX) NOT YET APPROVED 151116 jb 0131495 1 January 2016 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Endorse the Destination: Home Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020 R E C I T A L S A. Homelessness continues to be a pressing issue for the City of Palo Alto (“City”) and Santa Clara County (“County”). B. With Destination: Home staff playing a coordinating role over the past year, leaders from the County, other government agencies, service providers, philanthropy, community institutions and business organizations have created a Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020 (“Community Plan”). C. Destination: Home’s Board approved the Community Plan in October 2014 and Destination: Home is now seeking the endorsement of the City Council and other governing boards and elected bodies. D. The City Council’s endorsement of the Community Plan is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Consolidated Plan priorities related to the issues of housing and homelessness. E. The City desires to endorse and support the Destination: Home Community Plan, which does not obligate the City to provide funding or resources to Destination: Home or undertake any specific action, and any future contributions or actions in support of the Community Plan shall be at the sole discretion of the City. F. The City is not obligated to implement the Community Plan or adopt, expand, institute, or fund any program, as such, any new or considered programs or services will be considered at the time that specific requests for such programs or services are before the City Council. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby endorses the Destination: Home Community Plan to End Homelessness 2015-2020. SECTION 3. By endorsing the Destination: Home Community Plan to End Homelessness 2015-2020, the City is not obligated to adopt, expand, institute or fund any program, as such, any new or considered programs or services will be considered at the time that specific requests for such programs or services are before the City Council. / / / / / / / / ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED 151116 jb 0131495 2 January 2016 SECTION 4. For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this action itself is not a project; therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _____________________________ _______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ______________________________ ________________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager or Designee ________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment NOT YET APPROVED 160426 sh 0140158 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Resolution of the Housing Task Force of the County of Santa Clara Finding that the Problem of Homelessness in Santa Clara County Constitutes a Crisis and Urging Jurisdictions Within the County to Consider Policy Options for Funding Affordable Housing for the Purpose of Housing the Homeless R E C I T A L S A. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors created the Housing Task Force for the purpose of identifying solutions to the immediate housing needs of homeless families and individuals across Santa Clara County; and B. The Housing Task Force adopted the resolution attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and sent a letter to the City of Palo Alto dated December 10, 2015, asking the City to adopt the resolution; and C. The Housing Task Force resolution declares homelessness in Santa Clara County is a crisis and recommends that cities consider measures to generate affordable housing funds to produce affordable housing, adopt the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County: 2015-2020, and take other steps to address homelessness; and D. The City of Palo Alto has considered and/or is implementing the measures recommended in the Housing Task Force’s resolution, including the following: •Adoption, defense and implementation of a Below-Market-Rate Housing (Inclusionary) Ordinance; •Development of a housing nexis study to support updated impact fees to be assessed on new market-rate commercial and residential rental and for-sale housing developments, and consideration in 2016 of updated housing impact fees; •Consideration of policies to encourage housing at all affordability levels, including zoning changes to encourage mixed-use developments, micro units and accessory dwelling units; and •Consideration of a resolution supporting the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County: 2015-2020. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby adopt the Santa Clara County Housing Task Force Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, incorporated herein by this reference, finding that homelessness is a crisis and supporting the measures in the resolution for addressing homelessness in Santa Clara County. ATTACHMENT B NOT YET APPROVED 160426 sh 0140158 2 SECTION 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. SECTION 3. For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this action itself is not a project; therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _____________________________ _______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ______________________________ ________________________________ City Attorney City Manager or Designee ________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment ________________________________ Director of Community Services County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing 3180 Newberry Dr. Suite 150 San Jose, CA 95118 (408) 793-0550 Main (408) 266-0124 Fax December 10, 2015 Mr. James Keene City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ; 'O~~~\ ,1.; ; RE: Resolution of the Housing Task Force of the County of Santa Clara Dear Mr. Keene, On behalf of the members of the County's Housing Task Force, we request your support in addressing the urgent housing needs of homeless men, women and families throughout the county. Specifically, we request that your organization bring the attached resolution before its governing board for adoption, thereby joining the County, other cities and agencies in acknowledging the crisis of homelessness and considering one or more strategy to reduce homelessness throughout the county. The resolution was unanimously adopted by the Housing Task Force on October 9,2015, and the Cities Association on November 12, 2015. While cities and agencies have varying resources, each organization can play some role in meeting homeless persons' basic needs, preventing homelessness among our most vulnerable populations, and increasing the supply of affordable and supportive housing. By passing the resolution, you will express a continued commitment to work regionally and collaboratively. Our collective effort is aimed at preventing homelessness whenever possible. When homelessness cannot be prevented, we must work together to ensure that homelessness for an individual or family is rare, brief and non-recurring. Sincerely, Ben Field Co-Chairperson Housing Task Force of the County of Santa Clara Matthew R. Mahood Co-Chairperson Housing Task Force of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING TASK FORCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FINDING THAT THE PROBLEM OF HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONSTITUTES A CRISIS AND URGING JURISDICTIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER POLICY OPTIONS FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING THE HOMELESS WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, at the recommendation of Supervisor Dave Cortese, created the Housing. Task Force for the purpose of identifYing ,solutions to the immediate housing needs of homeless families and individuals across Santa Clara County; and ' WHEREAS, the 2015 Santa Clara County Point~In-Time Homeless Census & Survey found that there are 6,556 homeless persons living within the County, and that 63% of them have been homeless for one year or more; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report found that, among the 48 Major City COiltinuurns of Care in the United States, Santa Clara County has the third largest number of chroniC{ll.ly homeless persons, the fourth largest number of homeless individuals, thq fourth largest number of unaccompanied homeless youth and the fifth largest number of homeless veterans; and WHEREAS, the Homeless Census & Survey found that 39% of homeless individuals within the County suffer from psychiatric or emotional conditions, 38% struggle with drug or alcohol abuse, 30% have a physical disability, 25% suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 22% have chronic health problems, and 63% have been homeless for one year or more; and WHEREAS, according to research published in the New England Journal ofM~icine, the average life expectancy for individuals experiencing homelessness is 25 years less than those in stable, housing; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Home Not Found study revealed that, of the 511 homeless people within the study's survey popUlation who died betw~en 2007 ,and 2012,54% of them died outside of a hospital or other institutional setting, which means that they died "quite possibly on the street;" and ' WHEREAS, the Home Not Found st\,ldy also demonstrated that the cost ofprovid~~g services t9 homeless residents, including services in the health c'are and criminal justice systems, averaged $~20 million per year over the six-year study period, or $3.1 billion over the entire period; and WHEREAS, in addition to impacting the lives of homeless residents, homelesslless also poses challC{lg~s for residents and businesses located n~ar homeless encampments; and Resolution of the Housing Task Force Of the County of Santa Clara -,..... -,_. Page 1 of5 Revisod based on motion at '10/09/1 S Housing Task Force Mtg. WHEREAS, in August 2015, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the average monthly rent in Santa Clara County had reached $2,552, making it one of the most expensive rental markets in the nation; and WHEREAS, the 2014-2020 Regional Housing Needs Allocation identifies the need for 9,542 new Low Income units and 16,158 Very Low Income units within Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, Destination: Home's Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County relies upon the "Housing First" model, which "centers on providing people experiencing homelessness with housing as quickly as possible;" and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Funding Landscape & Best Practices white paper found that due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California and cuts to federal programs, affordable housing funding in Santa Clara County decreased from $126 million in 2008 to $47 million in 2013; and WHEREAS, the Homeless Census & Survey found that 93% of homeless people surveyed answered "Yes" when asked if they would want affordable permanent housing, were it available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING TASK FORCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: 1. The problem of homelessness in Santa Clara County constitutes a crisis. It imposes unacceptable costs, both in terms of public resources and human suffering, and requires an urgent response from public officials across Santa Clara County. 2. The solution to the problem of homeless ness is to provide homeless individuals with pennanent affordable housing or supportive housing. Construction of an adequate supply of affordable housing will require the creation of new local funding sources. These funding efforts will be most successful if implemented consistently across all of the County's fifteen cities. 3. In the interest of promoting a consistent approach to affordable housing funding in Santa Clara County, the Housing Task Force recommends that all cities in the County (and other jurisdictions, where applicable) conduct their own analysis ofthe following measures for funding affordable housing, and fonnally consider whether to adopt them: a. Inclusionary Zoning -Inclusionary zoning requires that developers include a percentage of below market rate units for low to moderate income households in new market-rate, for-sale residential developments. b. Affordable Housing Impact Fees -Impact fees are charged to developers to mitigate the projected impacts of new market-rate developments on the need for affordable housing. The first step for jurisdictions considering an impact fee is Resolution of the Housing Task Force Ofthe County of Santa Clara Page 2 of5 Revised based on motion at 10/09/15 Housing Task Force Mtg. often to conduct a nexus study to quantify thc impact of new development on housing need. There are two types of impact fees: 1. Residential Impad Fees are assessed on new rental or for-sale housing development. ii. Commercial Linkage Fees are assessed on new commercial or industrial development. c. Ballot Initiatives -Local jurisdictions have the ability to place tax measures on the ballot for voter approval. As jurisdictions consider whether to place tax measures on the ballot for the 2016 election cycle, they should consider including funding for affordable housing within their measures. d. Surplus Land -The County, Cities, and other jurisdictions have the ability to prioritize surplus land owned by the jurisdiction for affordable housing development, thereby facilitating affordability by reducing or eliminating land costs. e. Zoning Actions -Cities can take various zoning actions to encourage production of both deed-restricted affordable housing and "naturally" affordable housing, including: i. Adoption of a second unit ordinance that enables homeowners to build secondary residential structures on existing lots. ii. Allowing the construction of micro-units of200-400 square feet that are relatively more affordable than other market rate units. 111. Protecting naturally affordable existing housing, such as mobile home parks. Cities can govern the conversion of mobile home parks tlu'ough policy, ordinance, or their general plans. In the event parks do convert, cities can adopt replacement housing provisions that would require that displaced inhabitants be fairly compensated, that replacement housing be made available to displaced residents and that an affordable housing component be required as part of the development plan for the converted site. iv. Incentivizing affordable housing by offering zoning benefits, such as increased density or height or decreased parking requirements, to make the production of affordable housing more economically viable. f. Boomerang Funds -Boomerang funds are former Redevelopment Agency funds that return to the County, cities and other local jurisdictions. Cities should consider whether to commit 20% of their ongoing boomerang funds to affordable Resolution of the Housing Task Force Of the County of Santa Clara Page 3 of5 Revised based on motion at 10109/15 Housing Task Force Mtg. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6477) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 1/11/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Homelessness Activities Title: Addressing Homelessness in Support of a Healthy and Safe Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation This report is provided for City Council information only at this time, and provides an overview of current City activities related to homelessness and upcoming Council agenda items on the topic. Executive Summary The beginning of winter provides a tangible reminder of the ongoing needs of the unhoused members of our society. This report provides a summary of existing winter shelter programs. At the same time, recognizing that homelessness is a year-round issue, this report also discusses ongoing programs and options for additional resource allocation. Within the next two months, Council will have the opportunity to discuss several related issues: • HSRAP funding allocation • Countywide Plan to End Homelessness • Cities Association request to support a resolution from the County’s Housing Services Task Force, and to join the “All the Way Home Campaign.” This report provides background information that should be helpful to the Council in considering these items. Staff anticipates bringing back to Council a broader discussion on the City’s role and available resources to assist in homelessness issues in the months ahead. Discussion The Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing takes the lead on cold weather shelters in the County1. 1 More information can be found at the county webpage https://www.sccgov.org/sites/oah/Pages/Office-of- Affordable-Housing.aspx. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In North County, a shelter at the former Onizuka Air Force Station in Sunnyvale is expected currently to provide 100-125 additional beds through March 31st. Beds at the Shelter will be on a referral only basis by North County Homeless Services Agencies, meaning that an individual has a bed for a three month period. However if someone does not arrive by 7pm, their spot will be given away that night for a walk in. This facility provides a 100-person capacity and increases to 125 during inclement weather, defined as: • A forecasted overnight low of 38 degrees or lower with a probability of rain less than 50%; or • A forecasted overnight low of 42 degrees or lower with a probability of rain of 50% or greater. The County of Santa Clara is providing financial support to agencies to increase their capacity for additional cold weather spots for the same period as the main shelter. These beds will also be on a referral basis, and locally include Hotel de Zink – Palo Alto Rotating Church Shelter operated by Inn Vision Shelter Network – increase of 5 spots beds or 20 in total, and Project WeHope – East Palo Alto - increase of 20 spots beds. Warming centers are also available throughout the county. In Palo Alto, the Opportunity Center serves as a “warming center station” for Palo Alto during regular hours of operation of Monday-Friday, 8am – 4pm. See attached for full program information on the North County Cold Weather Shelter Program. The City was recently asked by County staff if we could open the Cubberley Community Center as a shelter during periods of inclement weather this winter. In light of incompatibility with other uses at Cubberley and the surrounding neighborhood, City staff responded that we would not recommend City Council approval. Current and Recent Year-Round Efforts Recognizing that our long-term societal goal is to minimize the causes and effects of homelessness, the City of Palo Alto as with other communities worldwide has employed various strategies to address this vexing problem. At this time, there are estimates of 100-400 unhoused individuals in Palo Alto, representing a significant increase over prior years. The 2015 bi-annual Santa Clara County Homeless Point in Time (PIT) Count taken in February 2015 lists Palo Alto’s homeless count as 219 (prior counts are: 2011 – 151, 2013 – 157.) Some of this increase is believed by some to have resulted from closure of the Sunnyvale armory and “the Jungle” encampment in San Jose just before the PIT count was taken. Causes and effects of homelessness are varied and debated. Clearly this can be a public health issue, impacting individuals and the community with physical and mental health dimensions. In some cases, public safety concerns are also present. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The City currently supports several organizations that provide direct services to homeless individuals. Resources currently deployed includes roughly $600,000 per year, primarily to the Downtown Streets Team, with smaller amount contributions to Momentum for Mental Health, InnVision Shelter Network and Peninsula HealthCare Connections. Through a separate collaboration with the County, Peninsula HealthCare Connections – New Directions, the City’s support is also providing one case manager and related expenses ($125,000/year for two years) through June 2016. At this point, 810 people have been housed, with 7 more currently in the housing search process aidded by the case manager. In addition, Avenidas and City staff are in discussions about increasing services to senior homeless individuals. The City has recently experienced an increase in senior homeless persons who often spend time in Cogswell Plaza. The City has requested that Avenidas consider, as part of its partnership with the City, additional provision of services to the homeless. Avenidas has agreed to discuss. Staff believes that overall these services are productive and working for a majority of affected individuals. However, these services are not effective for individuals with severe substance abuse and/or mental health issues. Further, there are a small number of individuals (estimated by PAPD at less than 20) who generate a large number of the quality of life and property crime problems in the downtown area. To address this latter segment, the Police Department’s 54-person Special Enforcement Detail is tasked with ongoing enforcement. This has resulted in issuance of 500 citations and execution of approximately 150 bench warrants over the past year. The City Attorney’s Office is responsible for prosecuting violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Over the past year, the Office has taken a more hands on role in this area, replacing outside counsel with a staff attorney, who is typically in court at least once a week on these issues. Enforcement approaches have been frustrating for all involved, with limited ability to compel compliance, given that jails are full and early release routine and an expensive bench warrant system for individuals that fail to appear. Downtown businesses have similarly expressed frustration with the City’s limited ability to effectively address conduct (Code violations) that they see as a threat to business. While the criminal justice system is a necessary component of a multi-faceted approach to address community health and safety, it is limited in its ability to address fundamental issues that contribute to quality of life challenges downtown and throughout the community. Further Addressing Both Ends of the Spectrum of Needs Clearly this is a complex and regional issue, one for which the City has considered and pursued numerous strategies over time. On a County wide basis, key resolutions have been forwarded for consideration of City support on addressing homelessness. City of Palo Alto Page 4 1) County Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County – 2015-2020 – Lead Agency – Destination Home - a public-private partnership. Through a Collective Impact Approach, the Plan was created as a community-wide roadmap to end homelessness for the next five years, and is proposed to guide government, nonprofits and other community members as they make decisions about funding, programs, priorities and needs (Tentative Council Date 1-25-16) Santa Clara County Housing Task Force Recommendations In November, the Santa Clara County Cities Association received an update from the SCC Housing Task Force (HTF) and a request from Cities Association President/HTF Member Jason Baker to support a Resolution declaring homelessness a crisis and a call to action on the implementation of affordable housing funding strategies as an effort to prevent homelessness and ensure coordinated efforts countywide. It also received a request for cities to join the Santa Clara County and City of San Jose “All the Way Home Campaign” - matching homeless veterans with housing units. A fact sheet is attached with more information. Other specific strategies have been suggested, such as pay-for-success grant funding models and motel vouchers for families with minors, as well as operational practices such as the availability of public restrooms and other facilities. Next Steps In all likelihood, undertaking a meaningfully greater role will require some additional program management resources within the City. Given the range of strategies involved, the City’s current decentralized services in related areas could thereby be better coordinated and focused on gaps between services. This would accompany direct services, such as case managers dedicated to specific segments of the population. Staff is currently formulating options and recommendations on how to respond, and expect to be looking at some near term (mid-year or FY 17 Budget) proposals to support our efforts. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: Homeless Veterans Fact Sheet (PDF) 1 Source: Santa Clara County Point-In -Time Census and Survey Comprehensive Report 2015, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Documents/SantaClaraCounty_HomelessReport_2015_FINAL.pdf Homeless Veterans in Santa Clara County There are currently 703 homeless veterans in Santa Clara County, 683 are single and 20 are living in families. Females comprise 13% of single homeless veterans and 65% of homeless veterans in families. 314 veterans are considered chronically homeless, which is 46% of the homeless veteran population. Only 37% of homeless veterans are sheltered, with 63% unsheltered. 71% of homeless veterans were living in this county when they most recently became homeless. Additionally, 8% were in a hospital or treatment facility just prior to becoming homeless and 23% are experiencing homelessness for the first time. Many U.S. veterans experience conditions that place them at increased risk for homelessness, including higher rates of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault and physical disability. Veterans experiencing homelessness are more likely to live on the street than in shelters and often remain on the street for extended periods of time. 1 About the Campaign The “All the Way Home” campaign is targeted at ending veteran homelessness. The City of San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and Destination: Home are collaborating to address this community crisis. It is inspired by First Lady Michelle Obama’s 2015 Mayors Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness, in partnership with the Veteran’s Administration and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The campaign will work with landlords and apartment owners to increase access to rental units for homeless veterans and their families. Outreach will also be made to corporations and faith based groups to aid with land acquisition, housing development, access to rental units, financial assistance and services. Funding Committed to End Veteran Homelessness The City of San Jose will be committing up to $6 million for new housing opportunities that could serve more than 100 veterans. Recently, the Board of Supervisors authorized an additional $1.5 million a year in housing and services for homeless veterans. The Housing Authority annually has up to $7.445 million available through Veterans Affairs (federally supported) Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers. The Need Santa Clara County has one of the most expensive rental markets in the nation. With vacancy rates at an all time low, we need our community partners to work with us to match veterans with housing units, ensuring that we are able to bring them All The Way Home. The Housing Authority estimates that $3.835 million of our VASH funding eligibility of $7.445 million (51.5%) will not be spent due to the inability of our veterans to be able to rent an apartment. The Campaign is actively seeking partner landlords who will rent vacant units to homeless veterans. In exchange, the veteran’s rent will be subsidized through the federal or local government. Contact information If you are interested in being involved in the “All the Way Home” campaign to end veteran homelessness or have questions about the campaign, please contact colleen@destinationhomescc.org. FACT SHEET: HOMELESS VETERANS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Homeless Veterans 37% 63% 0 20 40 60 80 Sheltered Veterans Unsheltered Veterans 0 50 100 59% Psychiatric or Emotional 53% Physical Disability 44% PTSD 53% Chronic Health Issues 18% Traumatic Brain Injury Health Conditions Among Homeless Veterans Homeless Veterans Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley New Study on Homelessness in Santa Clara County Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley takes an unprecedented in-depth look at the cost of homelessness in Santa Clara County—and points to myriad possibilities that can move us towards ending homelessness and save the community money. It is the largest and most comprehensive body of information that has been assembled in the United States to analyze the public costs of homelessness, combining diverse data streams to analyze the population that experienced homelessness in Santa Clara County between 2007 and 2012. It includes demographic and medical attributes, justice system history, health and human services provided, and the cost of services. This data shows the realities of the true cost to public and safety net systems of homelessness in Silicon Valley. Home Not Found was sponsored by Destination: Home and underwritten by the County of Santa Clara, and was authored by Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit, public benefit corporation conducting applied economic, social and environmental research that contributes to the sustainability of individuals and communities. Why a Study? Home Not Found identifies the characteristics of the most vulnerable, distressed and costly homeless residents of Santa Clara County to guide strategies for stabilizing their lives, improving their wellbeing and reducing public costs for their care. Homelessness is marked by the absence of connections that are crucial for well-being, including connections to shelter, family, and health. These deficits are more severe and indelible among individuals experiencing persistent homelessness, for whom homelessness has become a way of life. Individuals experiencing persistent homelessness, who have recurring health and justice system crises that bring them into hospitals and jails at high public cost, are the focus of this study. The Cost of Homelessness to the community in Santa Clara County More than $3 billion worth of services went to homeless residents in the six years covered by this study. This cost our community $520 million per year. ●$1.9 billion over six years for medical diagnoses and the associated health care services—the largest component of homeless residents’ overall public costs ●$786 million over six years associated with justice system involvement—the second largest component of the overall cost of homelessness. The Cost Savings of Housing 104,206 individuals experienced homelessness in Santa Clara County over the study’s six-year period. The community has a significant opportunity to spend money more efficiently to better serve the population and provide long-term solutions to the homeless population. Home Not Found offers critical data: ●The top 5 percent of the homeless population accounts for 47 percent of all public costs. Within this population, 2,800 individuals are categorized as “persistently homeless” and have an average public cost of $83,000 per year. By prioritizing housing opportunities for these 2,800 persistently homeless individuals, it is possible to obtain savings that greatly exceed the cost of housing. ●As demonstrated through our work with Housing 1000 (a Housing First program), tenth decile users cost on average $62,473 while homeless. The average post-housing cost is estimated at $19,767, resulting in annual cost reduction of $42,706 for those who remained housed. The Homeless Population of Santa Clara County ●Many People Experience Short Term Homelessness: Many individuals are able to find housing after only short episodes of homelessness. Out of the entire population that experienced homelessness between 2007 and 2012, about 20 percent of the population was homeless for only one month. Another 32 percent were homeless for two to six months. This shows that for half of the population, homelessness is not a long-term way of life. ●Higher Rates of Persistent Homelessness Among Females in Santa Clara County: Of the overall homeless population, 17 percent of females versus 14 percent of males were recorded as persistently homeless in an average month, much higher than national estimates. It is a trend that should be examined further and have programs developed for this segment of the homeless population. …And Solutions Exist Through the efforts of public and private agencies, and homeless service providers, strategies like prevention, rapid re-housing and supportive housing have been proven to work. Now armed with the data of Home Not Found, these strategies can be deployed with even greater efficacy: ●Invest in Homeless Prevention: By investing in prevention, the community can funnel resources to keep people housed and prevent them from falling into chronic homelessness, which is costly and difficult to escape. Prevention programs ensure that a family does not become homeless for failing to make a rent payment, that young adults do not exit foster care without a home, and that every veteran transitioning out of the military has a place to return to. ●Expand Local Rapid Re-Housing Programs: When our community engaged in the federal Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program, a national average of 93% of participating families remained housed after the program ended. By investing in short-term shallow housing subsidies, resiliency will increase, and resources can be diverted to those who are in crisis and require a deeper investment. ●Build Permanent Supportive Housing and Create New Housing: Individuals who suffer the most require the deepest levels of support. For disabled and long term homeless men and women, stable housing is the foundation of recovery. Without increasing overall public costs, the community can increase the supply of housing and create new housing opportunities to alleviate this worst kind of suffering. COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2015-2020 COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 2 ABOUT THIS PLAN This plan exists to create a community-wide roadmap to ending homelessness for the next five years. This plan will guide governmental actors, nonprofits, and other community members as they make decisions about funding, programs, priorities, and needs. This plan was created in April-August 2014 after and through a series of community summits related to specific homeless populations and homeless issues in Santa Clara County, including summits related to: An implementation body will use this plan as a guide to create an annual community action plan that will provide the “how” to this plan’s “what.” In 2014, the annual action plan has been heavily informed by the information provided by community members at the summits. Youth Families Veterans North County South County Environmental advocates Discharging institutions (health care, mental health, corrections) Nonprofit board members Disruptive thinking about housing WHAT WE WANT WHO WE ARE A community in which all residents have access to appropriate and affordable housing and the support they need to retain it. We can end homelessness. WE KNOW HOW. ENDHOMELESSNESS LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS ORGANIZATIONS ENVIRONMENTALADVOCATESCI T I Z E N S DESTINATION: HOME PUBLIC TRANSIT HE A L T H C A R E PR O V I D E R S BENEFITS CASE WORKERS J O B TR A I N I N G HOUSING DEVELOPERS L O C A L E L E C T E D O F F I C I A L S FAITH BASEDLOCAL CITIES EDUCATION EMPLOYERS VA HO U S I N G & S E R V I C E PR O V I D E R S LA N D L O R D S COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 3 OUR VISION:No one lives outside. It can happen to anyone: a job loss; a medical condition; missing a rent payment; falling behind and finding that you have nothing to fall back on. There are many ways someone can become homeless and only one way to really solve it. Homelessness doesn’t end when we clear out an encampment or when we hand out blankets. Homelessness ends when everyone has a home. In our community, a public-private partnership has been formed and already started removing traditional institutional barriers, creating new ways to provide accessible and affordable housing and defying convention in finding homes for many people, but there is still more to be done. It is time for our successes to be brought to scale. Silicon Valley doesn’t give up when there’s a challenge. We solve it. Over the last decade, Santa Clara County has gradually organized around a community-wide effort to address homelessness. In 2003, the City of San Jose completed a Homeless Strategy designed to eliminate chronic homelessness by focusing on prevention, rapid rehousing, wraparound services and proactive efforts. That led to Santa Clara County’s 2005 Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, and the 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission culminating in the establishment of Destination: Home as the public-private partnership vehicle to implement these strategies, resulting in a 2011 campaign geared towards ending chronic homelessness. Time and results have taught us that of the strategies laid out in 2003, access to housing is what works. We can end homelessness. We know how. Move people into homes and align the support services they need to be successful and the cycle of homelessness stops. Over the last two years, our coordinated effort proved that a Housing First model works in Santa Clara County. It demonstrated what national experts have known for years: it’s cheaper to permanently house someone than to continually care for them while they live on the street. Lasting inter-agency partnerships have been forged and a new table of local leadership emerged to tackle our toughest barriers. With the momentum of this short term campaign, a singular question presented itself, “How many people should we leave on the streets?” The immediate and definitive answer our leaders delivered was, “None.” Ten years of progress has brought Santa Clara County to this point in time. We have new collaborative cross sector partnerships. We have a track record of success with a new housing system. We have new tools to engage both public and private sector funders. The public is demanding a real solution to homelessness and we are dedicated to delivering one. It’s time to reimagine homes and rebuild lives. We can end homelessness. This is how we start. The Destination: Home Leadership Board: Chris Block Jan Bernstein Chargin Louis Chicoine Leslye Corsiglia Frederick J. Ferrer Shannon Giovacchini Eleanor Clement Glass Beau Goldie Gary Graves Katherine Harasz John A. Sobrato Ben Spero Ted Wang COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 4 HOW CHANGE WILL HAPPEN: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness. Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household. 1 2 3DISRUPT SYSTEMS BUILD THE SOLUTION SERVE THE PERSON Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people. OUR TARGETS: CHRONICALLY HOMELESS: 2,518 VETERANS: CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES: >2,333Will Be Housed Will Be Housed Will Be Housed One represents 100 people In the 2013 Santa Clara County Point In Time (PIT) count, there were 2518 chronically homeless people, not including veterans. In the 2013 PIT count, 1,266 unaccompanied youth under the age of 25 were identified, of which 164 (13%) were under 18. Also, there were 1,067 homeless individuals living in 349 families with at least one child under 18. In the 2013 PIT count, 718 veterans were homeless. 718 COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 5 SERVE THE PERSON WHAT WE ARE DOING HOW WE WILL DO IT 2015 2020 TRANSFORM THE WAY GOVERNMENT RESPONDS TO HOMELESSNESS Rethink how government organizes to respond to homelessness Independent, siloed responses from each government system, each focused on one piece of the puzzle (e.g., health care, income) Regionally coordinated resources and funding with all systems accountable for moving people into housing Ensure people leaving systems do not become homeless Some homeless people leave systems (corrections, hospitals, mental health, foster care) without a next step in place At discharge, all individuals have a plan for permanent housing and none are discharged to the streets Increase access to benefits for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness In 2013, 35% of homeless people received no government benefits Homeless and at-risk individuals access all income and service benefits for which they are eligible DISRUPT SYSTEMS INCLUDE THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE COMMUNITY IN THE SOLUTION Increase awareness People in the privatesector and communityoften see homelessness as an intractable and remote problem Community members will understand their role in responding to homelessness and know it is solvable Increase and align private resources Overall, private funding is unpredictable and working towards diverse goals There is a coordinated funding strategy across the community, increasing funding, working towards the same goals, and relying on best practices Provide opportunitiesfor the business sector to address homelessness Businesses, oftenunintentionally, create barriers to ending homelessness Businesses are partners in housing and employing people who are homeless Collaborate with community organizations Some community groups target their resources to short-term responses Informed community groups partner with other sectors to support efforts that end homelessness Engage with the environmental community to reduce the environmental impacts ofhomelessness Unsheltered homelessness negatively impacts the environment and waterways and reduces the value of acommunity resource This community has restored the environment, providing employment/ housing opportunities for those formerly living in encampments ACT FAST. STOP MANAGING AND START ENDING HOMELESSNESS. 1 COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 6 RentIncreases Job Loss DISRUPT SYSTEMS WHAT WE ARE DOING HOW WE WILL DO IT 2015 2020 THE BEST HOMELESS SYSTEM OF CARE Coordinate housing and services to connect each individual with the right housing solution Homeless people may call many providers and sit on several waiting lists before they get housed and many families become homeless when it could be avoided People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness get connected directly to the right resource for them Respond to systembarriers and service gaps by making the best use of existing assets There are many homeless programs and responses in this community, but no great way of knowing what works best, with lots of people still living outside Community-wide, outcome-based decisions about the best programs and structures to meet community needs are made and implemented Partner across public and private sectors to improve systemic coordination The private and public sectors operate independently, resulting in a patchwork of funding, priorities, and outcomes Private sector and public sector funding is mutually supportive, creating a system of care that’s internally consistent Increase provider capacity Homeless providers want to end homelessness, but may not have the resources to do that All homeless providers have sufficient resources to successfully implement programs that end homelessness 1 Managing Homelessness Ending Homelessn ess * Housing First centers on providing people experiencing homelessness with housing as quickly as possible – and then providing services needed to maintain their housing. This approach has the benefit of being consistent with what most people experiencing homelessness want and seek help to achieve. * COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 7 Ending Homelessn ess UNIQUE APPROACHES TO UNIQUE POPULATIONS BUILD THE SOLUTION SCALE THE RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEED. WHAT WE ARE DOING HOW WE WILL DO IT 2015 2020 CREATE NEW HOMES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMELESS MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN Create 6,000 housingopportunities There are approximately 6,000 people in our three target populations who do not have homes People who are homeless have 6,000 more housing opportunities available to them Fund supportive services for the new housing opportunities People who are homeless, even if they have housing, often cannot maintain it without case management, health care, and financial services Each of the 6,000 newtenants has access to the services that will allow him or her to maintain housing 2 Affordable Homes Permanent Supportive Housing Converted Motels TinyHouses COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 8 SERVE THE PERSON GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED, NOT WHAT WE HAVE. MORE EFFECTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT, MORE HUMANE. WHAT WE ARE DOING HOW WE WILL DO IT 2015 2020 DIFFERENT RESPONSES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NEED Provide permanentsupportive housing toend chronic homelessness Many disabled peoplewho have lived outside,sometimes for years, need housing that responds to their conditions Chronically homeless people can access permanent supportive housing with intensive case management and wrap-around services Expand rapid rehousing resources to respond to episodic homeleness Some people in our community experience repeated bouts of homelessness and are not able to stabilize with the resources available to them Households with barriers to housing can access a temporary housing subsidy and step down services that are structured to end homelessness for that household for good Prevent homelessnessbefore it happens There are not enoughresources available to help people avoid homelessness, or avoid homelessness again Households at risk of homelessness have access to homeless prevention resources: housing stability services, emergency rental assistance, financial literacy, & landlord/tenant assistance and employment assistance and employment support services: child care, transportation, job training & placement 3 Source: Applied Survey Research. (2013). Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey. Watsonville, CA. For more detail or to view the comprehensive report, please visit www.appliedsurveyresearch.org. 51%14% 12%17% 4% Mental illness* Substance abuse Chronic physical illness Physical disability Developmental disability * Mental illness includes PTSD, depression, and other mental illnesses including bipolar and schizophrenia. Note: Multiple response question, numbers will not total to 100%. UNIQUE CHALLENGES of 2013survey respondentsreported a uniquechallenge. 64% COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 9 WHAT WE ARE DOING HOW WE WILL DO IT 2015 2020 UNIQUE APPROACHES FOR UNIQUE POPULATIONS Create bridges and supports for populations who struggle to function within the homeless system of care Certain populations have specific barriers to accessing the resources available to them to end their homelessness: • Veterans• Persons living with HIV/AIDS• Persons with serious mental ilness • People with diabilities Resources support all homeless subpopulations to access housing and make best use of their specific benefits, employment, housing opportunities, and access to food and healthcare Structure housing and services to meet the needs of young people experiencing homelessness Youth, children, and families are failed by several systems of care when they become homeless, and young people are underserved by a homeless system designed to meet adult needs Systems of care work together to support housing and services that meet the needs of families, children, and youth, including robust prevention programs Make resources available in all parts of the County North & South County do not have many housing options, nor adequate access to county services, and transportation is limited Housing and services are available to people living in North & South County, in their communities SERVE THE PERSON3 Source: Applied Survey Research. (2013). Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey. Watsonville, CA. For more detail or to view the comprehensive report, please visit www.appliedsurveyresearch.org. EmploymentAssistanceRent/MortgageAssistance 42%34% Mental HealthServices Alcohol/DrugCounseling 24%21% WHAT MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED RESPONDENTS’ HOMELESSNESS OBSTACLES TO SECURINGPERMANENT HOUSING No housing availability 18% Bad credit 21% No money for moving costs 30% No job/ income 54% COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 10 THANK YOU! Each summit was attended by a variety of stakeholders that donated their time to ensure that this plan includes input from the full community. PLANNING PARTNERS INCLUDED: Abode Services ACT for Mental Health Audubon Society Bill Wilson Center California Water Boards Office of SupervisorDave Cortese California Youth Connection Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County City of Gilroy City of Milpitas City of Morgan Hill City of San Jose City of Sunnyvale The Commonwealth Club Community Solutions Community Technology Alliance Community Working Group The David & Lucille Packard Foundation Destination: Home Downtown Streets Team Family Supportive Housing, Inc. Gilroy Compassion Center Goodwill of Silicon Valley Office of Assemblyman Rich Gordon Greenbelt Alliance The Health Trust HomeAid Northern California HomeFirst Hospital Council of Northern California Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Housing Trust Silicon Valley InnVision Shelter Network Kaiser Permanente Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Purissima Hills Water District Restore Coyote Creek St. Joseph’s Family Center St. Mary Parish Gilroy San Jose State University Santa Clara Adult Education Santa Clara County Office of Reentry Services Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Santa Clara Valley Water District Office of Supervisor Joe Simitian The County of Santa Clara Second Harvest Food Bank Silicon Valley Children’s Fund Silicon Valley Community Foundation Silicon Valley Community Partnership Sobrato Philanthropies South County Collaborative Stanford Hospital Sunnyvale Community Services Swords to Plowshares United Way Silicon Valley Valley Homeless Healthcare Program Veterans Administration, Palo Alto Healthcare System Water and Power Law Group PC West Valley Community Services COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS 11 Taking this plan forward, THE 2014 IMPLEMENTATION GROUP INCLUDES: Alison Brunner, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Beth Leary, Family Supportive Housing Chris Elias, Santa Clara Valley Water District Eileen Richardson, Downtown Streets Team and Community Technology Alliance Elise Cutini, Silicon Valley Children’s Fund Ellen Clear, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Erin Gilbert, Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation Erin O’Brien, Community Solutions Frederick J. Ferrer, The Health Trust Javier Aguirre, Santa Clara County Office of Reentry Services Jeff Ruster, City of San Jose Work2Future Jennifer Loving, Destination: Home Jenny Niklaus, HomeFirst Julie Gantenbein, Water & Power Law Group PC Karae Lisle, InnVision Shelter Network Kate Severin, Department of Veterans Affairs Katherine Harasz, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara Kevin Zwick, Housing Trust Silicon Valley Ky Le, County of Santa Clara Leslye Corsiglia, City of San Jose Louis Chicoine, Abode Services Michael Fallon, San Jose State Universtiy Michael Fox, Goodwill Industries Poncho Guevara, Sacred Heart Community Services Rick Williams, Sobrato Family Foundation Roberta Rosenthal, Department of Veterans Affairs Sara Doorley, Valley Healthcare for the Homeless Shiloh Ballard, Silicon Valley Leadership Group Sparky Harlan, Bill Wilson Center Our gratitude to each of you for your work and dedication to ending homelessness together. DESTINATIONHOMESCC.ORG COMMUNITY PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2015-2020 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE FOR 2015 1 Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (2015-2020) Annual Implementation Guide for 2015 The Annual Implementation Guide (referred to as “Guide” throughout this document) for 2015 of the Community Plan to End Homelessness (referred to as “Community Plan” throughout this document) in Santa Clara County (referred to as “County” throughout this document) was developed by the Implementation Workgroup in Fall of 2014 and was informed by summits that occurred in the Spring and Summer and a community Open House in September. In addition to the action steps for the first year, this guide includes follow up action steps that will be incorporated in future annual implementation guides. It is anticipated that the guide will be a living document that will continue to adjust during the year. Summary of Community Guide DISRUPT SYSTEMS 1.1 Transform the Way Government Responds to Homelessness A. Rethink how governments and public entities organize to respond to homelessness B. Ensure people leaving systems do not become homeless C. Increase access to benefits for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness 1.2 Include the Private Sector and the Community in the Solution D. Increase awareness E. Increase and align private resources F. Provide opportunities for the business sector to address homelessness G. Collaborate with community organizations H. Engage with the environmental community to reduce the environmental impacts of homelessness 1.3 Create the Best Homeless System of Care I. Coordinate housing and services to connect each individual with the right housing solution J. Respond to system barriers and service gaps by making the best use of existing assets K. Partner across public and private sectors to improve systemic coordination L. Increase provider capacity BUILD THE SOLUTION 2 Create New Homes and Opportunities to House Homeless Men, Women, and Children M. Create 6,000 Housing Opportunities Fund supportive services for the new housing opportunities SERVE THE PERSON 3.1 Different Responses for Different Levels of Need N. Provide Permanent Supportive Housing to end chronic homelessness O. Expand rapid rehousing resources to respond to episodic homelessness P. Prevent homelessness before it happens 3.2 Unique Approaches for Unique Populations Q. Create bridges and supports for populations who struggle to function within the homeless system of care R. Structure housing and services to meet the needs of young people experiencing homelessness S. Make resources available in all parts of the County 2 Annual Implementation Guide # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES STRATEGY 1: DISRUPT SYSTEMS Government A Rethink How Government Organizes A1 JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION: Get agreement from local governments to coordinate funding for homeless services and housing and to implement a coordinated housing strategy • Each city and public entity creates housing opportunities as stated in guide • If needed, consider other organizational structures for coordinating strategy (e.g., Joint Powers Authority) County of Santa Clara • All 15 cities Public entities (Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC),SV Water District, Valley Transportation Authority) • The Community Plan is presented to and endorsed by all 15 cities and public entities • Housing production goals and a detailed housing creation plan are created (See related activity M1 below) A2 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION: Work to coordinate efforts and establish meaningful roles and responsibilities for County departments, city departments (e.g., police, rangers, parks), and departments within other public entities in ending and preventing homelessness • Expand and enhance inter-departmental and inter- governmental coordination of services • Consider the formation of an Inter-departmental Council to support other specific goals of the strategic plan and to increase accountability County Executive • Director, SSA • Director, DBHS • County Office of Supportive Housing • Director, Ambulatory Care Health Services • HACSC • Cities • Service intersections and overlap among governmental departments and public entities is understood, and gaps are identified • Progress is made on developing community-wide performance measures related to homelessness 3 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES A3 COUNTY OFFICE OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Establish the County’s role in housing and homelessness by creating an Office of Supportive Housing, defining its role in creating housing opportunities, and clarifying its role in responding to homelessness Year one work is expected to lead to identification of next steps (See also other guide activities lead by County Office of Supportive Housing or Collaborative Applicant) County of Santa Clara • A coherent and comprehensive set of policies are developed that support the development of Extremely Low Income (ELI) and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) An ongoing revenue source for ELI and special needs housing is identified A4 COST STUDY: Complete a cost study to understand the costs of homelessness on all county systems of care and use it to help analyze the long-term savings connected to meeting the targets of the Guide (See related activity I1 below) • Based on the cost study’s findings, evaluate how to reinvest and redistribute local resources County Office of Supportive Housing/ Destination: Home • County departments • City departments (e.g. policy, fire, housing) • Public Entities • An analysis of the long-term savings from Guide implementation is completed (anticipated completion date of May 2015) A5 SURPLUS LAND: Identify available government and public entity surplus land that could be used for temporary or permanent homes and begin conversations to use these properties for developments that serve homeless individuals and families • Continue to work with local governments and public entities to develop housing strategies for surplus land Destination: Home • County departments • City departments (e.g. planning, , housing, parks) • Public Entities • A list of all surplus lands appropriate for PSH and ELI housing is compiled • A strategy for how to obtain land that sites the maximum possible units is completed 4 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES B No One Discharged to Homelessness B1 DISCHARGE PLANNING: Analyze and understand discharge planning procedures in: • Jails and prisons • Foster care, and • Hospitals (mental health and general health) Work to implement streamlined and consistent discharge procedures at local hospitals • Improve and streamline discharge planning procedures in each system of care • From discharging locations, streamline access to life stabilization resources and immediate placement in housing through coordinated assessment Collaborative Applicant (County Office of Supportive Housing) • County departments • City departments (e.g. policy, police, housing) • Systems of care • Hospital Council • The scope of systemic discharges to homelessness from each system of care is researched and understood, including the number of people being discharged from systems, and the resources available to help them • Confirm that all systems have policies in place regarding discharge to homelessness, and confirm that all policies and procedures are followed by staff • Improved discharge procedures and plans are in place for local hospitals, with shared available resources C Increase Access to Benefits C1 No planned activities in year one at this time • Expand mobile integrated service teams that enable homeless persons to apply for benefits and receive a variety of services (health/behavioral health, drug and alcohol treatment, housing placement services) from one team • Consider uniform application for locally determined benefits To be determined • SSA No planned activities in year one at this time Private Sector/Community (1.2) D Increase Awareness D1 BRANDING CAMPAIGN: Conduct a branding campaign to help homelessness become more relatable to larger populations and explain how it is solvable • Allocate resources to support messaging adoption • Use branding as part of housing financing campaign Destination: Home • Universities and colleges • Community based organizations • Media • A branding campaign is launched and messaging is adopted by a wide variety of stakeholders 5 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES E Align Private Resources E1 PHILANTHROPIC PARTNERSHIPS: Commitment to campaign across private funders to align funder goals, expectations, allocation of resources, and performance measures with ongoing Community Plan implementation • Partner with governments, public entities and providers to create innovative housing/services • Create funding partnerships to achieve shared performance goals and encourage partnerships between philanthropies, governments and public entities TBD • SVCF • Local and National Foundations • Corporate Philanthropy • Silicon Valley Leadership Group • Complete evaluation of the feasibility of a funding partnership and a decision is made about its form and potential partners • Partnership body begins to work together toward shared outcomes F Opportunities for Business Sector F1 LANDLORDS: Collaborate with rental property owners in the County, both market-rate and affordable to: • Increase available housing options and • Respond to housing barriers (e.g., credit and criminal history) (See related activities I1 and M1 below.) Year one work is expected to lead to identification of next steps Housing Authority of County of Santa Clara • Landlords • Responsible Landlord Initiative • Downtown Streets Team • Community based organizations • Private units for all available rental subsidies are located (# to be added) • An outline of barriers to housing (see Coordinated Assessment I1 below) is developed, and strategies are created to respond G Collaborate with Community G1 APPLICATION: Develop and launch a mobile application to coordinate food donations in City of San Jose • Adopt technology solutions to connect community members and organizations that want to provide resources to agencies and people that need help City of San Jose • Silicon Valley Talent Partnership • Universities and Colleges (Matthew Bahls) • A food application is launched to connect people who wish to donate food with those who need food 6 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES H Engage Environmentalists H1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Engage partners and develop and use a model to reduce environmental damage caused by homeless encampments throughout the County and in all its cities Year one work is expected to lead to identification of next steps. Santa Clara Valley Water District • Environmental advocates • County • Cities • Public entities • Outreach efforts are expanded to train and educate homeless persons as environmental stewards • Identify resources to support stewardship • The model of clearing encampments used by the City of San Jose is expanded to two additional sites in the County 7 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES Best Homeless System of Care (1.3) I Connect to Right Housing Solution I1 COORDINATED ASSESSMENT: Implement a Coordinated Assessment system through which all individuals and households seeking housing or services in the homeless system of care are assessed, prioritized, and triaged for housing and services based on their needs using data- informed assessment tools • Expand System o Expand Coordinated Assessment system to include cross-system coordination (health care, mental health, benefits) o Ensure that mainstream systems of care collect and record housing status consistent with homeless management information system definitions and categories of homelessness to ensure consistent terminology • Analyze and Use System Data in Decision-Making o Reallocate housing resources and services to best respond to needs made apparent through Coordinated Assessment system data o Analyze impact of Triage Tool, and redistribute funds to support housing and services needed for such individuals o Identify and address barriers to temporary housing options systemically (pets, sober living, privacy, etc.) • Improve Use of Housing/Service Resources o Work to specifically target housing resources to the individual or family most in need of support that would succeed with that resources o Ensure basic needs of households are met (e.g. health care, food) o Develop step-down plan for people no longer in need of supportive housing (See related activity N1 below) Collaborative Applicant (County Office of Supportive Housing) • Housing providers • Shelter providers • Service providers • Public entities • Systems of care • Continuum of Care (CoC) Coordinated Assessment Committee • City of San Jose • Coordinated Assessment system is functioning countywide • Triage Tool (an output of the Cost Study that will indicate which individuals are likely to be most costly to the County) is implemented in housing placement decisions by coordinated assessment system • Coordinated Assessment system collects data which is analyzed to identify gaps in the system of care • Coordinated Assessment system is effective at reducing placement time and making more accurate, successful placements than current system 8 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES J Best Use of Existing Assets J1 PHYSICAL ASSETS: Review physical assets of existing homeless organizations to understand their usage and financial feasibility and possible repurposing Year one work is expected to lead to identification of next steps Destination: Home/ City of San Jose • County Office of Supportive Housing & Shelter Providers • Asset Study is complete and next steps are identified J2 FINANCAL ASSETS: Aligning with HUD expectations of a collaborative applicant, analyze how federal funds (including CoC, Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH), Supportive Services for Veteran Families(SSVF), Homeless Veteran Rehabilitation Program (HVRP), Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Labor (DOL) )are used locally and work with the County and cities, and other bodies distributing funds to ensure such funds are coordinated and targeted to areas of greatest need • Maintain annual activity of evaluating use and targeting of federal funds Collaborative Applicant (County Office of Supportive Housing) • CoC Board • City of San Jose • Financial resources are realigned and coordinated to ensure that they address the greatest needs and that allocation of funds is data driven 9 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES K Public Private Partnership K1 EMPLOYMENT: • Create and implement a countywide homelessness employment strategy to improve access to employment opportunities for homeless persons • Evaluate efficacy of Social Services Agency (SSA)/Work2Future employment pilot program Year one work is expected to lead to identification of next steps Silicon Valley Leadership Group • Work2Future • SSA • Goodwill • Downtown Streets Team • Silicon Valley Talent Partnership • Joint Venture • Downtown Association • Chambers of Commerce • Buildings and Construction Trades Council • South Bay Labor Council • NOVA • Employment study is completed and the results are evaluated for potential partnerships • Work2Future and SSA Pilot program is implemented to connect clients with employment L Increase provider capacity L1 PSH PROVIDER/DEVELOPERS: Increase the region’s capacity to develop new PSH (See related activity M1 below) • Develop pipeline of PSH County Office of Supportive Housing • Destination: Home • Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofit • Housing Trust • City of San Jose • CoC Training Workgroup • A scan of local nonprofit capacity to develop and manage PSH is completed • If needed, outreach to developers with PSH experience to build units or train and mentor existing entities 10 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES L2 DATA: Create a data driven culture among homeless housing and service providers • Improve efforts to share, integrate, and coordinate data throughout the community, including through improving the use of and reliability of Help Management Information System (HMIS) data for decision-making • Transfer the role of HMIS Lead for Continuum of Care activities to County Office of Supportive Housing to improve coordination of data • Replace HMIS software system with a system with more capacity respond to our community needs CoC Collaborative Applicant (County Office of Supportive Housing) • Providers • Public entities • Cities • County departments • Community Technology Alliance • Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofit • HMIS • Increased use of HMIS data for decision-making at program and system levels is demonstrated. • Community-wide performance measures will be identified and a system will be created to report progress • HMIS Lead will be the County Office of Supportive Housing • HMIS software will be replaced with improved system STRATEGY 2: BUILD THE SOLUTION M 6000 Units & Related Services M1 6000 UNITS: Create and begin to implement a campaign that creates 6,000 new housing opportunities for homeless people, including: • New development (encompassing extremely low income units) • Existing units • Use of rental subsidies • Permanent supportive housing • Rapid rehousing • Innovative housing options, such as tiny houses, and • Services to support housing retention as needed in all units • Focus on development of PSH/Housing First (See related activity N1 below.) • Set annual targets for allocation of Housing Choice Vouchers to create housing opportunities • Create housing opportunities suitable to men and women with 290 sex offender status, by identifying potential locations and scale of housing need (See also Strategy 3.2) Destination: Home • Cities • County • Public entities • County Office of Supportive Housing • Housing Authority • Funding partnerships • A housing financing and development plan to create 6,000 housing opportunities is completed and implementation begins 11 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES M2 FUNDING: Assess, identify and plan for options to create a funding stream for the development of affordable and supportive housing • Lead a campaign to create new funding mechanisms, including a potential housing bond, parcel tax, and sales tax measure • Investigate and access non-traditional funding sources and new sources of funding, like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) • Develop and implement an advocacy strategy to bring resources to the County to address housing need (e.g., 1115 to access ACA funding for services) • Implement creative efforts to use funding differently • Create collaborations with the environmental advocacy community that respond to shared goals Destination: Home • County of Santa Clara City of San Jose • Funding partnerships • Public partners • San Jose State University • The feasibility study of the housing implementation plan is completed • The silent phase of the campaign is launched STRATEGY 3: SERVE THE PERSON Different levels of need (3.1) N PSH for CH N1 HOUSING 1000: Institutionalize and expand the Housing 1000 strategy of direct access to permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless households • Develop opportunities for meaningful daytime activity for chronically homeless households • Build ability and desire of housing first tenants to move to other, less service intensive housing County Office of Supportive Housing • The County Office of Supportive Housing assumes oversight of the coordinated assessment system and the Care Coordination Project, centralizing the access point for chronically homeless households O RRH for Episodic O1 CALWORKS: Implement the CalWORKS rapid rehousing program Year one work is expected to lead to identification of next steps. Social Services Agency • Emergency Assistance Network • Resources to implement the rapid rehousing model are identified 12 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES P Prevention P1 PREVENTION: Build countywide prevention model and system of care, focusing on outcomes and best methods to deploy prevention resources. • Build partnerships with the County Office of Education, Social Services, etc. in order to identify resources for homeless families and increase efforts relating to homeless students • Improve access to homelessness prevention resources in schools, daycare, CalWORKS, etc. • Increase capacity of the Emergency Assistance Network (EAN )to prevent homelessness • Review EAN system to determine administrative improvements and ways to understand funding necessary to increase ability to prevent homelessness County Office of Supportive Housing • Emergency Assistance Network • County Department of Education • City of San Jose • Schools • Family and youth providers • Bill Wilson Center • McKinney-Vento Education Liaison for the County • Identification of increased resources for a locally-funded Homelessness Prevention and Rapid ReHousing (HPRP) program model. Unique populations (3.2) Q Populations that need extra help Q1 VETERANS: Participate in activities related to the federal challenge to end veteran homelessness completely by 2020 • Focus on other high needs populations, e.g. seriously mentally ill people • Consider tailoring services for veteran age cohorts as needs may be different for younger veterans than older ones Veterans Affairs • City of San Jose • HACSC • County Office of Supportive Housing • Housing providers • VA • SSVF & HUD VASH providers • HomeFirst • Increase housing and supportive services opportunities for veterans to match Veterans Affairs goals • Local Veterans Affairs goals and metrics, as well as information from agaps analysis, is used to make decisions and impact results 13 # YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES RELATED & FUTURE WORK POTENTIAL YEAR ONE LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL YEAR ONE OUTCOMES Q2 FOOD ACCESS: Conduct food assessment to understand food landscape and develop action plan to address unmet needs •Ensure homeless individuals and families have access to food The Health Trust •Food banks •Social service agencies •Farmers (understanding of food availability) •Second Harvest •Grocery stores •A Food Access Study is completed, providing an understanding of county-wide food access and distribution and delineation of strategies to address limitations R Young People R1 RRH FOR TAY: Provide housing opportunities for Transition Aged Youth (TAY), including analyzing current housing opportunities and funding and evaluating a rapid rehousing program for TAY •Fund scholarships for homeless youth County Office of Supportive Housing •Educational organizations •Bill Wilson Center •Unity Care •Star •An analysis of what is currently working and what is not working for TAY youth is completed, including improvement recommendations S All Parts of County S1 SOUTH/NORTH COUNTY: In implementing each of the above year one activities, focus on making and reporting on progress in all areas of the County •Increase access to services and benefits for residents of North and South County by making electronic interviews possible (e.g., Skype) and by expanding availability of the UPLIFT Transit Pass program (See related activity C1 above) County Office of Supportive Housing/ Destination: Home •Emergency Assistance Network •Social Security Administration •Demonstrated progress in responding to homelessness in all areas of County Implementation Guide Coordinator: CoC Board and Collaborative Applicant RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING TASK FORCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FINDING THAT THE PROBLEM OF HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONSTITUTES A CRISIS AND URGING JURISDICTIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER POLICY OPTIONS FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING THE HOMELESS WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, at the recommendation of Supervisor Dave Cortese, created the Housing. Task Force for the purpose of identifYing ,solutions to the immediate housing needs of homeless families and individuals across Santa Clara County; and ' WHEREAS, the 2015 Santa Clara County Point~In-Time Homeless Census & Survey found that there are 6,556 homeless persons living within the County, and that 63% of them have been homeless for one year or more; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report found that, among the 48 Major City COiltinuurns of Care in the United States, Santa Clara County has the third largest number of chroniC{ll.ly homeless persons, the fourth largest number of homeless individuals, thq fourth largest number of unaccompanied homeless youth and the fifth largest number of homeless veterans; and WHEREAS, the Homeless Census & Survey found that 39% of homeless individuals within the County suffer from psychiatric or emotional conditions, 38% struggle with drug or alcohol abuse, 30% have a physical disability, 25% suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 22% have chronic health problems, and 63% have been homeless for one year or more; and WHEREAS, according to research published in the New England Journal ofM~icine, the average life expectancy for individuals experiencing homelessness is 25 years less than those in stable, housing; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Home Not Found study revealed that, of the 511 homeless people within the study's survey popUlation who died betw~en 2007 ,and 2012,54% of them died outside of a hospital or other institutional setting, which means that they died "quite possibly on the street;" and ' WHEREAS, the Home Not Found st\,ldy also demonstrated that the cost ofprovid~~g services t9 homeless residents, including services in the health c'are and criminal justice systems, averaged $~20 million per year over the six-year study period, or $3.1 billion over the entire period; and WHEREAS, in addition to impacting the lives of homeless residents, homelesslless also poses challC{lg~s for residents and businesses located n~ar homeless encampments; and Resolution of the Housing Task Force Of the County of Santa Clara -,..... -,_. Page 1 of5 Revisod based on motion at '10/09/1 S Housing Task Force Mtg. WHEREAS, in August 2015, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the average monthly rent in Santa Clara County had reached $2,552, making it one of the most expensive rental markets in the nation; and WHEREAS, the 2014-2020 Regional Housing Needs Allocation identifies the need for 9,542 new Low Income units and 16,158 Very Low Income units within Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, Destination: Home's Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County relies upon the "Housing First" model, which "centers on providing people experiencing homelessness with housing as quickly as possible;" and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Funding Landscape & Best Practices white paper found that due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California and cuts to federal programs, affordable housing funding in Santa Clara County decreased from $126 million in 2008 to $47 million in 2013; and WHEREAS, the Homeless Census & Survey found that 93% of homeless people surveyed answered "Yes" when asked if they would want affordable permanent housing, were it available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING TASK FORCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: 1. The problem of homelessness in Santa Clara County constitutes a crisis. It imposes unacceptable costs, both in terms of public resources and human suffering, and requires an urgent response from public officials across Santa Clara County. 2. The solution to the problem of homeless ness is to provide homeless individuals with pennanent affordable housing or supportive housing. Construction of an adequate supply of affordable housing will require the creation of new local funding sources. These funding efforts will be most successful if implemented consistently across all of the County's fifteen cities. 3. In the interest of promoting a consistent approach to affordable housing funding in Santa Clara County, the Housing Task Force recommends that all cities in the County (and other jurisdictions, where applicable) conduct their own analysis ofthe following measures for funding affordable housing, and fonnally consider whether to adopt them: a. Inclusionary Zoning -Inclusionary zoning requires that developers include a percentage of below market rate units for low to moderate income households in new market-rate, for-sale residential developments. b. Affordable Housing Impact Fees -Impact fees are charged to developers to mitigate the projected impacts of new market-rate developments on the need for affordable housing. The first step for jurisdictions considering an impact fee is Resolution of the Housing Task Force Ofthe County of Santa Clara Page 2 of5 Revised based on motion at 10/09/15 Housing Task Force Mtg. often to conduct a nexus study to quantify thc impact of new development on housing need. There are two types of impact fees: 1. Residential Impad Fees are assessed on new rental or for-sale housing development. ii. Commercial Linkage Fees are assessed on new commercial or industrial development. c. Ballot Initiatives -Local jurisdictions have the ability to place tax measures on the ballot for voter approval. As jurisdictions consider whether to place tax measures on the ballot for the 2016 election cycle, they should consider including funding for affordable housing within their measures. d. Surplus Land -The County, Cities, and other jurisdictions have the ability to prioritize surplus land owned by the jurisdiction for affordable housing development, thereby facilitating affordability by reducing or eliminating land costs. e. Zoning Actions -Cities can take various zoning actions to encourage production of both deed-restricted affordable housing and "naturally" affordable housing, including: i. Adoption of a second unit ordinance that enables homeowners to build secondary residential structures on existing lots. ii. Allowing the construction of micro-units of200-400 square feet that are relatively more affordable than other market rate units. 111. Protecting naturally affordable existing housing, such as mobile home parks. Cities can govern the conversion of mobile home parks tlu'ough policy, ordinance, or their general plans. In the event parks do convert, cities can adopt replacement housing provisions that would require that displaced inhabitants be fairly compensated, that replacement housing be made available to displaced residents and that an affordable housing component be required as part of the development plan for the converted site. iv. Incentivizing affordable housing by offering zoning benefits, such as increased density or height or decreased parking requirements, to make the production of affordable housing more economically viable. f. Boomerang Funds -Boomerang funds are former Redevelopment Agency funds that return to the County, cities and other local jurisdictions. Cities should consider whether to commit 20% of their ongoing boomerang funds to affordable Resolution of the Housing Task Force Of the County of Santa Clara Page 3 of5 Revised based on motion at 10109/15 Housing Task Force Mtg. Counfy of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive county Government center, East wing 70 West Hedding Streel San Jose, California 951 I o (4Oa) 299-5105 April 19,2016 Mr. James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 943OL SUBJECT: North County Reintegration Project Funding Dear Mr. Keene: In June 2014, the County of San.ta Ciara and the City of Palo Alto entered into an agreement to end homelessness for 20 of Palo Alto's most vulnerable homeless residents through the provision of supportive housing. Under this agreement, the City of Palo Alto provided $125,000 annually for two years to fund case management. The County agreed to fund all of costs related to housing. The agreement for the "North County Reintegration Project" will expire on June 30,2016. Our partnership laid the foundation for a broader program. At no cost to the City of Palo Alto, the County doubled the project's capacity to 40 at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2016. As of March 3I,2016, the County's service provider is actively working with 25 homeless persons, ten of whom are housed. The goal is to reach program capacity by the fall of 2016, The project is part of a broader county-wide network of permanent supportive housing. This network helped to house three additional persons from the City of Palo Alto. The individuals are housed and are participating in a project-based program in Sunnyvale. Board of Superyisors: Mike wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph SimitianCounty Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Ë2ffi Letter to City Manager, Mr. James Keene RE: North County Reintegration Project Funding April19,2016 Page2 of2 The County would like to continue our partnership by extending the agreement and the City's annual funding commitment for an additional two years. If you have any questions, please contact Ky Le, Director, Office of Supportive Housing at 408-793-055 1 or Kv.Le@hhs.sccqov.ors. Sincerely, Gary Graves Chief Operating Officer Cc: Ky Le, Director, Office of Supportive Housing, County of Santa Clara Minka van der Zwaag, Manager, Office of Human Services, City of Palo Alto 1. Recommendation for One-Time Additional Allocation in the Amount of $250,000 Over Two Years in Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection with Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services Senior Program Manager, reported on August 13, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee discussed additional expenditures for homeless services. The Committee discussed approaches to address homeless issues Citywide with special consideration of resolving issues at Cubberley Community Center. At the Policy and Services Committee meeting, Staff presented two alternatives for a multi- agency and service provider partnership. The first option was the concept of a homeless outreach team utilizing a cross-functional group of providers to move homeless people into housing. The second option was a funding match for housing subsidies provided by the County of Santa Clara (County) to support intensive case management. Service providers commented that an outreach team was only one approach to addressing homelessness, and was meant to open a multi-agency dialog on homelessness. A local organization offered to convene a newly formed Homeless Services Task Force to bring forth other ideas to the Council. The Policy and Services Committee recommended that the full Council consider an investment in the creation of a multi-agency homeless outreach program not to exceed $250,000, and requested Staff return with a specific plan to address the issue. Staff worked with the Homeless Services Task Force and the County to present a recommendation for the Council's consideration. The County would provide housing funds to assist individuals who had contact with the criminal justice system, had a high chance of recidivism, significantly impacted County, State or local resources and were currently homeless or at ATTACHMENT H COUNCIL EXCERPT FINAL MINUTES Monday, October 7, 2013 risk of becoming homeless. These factors were required by the County's funding source for housing subsidies. Local service providers informed Staff that the guidelines would not be a barrier to assist many of their clients. The County subsidies could be utilized for permanent support of housing or long-term transitional housing. With permanent support, an individual would receive an ongoing rental subsidy, and an intensive case manager would assist the individual to obtain services to remain housed. Long-term transitional housing most often ended after a two-year period and was targeted to individuals who needed assistance in leaving the streets. With the assistance of a housing subsidy and an intensive case manager, it was hoped individuals would transfer from the subsidy to a non-subsidized unit. Staff expected to provide assistance to 20 individuals. The County budgeted $518,000 for subsidies and administration costs over the next 24 months. An intensive case manager would work with an individual to ensure the client's needs were met in a variety of contexts. The County would require the City to utilize a case management agency that was part or would agree to be part of the Care Coordination Project of the Housing 1000 Campaign. The Care Coordination Project was developed to ensure the effectiveness of services for the homeless population by coordinating and monitoring intensive case management services. The Care Coordination Project required case management agencies establish data collection and performance standards and required weekly meetings of all case managers. The Project allowed the City to access security deposits, move-in assistance, flexible housing funds and potentially other housing resources for chronically homeless clients. InnVision Shelter Network, Downtown Streets Team and Momentum for Mental Health were designated as part of the Care Coordination Project. Staff recommended the City enter into an agreement with the County's Mental Health Department to release the Request for Proposal (RFP) and provide oversight of the intensive case management agencies. The City would retain the ability to create and oversee the referral process. The City and the County would oversee the project. Experts indicated that access to housing was the most important aspect of solving homelessness. The $250,000 one-time investment would leverage County funds to support and house 20 individuals. Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team, indicated the closing of Cubberley facilities and the impending vehicle habitation ban created a short-term crisis. Case managers would work on successful housing retention strategies so that clients would remain in housing. The Homeless Services Task Force planned to continue to develop a long-term plan for the rest of the homeless and low-income individuals in the community. Cybele appreciated the Homeless Services Task Force's efforts. She supported Mr. Richardson's request for additional time to create long-term strategies. Norman Carroll received housing through County homeless programs and helped others receive housing. Homeless programs needed to be implemented properly. The proposed funding amount was insufficient. Edie Keating questioned actions that would be taken at the end of two years. The proposal would not house the entire homeless population in Palo Alto. Stephanie Munoz agreed with Ms. Keating's comments. The City's planning was inadequate in that it did not consider housing for workers. Another issue for the homeless population was mental illness. Council Member Price indicated one highlight of the homeless discussion was the opportunity to learn about homelessness. Clearly a comprehensive approach was needed. Collaboration and communication would be critical to achieving meaningful outcomes. Partnerships in seeking funds was also important. With respect to the Care Coordination Project, the City would be pushing the onus toward the County in terms of coordinating an RFP for services. She inquired about periodic updates to the Council regarding interim outcomes and performance measures. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated City Staff would be involved in choosing the agencies to provide services and including specific items related to Palo Alto in the RFP. The RFP could contain reporting structures to Staff and the Council. The City's oversight of service providers should not be an issue. Ky Le, Director of Homeless Systems for the County of Santa Clara, explained that the Care Coordination Project identified several outcome measures, primarily related to retention of housing, days to housing, and connection to supplemental security and to health services. Those metrics could be incorporated into the RFP and reported to City Staff. Council Member Price asked if the process would consider outside peer review of RFPs. Mr. Le envisioned that the panel would include himself, City Staff, and perhaps other community experts. Council Member Price suggested the panel include experts from outside the county to provide fresh insight. Mr. Le indicated the County could attempt to accommodate that request from the Council. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Price to approve a one-time City allocation of $250,000 to be disbursed over two years for support of its homeless outreach and placement plan and that the Fiscal Year 2014 allocation in the amount of $125,000 is authorized to be paid from the City Council Contingency due to the urgency of providing this service. The homeless outreach and placement plan will be comprised of intensive case management in connection with housing subsidies for the homeless to be provided by the County of Santa Clara (County). Further, the City Council directs staff to bring forward a Budget Amendment Ordinance in November to increase the City Council Contingency in the amount of $125,000 with a corresponding decrease of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and include funding of the Fiscal Year 2015 allocation in the amount of $125,000 in the FY 2015 Proposed Budget. Council Member Kniss felt County involvement was important. Inherent within the Motion was working with the County to provide housing subsidies. The funding source for the allocation would be the Council Contingency Fund. The program would be different from previous efforts and would involve many groups. Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Kniss' comments. The collaboration component was critical and could not be accomplished by the City alone. The Council was making a commitment for two years, and future debate would include the issue of sustainable funding. Council Member Schmid believed this was a follow-up discussion to the Vehicle Habitation Ordinance and closure of community centers. He supported spending $250,000 for the model of outreach teams. His calculations indicated $1,250 would be available to each individual for a monthly rent voucher. However, low-income housing was in short supply in Palo Alto. He asked where individuals would find low-income housing. The proposed program would not be a solution to the homeless problem, and the Council could not determine a solution without working with the County. Perhaps the Council should direct the Homeless Services Task Force to examine County programs to determine reasons for the lack of shelters. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to remove the words “one-time,” changing the Motion to read “…to approve a City allocation of $250,000…” Council Member Kniss was comfortable with the allocation being one time, because the Council agreed it would be a pilot program. Council Member Schmid believed removing "one-time" would indicate the Council's good faith efforts to resolve the homeless issue. Council Member Holman supported removing "one-time" because it provided no harm, and the message was more open and clear. She did not want to send the message that the Council would only provide an allocation of $250,000. Council Member Burt felt the Council's intentions were to allocate $250,000 over two years at the present time, and in the future the Council would determine an ongoing commitment. He preferred to remove "one-time." Council Member Klein noted "one-time" was included in the recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee. By removing it, the Council was indicating that the program would continue. Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Klein. The Council wanted to see the results of the program before considering additional funding. Including "one-time" placed pressure on stakeholders to consider other funding models. AMENDMENT TO MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Burt, Holman, Schmid yes, Scharff Absent Council Member Holman inquired whether the Homeless Services Task Force would continue its efforts. Ms. Van Der Zwaag replied yes. Council Member Holman asked why the Sunnyvale Armory was closing. Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported a long-term housing project would be implemented at the site. Mr. Le noted that the Cold Weather Shelter Program would operate in 2013. Two affordable housing projects would be developed on the site of the Sunnyvale Armory. Council Member Holman inquired about the number of housing units that would be developed at the site. Mr. Le indicated both projects would provide 118-120 units. The Sunnyvale Armory's current capacity was 125 beds. Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated a group was attempting to find other locations for the shelter program. Council Member Holman requested an update regarding the possibility of expanding the Hotel de Zink Program. She suggested the Homeless Services Task Force report twice a year to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to inform the Council and the public and to monitor the homeless program. Ms. Van Der Zwaag agreed that the Homeless Services Task Force could report to the HRC; however, the Homeless Services Task Force would not oversee the homeless program. Council Member Holman intended for Staff to report on services being provided through the homeless program. Ms. Van Der Zwaag would provide the recommendation to the Homeless Services Task Force. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to delete “Further, the City Council directs staff to bring forward a Budget Amendment Ordinance in November to increase the City Council Contingency in the amount of $125,000 with a corresponding decrease of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and include funding of the Fiscal Year 2015 allocation in the amount of $125,000 in the FY 2015 Proposed Budget.” Vice Mayor Shepherd felt use of the Council Contingency Fund was appropriate. Council Member Kniss indicated use of Council Contingency Funds provided a good message. Council Member Klein explained that the Council Contingency Fund was used to fund an initiative that was not included in the Budget. The homeless program fit that category. He was unsure whether Council Member Kniss included the language in the Motion. Council Member Kniss did not include it. Council Member Price seconded the Motion as written. Council Member Klein believed Staff's suggestion was consistent and appropriate with the budgetary scheme; however, he did not understand why it was included in the Motion. Unused monies in the Council Contingency Fund reverted to the reserves. Council Member Holman understood Council Member Klein to say the language should not have been included in Staff's recommendation, and asked if he agreed with the Amendment to delete the language. Council Member Klein responded yes, but for different reasons. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Council Member Berman felt this was a good short-term program. It was important for the Council to monitor the program to determine its success. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent City of Palo Alto (ID # 6812) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2016 Summer Aquatics Swim Lesson Contract Title: Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Team Sheeper LLC, for the Learn to Swim Program for Summer 2016 at an Amount Not to Exceed $236,500, and Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to approve a contract with Team Sheeper LLC for operation of the Summer 2016 Learn to Swim Program in an amount not to exceed $236,500 (including a $15,000 contingency for supplemental services if needed) (Attachment A). Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto (City) offers a year-round Aquatics Program that includes adult lap swim, a youth competitive swim team and an adult competitive Masters Swim team. During the summer months, the City also offers a Learn-to-Swim program as well as family recreation swim. The City has experienced difficulty hiring and retaining qualified aquatics staff to meet the needs of the community, especially during summer months when more aquatics programs are offered. In Summer 2015, an emergency third-party agreement was required to avoid potential pool closures and the cancellation of swim classes due to the City’s difficulty in staffing the Aquatics Program. Based on the number of new registrations that are currently being received for the upcoming summer swim classes, it is projected that staffing will again fall far short of the City’s needs. In an effort to ensure the aquatic needs of the community are met, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for interested parties to provide aquatic programming for the City. Staff is recommending Council approve a short-term limited contract with Team Sheeper LLC to manage the Learn-to-Swim program for the Summer of 2016 season (Attachment A). This short term contract will ensure that the City is able to provide the community with high quality and reliable swim lessons during the summer months. The third-party service provider is able to more effectively meet staffing demands by specializing in aquatics operations throughout the City of Palo Alto Page 2 region, applying extensive resources in recruiting, and by drawing on a larger workforce that can be deployed across multiple pool sites. Background During the summer season, which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the City of Palo Alto Aquatics Program offers a variety of activities for the community including family recreation swim, adult lap swim, youth swim lessons for ages birth to 13 years, facility rentals for private pool parties, a youth competitive swim team (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and an adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters). Currently, the City has existing contracts to provide the Masters Swim Program and the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program (PASA), while City staff provides staffing for the year round Lap Swim Program, Learn-to-Swim Program and Summer Recreation Swim. The majority of the aquatics programs are held at the City-owned Rinconada pool with summer swim lessons also occurring at the JLS Middle School pool. Beginning in mid-September through mid-May, the only aquatics activities that are offered are adult lap swim, the youth competitive swim team (PASA), and the adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters). In the Summer of 2015, the City struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to meet community demand for the Lap Swim, Learn to Swim and Summer Recreation programs. This growing challenge that has existed for several years peaked in 2015 when the shortage of qualified staff was so great that more than 50% of swim classes were at risk of being canceled. In addition, summer recreation camps had to cancel the popular recreation swim day typically included in camp programs due to limited lifeguards. In order to meet the demand for the 2015 Summer swim lessons and the recreation swim program, the Community Services Department (CSD) had to enter into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate the staffing shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and approve a contract with Team Sheeper LLC, a professional third party aquatics service provider who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional swim instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs. As a result CSD narrowly met its commitments in 2015 to the parents who enrolled their children in swim lessons. Following the 2015 summer swim season, CSD staff conducted program evaluations of the summer lessons that Team Sheeper LLC had provided. Parents of participants were very pleased with the experience and felt their children’s progress and technique had improved over the course of the lessons. Discussion Currently CSD staff is managing the winter / spring aquatics Lap Swim Program and continues to face difficulties with pool staff shortages, which is also compromising the aquatics program limiting community access to Rinconada Pool. A CSD Community Services Manager, Recreation Coordinator along with Lucie Stern Community Center Customer Service Staff has been assisting with lifeguarding and cashiering to avoid pool closures. As we move into late spring and then the summer months, when demand for swim programs is at its peak, CSD is again City of Palo Alto Page 3 anticipating staff shortages and scheduling challenges. The Learn-to-Swim program will offer 398 swim lessons this summer (266 group lessons and 132 private lessons) to 1,220 participants. There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty hiring and retaining staff. The City offers mostly seasonal work opportunities and not year round part time employment. The majority of the pool staff are students and after summer they are no longer available to work. Those who live and go to school in the area often continue working at the pool but this represents a small number of the aquatics staff. In addition, the City’s fees for swim lessons and pool use have not kept pace with market pricing and have made it difficult to remain competitive in attracting staff needed to keep pace with demand for services. Request for Proposals In response to the staffing challenges in Summer of 2015, during the Fall of 2015 the Community Services Department recommended to the Finance Committee and the City Council that staff release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to explore options for the delivery of aquatic programs and services to meet the increasing service demands for the City of Palo Alto. The Finance Committee approved the recommendation and staff brought the item to Council on November 9, 2015 where it was unanimously approved (Attachment B). The Community Services Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in December 2015 for the following services: 1) Learn-to-Swim; 2) Youth Competitive Swim Team; 3) Adult Master Swim Team; and 4) aquatics facilities operation, including recreational swim, lap swim, and pool rentals. Firms were invited to submit a proposal for one or all of the above services and attend a pre-bid meeting. The City received two proposals. Both bids anticipated considerable increase in cost to deliver the Aquatics programs and services. After careful review of both proposals by a team of aquatic professionals, CSD staff began evaluating short and long term options for future program delivery with Team Sheeper LLC. Team Sheeper has the experience, staffing capacity and innovative programming to not only maintain the City’s aquatics program at its current level of service but also expand it, and add additional new programs if the City so desires. Reviewing the RFP proposals and evaluating the aquatics market has provided the opportunity to affirm that the City’s budget for Aquatics and the related fees for service are not sustainable. This raises an important policy question for the City regarding how best might the City provide aquatics programs and services for the community in the future. As the City continues to evaluate the long term options for managing the aquatics program, staff recommends the City enter into a short-term limited contract with Team Sheeper LLC to manage the Learn-to-Swim program for the summer of 2016 season (Attachment A). The contract will also allow Team Sheeper LLC to provide lifeguards for the recreation swim and lap swim programs to supplement City staff if the City is unable to hire sufficient staff to support these services. This short term contract will ensure that the needs of the community are City of Palo Alto Page 4 fulfilled during the summer months while staff continues to explore options for longer term service delivery. The short term agreement provides staff with the time needed to consider the implications of a more comprehensive agreement with Team Sheeper LLC to support the City’s aquatic program. Staff will consider the potential impacts on staffing, customer service, program and financial analysis and take the needed time to meet the City’s obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement with the SEIU before returning to Council for further discussion and potential recommendations. Timeline May 2, 2016 – Agreement for Summer 2016 Learn-to-Swim brought to Council May 14, 2016 – December 31, 2016 – Agreement with Team Sheeper LLC for Summer Learn-to-Swim group and private lessons September – October 2016 – Evaluation and recommendation on long term service delivery approach for all aquatic programming Resource Impact The cost to the City to utilize the professional services of Team Sheeper LLC for the 2016 Summer Learn-to-Swim is $221,500; the proposed agreement also includes a $15,000 contingency for additional supplemental aquatic services if needed, bringing the total not to exceed amount to $236,500. The Community Services Department budget can absorb the cost of the contract without impacting the General Fund due to realizing cost savings by not staffing the Learn-to-Swim program and by reallocating department salary savings in FY 2016. Unfortunately, the City will be unable to meet community demand for the 2016 Summer Learn- to-Swim program without the assistance of a third party at this time. Attempting to do so, as experience has shown in recent years, would result in the cancelling of many swim lessons due to the challenges of hiring and retaining sufficient staff. As discussed above, the plan for longer term service delivery and resource impacts for the Aquatics Program will be evaluated during the coming Spring and Summer. Staff will explore the costs, opportunities and challenges of continuing to offer in-house aquatics programs versus a more comprehensive agreement with Team Sheeper LLC to oversee the City’s aquatics program. Staff anticipates returning to Council in Fall 2016 with a recommendation. Policy Implications This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services. Environmental Review The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A - Contract 16908 with Team Sheeper (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment B - Nov 9 2015 Staff Report (PDF) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 20151 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16163983 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TEAM SHEEPER, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 9th day of May, 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TEAM SHEEPER, INC., a California corporation, located at 501 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025, telephone: (650) 328-7946 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A.CITY intends to provide its Summer 2016 Session Recreation Aquatics Program (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide certified swim instructors to teach private and group swim lessons to registered participants in the Palo Alto Recreation Aquatics Program for the City of Palo Alto offered at the Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Pool, 480 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 and Rinconada Pool, 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto,CA 94301 in connection with the Project (“Services”). B.CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C.CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 2 prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be Fifteen Dollars ($15) per participant per individual lesson for group lessons for up to 8,640 individual group lessons and Sixty Three Dollars ($63) per participant per individual lesson for each private lesson for up to 1,460 individual private lessons, not to exceed Two Hundred Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($221,500) during the period covering 06/13/16 through 08/11/16. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($236,500.00). The compensation for additional services will be at a rate of $20.00 per hour. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. At the conclusion of the season, CONSULTANT will invoice CITY for payment at the end of June, the end of August and end of December for any additional services. The CONSULTANT payment voucher will then be submitted to the fiscal section for payment at which point the CITYhas 30 working days from the last date of the payment voucher to render payment to CONSULTANT. Invoices must include CONSULTANT name, address, contract number, date of services, compensation amount. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 3 may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Carole Hayworth as the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project coordinator to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 4 replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Sharon Eva, Community Services Department, 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 463-4909. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 5 survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 6 written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 7 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: •All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unlessotherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printedby a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. •Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased inaccordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but notlimited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. •Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall providedocumentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 8 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 9 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney TEAM SHEEPER, INC. By:_________________________________ Name:_______________ Title:___ ________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Carole Hayworth EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Team Sheeper, Inc. Contractor agrees to provide certified swim instructors to teach private and group swim lessons to registered participants in the Palo Alto Recreation Aquatics Program for the City of Palo Alto offered at the Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Pool, 480 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 and Rinconada Pool, 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Scope of services agreement to commence on Monday, May 16, 2016 and expire on Friday, December 30, 2016. CONTRACTOR SHALL 1.Provide Quality Program a.Conduct the program in a safe manner. b.Provide a Certified Lifeguard on deck whenever program participants are in water. c.Not allow participants to be in the pool without a Certified Lifeguard present onthe pool deck and providing supervision.d.Swim Instructors and Certified Lifeguards are: i.Knowledgeable and experienced in the subject and age group being taught based on the specific training program for lifeguards and swim instructors followed by Team Sheeper, Inc.ii.Reliable and punctualiii.Start and end lessons on time iv.Expected to notify their Team Sheeper, Inc Staff supervisor prior to the work shift if running late or unable to attend. Contractor is responsible for finding a replacement or providing a make-up lesson.v.Organized and prepared to teach at the start of each lesson e.If a lesson is missed by the Contractor, a make-up lesson is required to be provided by Contractor during a time that is convenient for the participant i.Contractor is responsible for contacting participants to reschedule or make-up the lesson(s).f.At the end of each lesson the Contractor will i.Monitor and ensure participants are picked up by an authorized adult by signing the participant in and out using the City’s ActiveNet roster. ii.Keep facility neat by putting away all equipment from pool deck, empty trash cans, pick up trash from pool deck, remove and replace pool coverson appropriate reels after each use. g.Program Evaluations i.Contractor will coordinate with City staff to create a single evaluation to be distributed to participants. ii.The last week of lessons, evaluations will be distributed to participantsby City staff. Contractor will communicate with participants the importance of completing the evaluation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA 2.Provide excellent Customer Service a.Build rapport with customers by greeting all participants and parents and create a welcoming and professional atmosphere. b.Address customer and City staff questions and concerns within 24 hours andprovide follow-up if needed. 3.Maintain Quality Instructors a.Meet the City of Palo Alto background requirements for all employees b.Appear for lessons wearing appropriate attire that is clean, presentable and clearly identified as Team Sheeper, Inc staff.c.Swim instructors and Certified Lifeguards will not use cell phones during workshifts i.e., while on the pool deck and in front of customers,except in an emergency. d.Provide consistency with quality standards for all instructors 4.Manage administrative tasksa.Take attendance and confirm registration numbers with City staff b.If a participant is not on the roster, ask for receipt. If participant is not registered, contact City community center front desk staff to confirm registration. 5.Maintain Proactive and Consistent Communication with City staff a.Communicate problems and issues immediately with the City of Palo AltoAquatics Coordinator via phone, email or in person.b.Inform City staff of participant injuries and complete necessary accident reports within 24 hour. Accident forms can be obtained from center staff. c.Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls within 24 hours d.Establish and maintain working relationships with City staff and customers.City staff consists but is not limited to Community Center front desk staff, Aquatics Coordinator, Supervisors, and the Contracts Administration Team. 6.Submit Invoices for payments. Invoices will include: a.Contractor address,b.date,c.invoice number, d. “bill to” information, e.registration numbers, session dates and location, and f.total amount to be paid. 7. Adhere to Department’s Aquatics Manual Policies and Procedures a. Responsible for knowing the City’s policies and procedures with regard toprivate and group lessons (i.e. waiting lists, cancellation, refund, satisfaction, etc.) b.Instructors are responsible for verifying that only registered participants are permitted to participate in City’s swim lessons. c. Ensure only swim staff use the pool office. d. Observe and enforce all pool rules. CITY SHALL 1. Process all registrations for private and group lessons2. Provide clean and safe facility for scheduled lessons at JLS and Rinconada Pool3.Oversee program delivery which includes but is not limited to: a. Work with Team Sheeper, Inc. on private and group lessons offerings, cancellations, and customer inquiries/concerns DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA b. Provide support to Team Sheeper, Inc. Staff to ensure the success of the class c. Provide essential information to deliver program (rosters, attendance sheets, waiting lists, etc.) 4. Develop and maintain proactive and consistent communication and rapport with TeamSheeper, Inc. a. Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls b. Communicate and resolve issues and concerns immediately 5. Provide excellent customer service to Team Sheeper, Inc. Staff and customers DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE The parties agree that the instruction of swim lessons shall occur over the Summer 2016 session of the City's Aquatics Program. Below are the scheduled dates and times of each private and group swim session. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION A.NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professionalservices and reimbursable expenses, shall be Fifteen Dollars ($15) per participant per individual lesson for group lessons for up to 8,640 individual group lessons and Sixty Three Dollars ($63) per participant per individual lesson for each private lesson for up to 1,460 individual private lessons, not to exceed Two Hundred Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($221,500) during the period covering 06/13/16 through 08/11/16. In the eventAdditional Services are authorized by the City, the total compensation for additional services will be at a rate of $20 per hour and the total compensation for Additional Services is not to exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) during the period covering 5/14/2016 through 12/31/2016. B.ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Additional Services (lifeguards), if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not includedwithin the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. C.PAYMENT. At the conclusion of the season, Contractor will invoice the City for payment at the end of June, the end of August and end of December for any additional services. The Contractor payment voucher will then be submitted to the fiscal section for payment at whichpoint the City has 30 working days from the last date of the payment voucher to render payment to the Contractor. Invoices must include Contractor name, address, contract number, date of services, compensation amount. D.CANCELLED LESSONS. (Excluding weather-related cancellations, if applicable) In theevent that staff is late or misses a lesson, contractor is responsible for contacting participants to reschedule or make-up the lesson(s). E.FACILITY USE. If the Contractor uses the City’s facility for any purpose other than a mutually agreed upon and scheduled class under this agreement, then the Contractor pays all fees and charges as specified in the current Fees & Charges resolution. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Sub-total Basic Services $221,500.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $221,500.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $15,000.00 Maximum Total Compensation $236,500.00 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY -EACH PERSON -EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I.INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A.A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B.A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FORCONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C.DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONALINSUREDS” A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 B.CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C.NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASONOTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALLPROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THEEFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACTPRODUCERNAME: FAXPHONE(A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext): E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A : INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ADDL SUBRINSR POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITSPOLICY NUMBERLTR (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY)INSR WVD GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTEDCOMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ PRO-$POLICY LOCJECT COMBINED SINGLE LIMITAUTOMOBILE LIABILITY (Ea accident)$ BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS AUTOS NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $HIRED AUTOS (PER ACCIDENT)AUTOS $ UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $OCCUR EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ $DED RETENTION $ WC STATU- OTH-WORKERS COMPENSATION TORY LIMITS ERAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / NANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $N / AOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH)E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORDACORD 25 (2010/05) TEAMS-1 OP ID: EG 06/24/2015 Debbie UplandBPIA Business Professional Insurance Associates 1519 South B Street San Mateo, CA 94402 Debbie Upland 650-341-4484 650-341-4465 Scottsdale Ins. Co. Hartford Accident & Indemnity 22357Team Sheeper Inc. 501 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 3,000,000 A X X CPS2212695 05/11/2015 05/11/2016 100,000 X 5,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 X 1,000,000 B X X 51UECVF9958 05/11/2015 05/11/2016 The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District, its council members, officer, agents and employees are included as an Additional Insured in respects to the Insured's businessoperations. Additional Insured applies to the General Liability and Automobile policies only. Insurance is Primary and Non-Contributory. Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA Palo Alto Unified School District DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AD079A9-47EF-4BF9-8331-B8F9460B18DA City of Palo Alto (ID # 6296) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: From Finance: Aquatics RFP Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve the Release of a Request for Proposal to Explore Options for the Delivery of the Aquatics Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation The Finance Committee recommends that Council approve the Community Services Department recommendation to release a Request for Proposal to explore options for the delivery of the Aquatics Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto. Background In the summer 2015, the City of Palo Alto’s Aquatics program was severley understaffed and was in jeapordy of cancelling approximately 40% of the summer swim lessons. The Community Services Department enterered into an emergency contract with Team Sheeper, LLC to provide qualified, professional swim instructors and lifeguards at the JLS Middle School pool. The fall 2015 Aquatics program is underway and the program continues to experience staffing shortages and staff predict to have continuing staffing shortages in the winter 2015 season. The Community Services Department requests to explore alternative approaches to providing Aquatics services and programs to the community by releasing an Request For Proposal (RFP). This matter was discussed at the October 20, 2015 Finance Committee meeting. Discussion At the October 20, 2015 Finance Committee, staff presented the rationale for releasing an RFP to explore alternatives for the delivery of Aquatics Services. The Finance Committee unanimously approved the recommendation and the recommendation is now before Council for approval. For more details on the rationale to release an RFP for Aquatics services please see Attachment A - Finance Committee Report October 20, 2015. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 2 October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the RFP November, 2015 –RFP released March, 2016 – Potential Council action on the scope of aquatics services to be contracted out Resource Impact The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as described in recent Cost of Services Study, is below: Total Direct Expenses Total Indirect Expenses Total Full Costs Total Fee Revenue Total General Fund Subsidy Direct Cost % Recovery Full Cost % Recovery $623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57% The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below current cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will evaluate fees for that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being competitive in the marketplace. Policy Implications This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services Attachments: Finance Committee Staff Report (PDF) Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct the Community Services Department to release a Request for Proposal to explore options for the delivery of aquatic programs and services for the City of Palo Alto. Background During the summer season which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the City of Palo Alto Aquatics program offers a variety of activities for the community including family recreation swim, adult lap swim, youth swim lessons for ages birth to 13 years, facility rentals for private pool parties, a youth competitive swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and an adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters). Once the Palo Alto Unified School District begins their academic year typically in mid-August which we call “late summer,” the Aquatics program continues to offer the same activities excluding swim lessons. During this time, family recreation swim and facility rentals are only available on weekends since a majority of our staff are back in school and have limited work availability. The Aquatics off-season program runs from mid-September through mid-May, and includes limited activities offered daily such as adult lap swim, the youth competitive swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and the adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters). In years past, the Aquatics program has attempted to offer youth swim lessons during the fall and spring seasons but due to the difficulty hiring and retaining staff, youth lessons are only offered during the summer season. Discussion The Community Services Department (CSD) would like to explore contracting out additional aquatics services provided at Rinconada Pool, and potentially other satellite pools in the community that the City rents during the summer. Currently, the City has existing contracts to provide the Masters Swim Program and the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program PASA, while City staff provides the year round Lap Swim Program, Learn-to-Swim Program and Summer Recreation Swim. This past summer the City managed programs (Lap Swim, Learn-to-Swim and Summer Recreation Swim), struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to meet community demand. This has been a growing challenge for several years and this summer it reached its tipping point. In order to meet the demand for the 2015 summer swim lessons and the recreation swim program, CSD had to enter into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate the staffing shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and approve a contract with Team Sheeper LLC, a professional third party aquatics service provider, who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional swim instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs. As a result CSD narrowly met its commitments to the parents that enrolled their children in swim lessons in the spring. Currently CSD staff is managing the fall aquatics Lap Swim Program and we continue to face difficulties with pool staff shortages, which is also compromising the program and limiting community access to Rinconada Pool. There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty hiring and retaining staff. The pay rates for lifeguards and swim instructors are not as competitive compared to other employment opportunities for high school and college students. The City offers mostly seasonal work opportunities and not year round part time employment. The majority of the pool staff are students and after summer they are no longer available to work. Those that live and go to school in the area often continue working at the pool but this only represents a small number of the aquatics staff. Provision of aquatics services for cities in the region is delivered in a number of ways. For example the City of Menlo Park contracted out their entire Aquatics program to Team Sheeper, Inc. and it now operates in a private public partnership as Menlo Swim & Sport. While contracting out is gaining interest from cities most cities within the area operate their aquatics program in-house or through a hybrid model like the City of Palo Alto, whereby a portion of the program is contracted out, typically their swim teams or clubs, while swim lessons and recreation swim remain in-house. The City of Morgan Hill has a unique partnership with the YMCA to run their recreation programs. As partners, the City of Morgan Hill and YMCA partner to provide high quality health and fitness, youth, teen, family, and senior programs including aquatics for residents and the surrounding community to enjoy. Currently, the City of Palo Alto provides a hybrid program where the Aquatics program is predominantly run in- house with the exception of our Master’s and PASA program which is provided by contractors. To address the issue of ongoing challenges to hire and retain aquatics staff CSD is drafting a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aquatics services for summer 2016. If agreeable to the Finance Committee and City Manager’s Office, CSD will release the RFP in late October 2015, evaluate proposals in December/January and bring a recommendation to Council in early Spring 2016 for possible contracting out of additional aquatics services. Contractor(s) responding to the RFP would be able to submit proposals to manage the Learn-to-Swim program, the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program, Masters Swim Program, Lap Swim and Recreation Swim. Proposals would be accepted for one, some, or all of these services depending on the applicant’s area of expertise, capacity and interest. An internal meeting between Administrative Services (ASD), People Strategies and Operations (PSO) Departments and the City Manager’s Office was held on September 22 to discuss the CSD proposal to issue an RFP for aquatics services. Staff are in agreement with the approach outlined above, that would allow CSD to explore alternative options for the delivery of aquatics programs service through an RFP process. Recognizing that an RFP for aquatics services could impact an SEIU regular staff member, and several SEIU hourly staff, a Meet and Confer process is necessary. As such PSO intends to notify SEIU at their monthly regularly scheduled meeting on October 15 about the possibility of an RFP for aquatics services. Rinconada pool is a magnificent community asset. Exploring options for how we might better deliver aquatics programs and services to maximize community benefit is a prudent course of action in CSD’s view. By issuing an RFP to explore options the City may be able to improve the overall aquatics program with additional services and increased access to Rinconada pool for the Palo Alto community. Timeline October 15, 2015 – PSO meets with SEIU to notify them of the possible RFP October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the RFP November, 2015 – Pending Finance Committee and CMO direction, RFP released March, 2016 – Council action on the to be determined scope of aquatics services to be contracted out Resource Impact The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as decribed in recent Cost of Services Study, is below: Total Direct Expenses Total Indirect Expenses Total Full Costs Total Fee Revenue Total General Fund Subsidy Direct Cost % Recovery Full Cost % Recovery $623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57% The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below current cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will evaluate fees for that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being competitive in the marketplace. Policy Implications This proposal is aligned with Comprehesive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6904) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 Summary Title: Bike Blvd Concept Plans and Award of Contracts for Final Design Title: Approval of the Concept Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road (Continued from April 18, 2016); Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C16163533 With Alta Planning + Design, Inc. In The Amount of $824,542 for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects; and Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C16161534 With Fehr & Peers in the Amount of $544,509 for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: Adopt a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption and approve the attached concept plans for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects, directing staff to move forward with the Final Design phase for these four bicycle boulevards projects; Approve professional services contract C16163533 (Attachment H) with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. in the amount of $824,542 for a period of one year for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road bicycle boulevard projects; and Approve professional services contract C16161534 (Attachment J) with Fehr & Peers in the amount of $544,509 for a period of one year for the preparation of plans, City of Palo Alto Page 1 specifications and estimates for the previously-approved Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard projects. Executive Summary The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (·͋ι͋ΊΣ̯͕χ͋ι ͞΄Μ̯Σ͟) ̯͇Ϊζχ͇͋ ̼ϴ CΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ ΊΣ 2012 identifies a network of bicycle boulevards throughout the city. This network includes the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects. As currently proposed, these four projects will: Enhance the existing Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard from Palo Alto Avenue to East Meadow Drive, where it connects to the proposed Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard extension. This corridor provides a continuous bicycle route from Menlo Park to Mountain View. Construct the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard from Garland Drive, which is just north of Oregon Expressway, to Louis Road, where it will connect to the proposed Louis Road- Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. The Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard provides a second north-south on-street bikeway for Palo Alto residents. Construct the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 Overcrossing. A portion of this route was identified in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, but was expanded with additional funding from Google. This route connects the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 Overcrossing to the proposed Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard, providing a system of connections within Palo Alto and, once the overcrossing is complete, to the San Francisco Bay Trail and employment centers in the City of Mountain View. Construct the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Road. This route provides and east-west connection across Palo Alto and enhances the system by connecting to the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard. Α·Ίν ν͋χ Ϊ͕ ̼Ί̽ϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇ν ζιΪϭΊ͇͋ν ̯ νΊͽΣΊ͕Ί̯̽Σχ νχ͋ζ χΪ ̯͇ϭ̯Σ̽ΊΣͽ ΄̯ΜΪ !ΜχΪ͛ν ϭΊνΊΪΣ χΪ provide a system of neighborhood bicycle routes that provide continuous, low-stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to support healthy transportation. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as intersection modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as stop sign modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. The projects, as currently proposed, also incorporate many of the Safe Routes to Schools improvements recently identified by Staff. Funding currently exists for the Concept Plan Line and Environmental Assessment phases of these projects. The approved Concept Plan Line will serve as the basis for establishing a City of Palo Alto Page 2 contract for the Final Design Phase, helping to determine the level of effort for a contract to construct these routes. Detailed cost estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects will be developed as part of the Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of t·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan implementation. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. is the lead consultant for this project. In March 2014, Council awarded an 18-month contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard update, Greer Road bicycle boulevard, Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue bicycle boulevard, Ross Road bicycle boulevard, and Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue enhanced bikeway. The City Manager Report for the contract award is included as Attachment I. In December 2015, Amendment One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March 2016 at no costs to the city. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the term of the contract until March 2016 at no cost to the city. Significant work has occurred under this contract since March 2014, and City Council is considering the approval of the concept plans and environmental documentation for the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard update, Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard tonight. Due to challenges around community engagement, traffic circulation, and on-street parking, it is anticipated that concept plans and environmental documentation for the Greer Road bicycle boulevard and Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue enhanced bikeway will be brought to Council for approval in mid to late 2016. Given the positive results to date, staff is recommending the approval of one-year contract for $824,542 for preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo Avenue- Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. will build on their prior work along the corridors, which has included significant public outreach, topographic surveying, lighting and tree inventories and other data collection—and the City will avoid delay or disruption in the progress of these important capital improvement projects. Also in March 2014, Council awarded an 18-month contract to Fehr and Peers for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park neighborhood Class III bikeways, Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension, Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard, and Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. The Staff Report for the contract award is included as Attachment J. In December 2015, Amendment One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March 2016. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the term of the contract until March 2017 at no additional cost to the City. Significant work has occurred under the contract since March 2014, and Council approved concept plans for the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension, Maclane Street-Wilkie Way- City of Palo Alto Page 3 Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard, and Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard in 2015. Due to challenges around community engagement, traffic circulation, and on-street parking, the concept plans for Barron Park neighborhood Class III bikeways have been put on hold indefinitely. The current contract was extended to March 2017 in order to complete the preliminary environmental assessment for the bicycle boulevard projects and further refine the concept plan for the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue- Del Medio Avenue bicycle boulevard. Given the positive results to date, staff is recommending the approval of one-year contract for $544,509 for preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Fehr and Peers will build on their prior work along the corridors, which has included significant public outreach, topographic surveying, lighting and tree inventories and other data collection—and the City will avoid delay or disruption in the progress of these important capital improvement projects. Background Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Council in July 2012. The Plan includes a proposed bikeway network of off-street multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, and enhanced bikeway facilities. The plan has stated goals of increasing bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020 by providing improved facilities along the proposed bicycle network, which facilitates both north-south and east-west connectivity throughout Palo Alto. A copy of the Proposed Bikeway Network is provided in Attachment A. Implementation of the Plan started in 2013 with City Council authorization of up to $1.2M per year over five years as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). With this commitment of funds, 18 projects are currently being studied and designed for implementation. Since award of consultant contracts in April 2014, bicycle network implementation has focused primarily on bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways, although transportation staff has also been coordinating with Public Works and Community Services staff to deliver transportation projects through public works and parks contracts for street resurfacing and park improvements. Staff has also been working to implement data-driven spot improvements in response to customer requests, and seeks to ensure provide ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian network and incorporation of green infrastructure and storm water treatment where feasible. City staff recently provided City Council with an update on the bicycle and pedestrian program at a Study Session on October 26, 2015. Concept planning was initiated for these four corridors in 2014. Funding for concept plans was provided by both the City of Palo Alto and Google, Inc., which requested that the City consider bicycle boulevards in the southern part of Palo Alto where connections could be made to Mountain View. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Bicycle Boulevards Purpose and Benefits Α·͋ CΊχϴ ζΊΪΣ͋͋ι͇͋ χ·͋ ̽ι̯͋χΊΪΣ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ͕Ίινχ ̼͞Ί̽ϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇͟ – turning Bryant Street north of East Meadow Drive, a residential street, into a street that prioritized bicycle safety and circulation in 1982. The Comprehensive Plan defines a bicϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇ ̯ν ̯ ͞ΜΪϮ ϭΪΜϢ͋ through-street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. The removal of stop signs is especially important in Palo !ΜχΪ ͇Ϣ͋ χΪ χ·͋ Μ̯ιͽ͋ ΣϢ̼͋ι Ϊ͕ νχΪζ νΊͽΣν ΪΣ ΜΪ̯̽Μ ̯Σ͇ ̽ΪΜΜ͋̽χΪι νχι͋͋χν΅͟ Key characteristics that make bicycle boulevards attractive and safer for people who bicycle are: • Low traffic volumes • Low vehicle speeds • Discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic • Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible • Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets One important feature of bicycle boulevards that greatly improves cycling efficiency is reduction in the number of stop signs; this measure improves travel time and reduces fatigue. Reducing cyclist fatigue increases the feasible length of a trip by bicycle, and is especially important to people who are hauling trailers, carrying children, groceries, and so forth, thereby encouraging more trips by bicycle. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. - Planning and Preliminary Environmental Assessment Contract The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope included ten bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeway projects. On March 17, 2014, Council awarded an 18-month contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc. in the amount of $400,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard update (from Palo Alto Avenue to 100 feet north of East Meadow Drive); the Greer Road bicycle boulevard (from Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue bicycle boulevard (from Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Road); the Ross Road bicycle boulevard (from North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue enhanced bikeway (from Alma Street to Guinda Avenue). On December 28, 2015, Amendment One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March 8, 2016. The amended contract expired on March 8, 2016. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the term of the contract until March 2017 at no cost to the city. This extension was required to complete the planning, community outreach, conceptual design, and preliminary environmental assessment for the Greer Road bicycle boulevard and Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue enhanced bikeway. The existing contract outlines the process identified for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates in Task E of the scope of work: City of Palo Alto Page 5 E. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) Upon approval of the community-preferred concept plan line, CITY and CONSULTANT will begin negotiations for the next phase of the projects including Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award of additional contract will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY anticipates direct negotiations with the CONSULTANT for PS&E for the projects identified in this contract opening the successful completion of the Planning & Environmental phases discussed in this Agreement. City Council is considering the approval of the community-preferred Concept Plan Lines and environmental documentation for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road bicycle boulevard projects tonight. Staff has successfully negotiated a scoped of work and fee for the completion of plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road bicycle boulevard projects and recommended approval of the attached contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. Fehr and Peers - Planning and Preliminary Environmental Assessment Contract The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope included ten bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeway projects. On March 17, 2014, Council awarded an 18-month contract to Fehr and Peers in the amount of $450,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park neighborhood Class III bikeways, Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension (from East Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road), Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (from Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road), Park Boulevard bicycle boulevard (from Castilleja Avenue to West Charleston Road), and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard (from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard). On December 11, 2015, Amendment One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March 8, 2016. The amended contract expired on March 8, 2016. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the term of the contract until March 2017 at no additional cost to the City. This extension was required to complete the preliminary environmental assessment for the bicycle boulevard projects and further refine the concept plan for the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue bicycle boulevard. The existing contract outlines the process identified for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates in Task E of the scope of work: E. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) Upon approval of the community-preferred concept plan line, CITY and CONSULTANT will begin negotiations for the next phase of the projects including Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award of additional contract will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY City of Palo Alto Page 6 anticipates direct negotiations with the CONSULTANT for PS&E for the projects identified in this contract opening the successful completion of the Planning & Environmental phases discussed in this Agreement. City Council approved concept plans for the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension, Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue bicycle boulevard, Park Boulevard bicycle boulevard, and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard in 2015. Staff has successfully negotiated a scope of work and fee for the completion of Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects and recommends approval of the attached contract one year contract with Fehr and Peers. Discussion Approval of Concept Plan Lines is the first step in the design process for a project. A Concept Plan Line identifies the type and approximate location of improvements but excludes focused design details such as hardscape and landscape measures. The Concept Plan Line identifies the locations of civil improvements that influence the amount of review required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Development of a Concept Plan Line normally takes three to four community meetings to help shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Due to the challenges along the corridor, the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project was discussed at seven public meetings throughout 2014 and 2015. Focused traffic data collection is also included as part of the Concept Plan Line development and the results are shared with the community as part of the community outreach process. Following approval of the Concept Plan Line by the City Council, staff will utilize a civil design team to complete the environmental assessment and more detailed design. An implementation plan will be developed as part of the design phase. Community Outreach Community outreach and participation has been instrumental to concept plan development since the initiation of the bicycle boulevard projects. The development of the Concept Plan Lines included community meetings and other events that helped shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Specific meetings included (a) four community bike-̯ΜΪΣͽν ΊΣ !ζιΊΜ ̯Σ͇ ͱ̯ϴ 2014 (̼) ͕̯ι͋ιν͛ market outreach on California Avenue in April and May 2014, (c) four rounds of community meetings in May-June 2014, October-November-December 2014, April-May 2015, and March 2016 and (d) presentations to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) in September 2014, April 2015 and April 2016. The meetings were advertised through the mailing of notification cards to all property owners and residents within one block of the corridors, postings on the city website, e-mail notifications to the neighborhood leaders and bicycle boulevard program e-mail list, and posts to social media. Sample outreach materials and key comments received are enclosed as Attachment B. A public meeting was held on March 29, City of Palo Alto Page 7 2016 at the Ohlone Elementary School to review the final drafts of the Concept Plan Lines for these four corridors. Sixty-one citizens attended the meeting and provided written comments, which are summarized and scanned in Attachment G. This item was presented for review and comment to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee on April 12, 2016 and to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and comment on April 13, 2016. Below is summary of the results of each meeting. Also, based on the comments received from Planning and Transportation Commission and the general public, an enhanced summary of the on-street parking impacts of these proposed projects is attached for your review as Attachment L. Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee - April 12, 2016 • PABAC members made several comments regarding the projects including: STOP sign removal is worthwhile Roundabouts are appropriate, however some specific locations need more thought Standard green wayfinding signs are preferred over purple signs Curb extensions may force bicyclists to weave in and out of on-street parking lane Intersection design for Louis Road at East Charleston Road may not accommodate turns by large buses Planning and Transportation Commission - April 13, 2016 • Commission was unable to take action due to two conflicts along the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update corridor; two recusals would have resulted in a lack of quorum • Commission voted to review and comment on all of the projects except the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update without taking action • Commissioner Waldfogel voted against reviewing the item without the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update and instead recommended that the commission wait for a ruling from the Fair Political Practices Commission on whether the commission can hear all of the projects together as a network; he also expressed concern regarding the tight schedule for council approval of this item and decided not to participate in the review • Commission made several comments regarding the projects including: o The proposed on-street parking modifications need to be clarified and adjacent property owners should be notified o A summary of on-street parking impacts by block should be provided and the ͋χ·Ϊ͇ΪΜΪͽϴ Ϣν͇͋ χΪ ̯̽Μ̽ϢΜ̯χ͋ ͞χϴζΊ̯̽Μ ̯ϭ̯ΊΜ̯̼ΊΜΊχϴ͟ ν·ΪϢΜ͇ ̼͋ ΊΣ̽ΜϢ͇͇͋ o Future public notices for the final design meetings should include notice of proposed on-street parking removal o The arguments against these projects based oΣ ͞Ϣι̼̯Σ ̼ΜΊͽ·χ͟ ̯Σ͇ ̯͋νχ·͋χΊ̽ν ̯ι͋ not convincing o The projects should always focus on safety over aesthetics o Α·͋ ζιΪΖ͋̽χν͛ ι͋Μ̯χΊΪΣν·Ίζ χΪ χ·͋ ·͋νΊ͇͋ΣχΊ̯Μ ΄ι͕͋͋ι͋ΣχΊ̯Μ ΄̯ιΙΊΣͽ ζιΪͽι̯ ν·ΪϢΜ͇ City of Palo Alto Page 8 be clarified o The proposed roundabouts should include landscaping o Roundabouts should be used more judiciously and justification should be provided o Include sensor activated lighting where possible and program leading bicycle intervals at traffic signals o Include wayfinding signage along the bicycle boulevards that provide directional information and mileage to attractions and adjacent jurisdictions o Integrate green stormwater infrastructure into curb extensions and other elements of the bicycle boulevard projects Traffic Analysis Traffic data collection for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects occurred in May 2014, using video cameras to track bicycle and pedestrian demand and mechanical tube counters to collect automobile speed and volume data. Highlights of the traffic counts and speed data are shown in Table 1 below. The optimal conditions for a successful bicycle boulevard are <30 MPH or <3,000 ADT (average daily traffic). All of the corridors meet the criteria for a successful bicycle boulevard. Table 1 Corridor (segment) 85th -percentile Speed Motor Vehicle ADT Bicycle ADT Amarillo Ave (Tanland -Greer) 30.2 MPH 1,261 82 Amarillo Ave (Greer -Louis) 27.7 MPH 1,412 73 Moreno Ave (Rosewood -Middlefield) 22.6 MPH 1,179 30 Ross Rd (Clara -Wintergreen) 25.5 MPH 2,063 121 Ross Rd (Ames -Stone) 28.2 MPH 2,703 116 Bryant St (Downtown North) 24.6 MPH 1,313 479 Bryant St (Downtown South) 26.2 MPH 1,565 643 Bryant St (Embarcadero -Oregon) 19.7 MPH 525 1,146 Montrose Ave (Seminole -Sutherland) N/A 141 46 Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2014 In February 2016, additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the traffic impacts of changing intersection controls, where proposed by this project. As currently proposed, a total of 16 intersections will have their intersection control changed. Nine intersections will be changed from an all-way stop to a roundabout, two from an all-way stop to a two-way stop; two from a two-way stop to an all-way stop, and one each from a two-way stop to a roundabout, from a three-way stop to one-way stop, and from traffic circle to a roundabout. Intersections were analyzed using the Synchro software to determine intersection, motor vehicle level of service (LOS). While an LOS analysis will no longer be required as part CEQA, it City of Palo Alto Page 9 does provide a metric to understand if the extent of any impact on motor vehicle movements in these corridors. The results of the LOS calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from all-way stop to two-way stop: Ross Road and Clara Drive - all-way stop to two-way stop Ross Road and Ames Avenue – all-way stop to two-way stop Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - three-way stop to one-way stop Future condition LOS results show that all the study intersections, except one, would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS B or better with future traffic volumes. Only one intersection operates at LOS C: Ross Road and Ames Avenue in the PM peak. The complete traffic analysis report is provided as Attachment C. Parking The Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects were planned to optimize right-of-way for all roadway users and minimize the impact on available on-street parking. To evaluate the potential impact of parking removal on local residents, following the implementation of the proposed projects, a parking occupancy study was conducted. Although implementation of the projects will remove 266 on-street parking spaces (14 percent of the total 1,865 parking spaces along the project corridors), the study found that on average only 570 (31% of available parking spaces) of these parking spaces are typically used at any given time. Table 2 summarizes current parking utilization and the proposed changes to parking. Table 2 Corridor Existing Spaces Spaces to be Removed Current Utilization Future Utilization Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue 224 65 31% 44% Bryant Street Update 690 95 40% 47% Louis Road-Montrose Avenue 370 22 27% 28% Ross Road 580 85 21% 25% Total 1,865 266 31% 36% Reallocating a portion of these unused parking spaces for improved bicycle boulevard ΊΣ͕ι̯νχιϢ̽χϢι͋ ϮΊΜΜ νϢζζΪιχ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ͽΪ̯Μν Ϊ͕ ι͇͋Ϣ̽ΊΣͽ ΪχΪι ϭ͋·Ίcle speeds in residential areas, improving bicyclist safety, and encouraging more residents to bicycle. At the corridor level, there is sufficient capacity to absorb these changes and the vast majority of residents and visitors will not recognize a parking impact. A few specific blocks, however, may not have availability to meet current parking demand, requiring residents and visitors to seek parking one block from their desired destination. These impacted blocks are discussed below. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Bryant Street and Everett Avenue: Removing eight parking spaces at this intersection means demand will surpass availability by three spaces, however eight spaces will typically be available one block away. Bryant Street east side (Poe Street to Hawthorne Avenue): Parking availability will not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Eleven spaces will be available across the street and 13 available one block away on Poe Street. Bryant Street (Channing Avenue to Addison Avenue): Removing four spaces along this block means parking need will be nearing capacity, however eight spaces will typically be available one block away. Ross Road west side (Stern Avenue to Allen Court - south side): Removing six spaces along this block means parking need will slightly surpass capacity by one space, however 43 spaces should typically be available one block away. East Meadow Drive north side (Fabian Way to Paloma Street): Parking availability will not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Twenty-one spaces will typically be available one block away. Amarillo Avenue south side (Louis Road to Ohlone Elementary driveway): Removing nine spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Twenty-eight spaces will typically be available one block away. Amarillo Avenue north side (West Bayshore Road and North Tanland Drive): Removing five spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Five spaces will typically be available one block away. Detailed information about parking changes by street segment are provided in Attachments D and L. It is important to note that the vast majority of on-street parking proposed for removal is located adjacent to intersections along the bicycle boulevards. Generally, at the impacted intersections, one or two parking spaces on each approach would be removed to improve sight lines for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. This is a well-established traffic engineering ζι̯̽χΊ̽͋ ̯̽ΜΜ͇͋ ͇̯͞ϴΜΊͽ·χΊΣͽ͟ Ϯ·Ί̽· ΊζιΪϭes safety for all roadway users. The intersections selected for daylighting were identified through site visits and feedback from the public during the two-year planning process. Several residents and commissioners have expressed a desire to better understand how these projects relate to the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The Downtown RPP pilot is scheduled to come to an end on March 31, 2017. These projects are currently scheduled to start construction at about the same time. Prior to that, staff can assess the impacts of the planned bicycle boulevard projects on the total supply of on-street parking within the various employee zones and recommend adjustments to the number of employee permits available in each zone (if City Council elects to continue the program beyond the pilot phase). This will insure that the proposed reduction in on-street parking does not reduce the availability of parking for neighborhood residents. Staff will be collecting occupancy data throughout the Phase 2 pilot period and will be well-equipped to estimate the impacts of the proposed City of Palo Alto Page 11 reduction in supply of on-street parking due to these projects. Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Moreno Avenue from Middlefield Road to Louis Avenue A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Moreno Avenue and will enhance pedestrian connectivity. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. Existing speed humps near Middlefield Road and Coastland Drive will be replaced with a slotted speed hump to reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. Crosswalk markings, stop signs, and advance stop bars at side streets will enhance walking and assign right-of-Ϯ̯ϴ χΪ χ·͋ ̼Ί̽ϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇΅ Ί͇͋ νχι͋͋χν ϮΊΜΜ ̯ΜνΪ ·̯ϭ͋ ̽͞ιΪνν χι̯͕͕Ί̽ ͇Ϊ͋ν ΣΪχ νχΪζ͟ νΊͽΣν added. A mini roundabout at Ross Road will improve traffic flow, reduce motorist speeds, and improve the corridor aesthetic by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walkability and raised diverter medians will improve roundabout operations and create pedestrian refuges. A slotted speed hump near Fielding Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. Louis Road from Moreno Avenue to Amarillo Avenue Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. The two offset intersections at Moreno Avenue and at Fielding Drive/Amarillo Avenue will become raised intersections to reduce vehicle speeds and increase visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Stop controls will be provided on all approaches of each raised intersection to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. A five foot wide cycle track will be installed on each side of Louis Road between the two offset intersections, raised to sidewalk level. This will allow bicyclists to maintain level while traveling along the bicycle boulevard. Driveway access will be maintained. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Amarillo Avenue from Louis Avenue to Ohlone Elementary School A new curb extension with landscaping, trees, and a Class IV separated bikeway that maintains the existing sidewalk would be installed to accommodate two-way bicycle travel on the school side of the street to minimize conflicts between motorists and children bicycling to school. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend would also be continued through this segment, to City of Palo Alto Page 12 accommodate bicyclists who prefer not to use a separated facility. New curb extensions with trees or bioretention would be added in the vicinity of Ohlone Elementary School to reduce vehicle speeds and improve aesthetics. New covered bicycle parking would be added at the school. Amarillo Avenue from Ohlone Elementary School to Bayshore Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will be installed to help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route. Bicycle boulevard gateway signage alerts motorists and bicyclists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway. The existing midblock crosswalk near Ohlone Elementary School will be relocated to the south side of the driveway, and replaced with a raised crosswalk. This will reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motorists by placing the crosswalk in a location that does not require students to cross the driveway entrance, and will increase visibility of pedestrian (especially elementary school students) by raising them into view of motorists. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Greer Road will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Greer Road will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Curb extensions with landscaping and trees at both Tanland Drive intersections will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. High visibility crosswalk markings at both Tanland Drive intersections will increase visibility of pedestrians, and additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Landscaped medians and planters near Bayshore Road will reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Palo Alto Avenue to Everett Avenue Bryant Street is an existing bicycle boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. The intersection of Bryant Street and Poe will include a landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron. At Everett Avenue, curb extensions with landscaping will be added to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Everett Avenue to Hamilton Avenue Enhanced shared roadway bicycle markings and door zone markings will be added along this corridor and within the intersections of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue to alert drivers of the possible presence of persons on a bicycle as they travel through the intersections. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. Forest Avenue to Embarcadero Road New raised intersections will be constructed at Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue to help improve the safety of pedestrian crossings in the downtown area. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. The intersection with Addison Avenue will be reconstructed and a new mountable apron will be added to the traffic circle to allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles. High visibility crosswalks and splitter medians will be added on either side of the intersection ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. The intersection at Kingsley Avenue will include a new landscaped traffic circle with a mountable apron, splitter medians and high visibility crosswalks. The intersection of Embarcadero Road will include reconstruction of the center curbs into mountable concrete median islands to create a bicycle pocket for bicyclists traveling straight through the intersection and provide protection from vehicles turning right. Mountable curbs allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles and an increase in bicycle safety. Embarcadero Road to Oregon Expressway New signs will be added to all side streets to indicate that all cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. A new landscaped traffic circle and mountable apron and splitter medians will be added to the intersection with North California Avenue with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. Oregon Expressway to East Meadow Drive New signs will be added to Colorado Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, Campesino Avenue, and El Verano Avenue to indicate that cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. Bryant Street crossing over Matadero Creek will be enhanced with striping for increased visibility. The existing bollards will be replaced with mountable monolithic concrete islands with flexible post channelizers for improved bicyclist safety. Optional short rubberized medians can be added to the center of the Bryant Street approaches to El Carmelo Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron and painted diverters will be added to the Loma Verde Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron will be added to the Campesino Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. The existing bollard and raised planters to act as vehicle closures at El Verano Avenue will remain. Between El Verano Avenue and E Meadow Drive, two slotted speed humps will be added to slow vehicles while allowing for persons on bicycles to travel along the street without needing to slow down or stop. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Montrose Avenue from Middlefield Road to Charleston Road Yellow high visibility crosswalk markings at Middlefield Road and Montrose Avenue will enhance walking and increase visibility for pedestrians. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Montrose Avenue. Bicycle boulevard markings along Montrose Avenue alert motorists that bicyclists may be present. Crosswalk markings at Sutherland Drive and Seminole Way will enhance walking. Improvements to Charleston Road are being made in conjunction with the Charleston- Arastradero Complete Streets Project by the City of Palo Alto. These include diversion of motorized traffic, green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings, and more. Louis Road from Charleston Road to East Meadow Drive bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings from Bibbits Drive to Charleston Road will highlight potential conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and increase visibility of bicyclists. Bicycle lanes on Louis Road will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. Crosswalk markings at Bibbits Drive, Gailen Avenue, and Corina Way will enhance walking. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Drive will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. East Meadow Drive from Louis Road to East Meadow Circle Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Circle will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. East Meadow Drive from Meadow Circle to Fabian Way Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle City of Palo Alto Page 15 lane. A future connection will be made at Adobe Creek, proposed site for the connection to the US 101 overcrossing. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Fabian Way will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Garland Drive to Colorado Avenue A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Garland Drive will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Ross Road. A County project is currently improving the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Ross Road. A bicycle boulevard gateway marking near Oregon Expressway will alert bicyclists and motorists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway. These gateway markings are repeated along the corridor at all side street entrances to the boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. A new mountable traffic circle at Moreno Avenue will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Moreno Avenue is also being developed as a bicycle boulevard (additional description below). Additional street lighting at Moreno Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. At Colorado Avenue, landscaped raised medians on Ross Road and Colorado Avenue will reduce motorist speeds. Additional street lighting at Colorado Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Colorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Clara Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard, while high visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians to motorists and bicyclists. A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Stern Avenue will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions with trees near Stern Avenue and Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway physically and visually, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. At Loma Verde Avenue, additional street lighting at will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night, while new crosswalk markings and stop bars will enhance walking. Landscaped raised medians will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway and enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Loma Verde Avenue to Meadow Drive Two new slotted speed humps and landscaped planters between Richardson Court and Talisman Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions at Talisman Drive will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. New high visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walking by increasing pedestrian visibility. East Meadow Drive has existing bicycle lanes. A new traffic circle with mountable apron will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will assign priority to the bicycle boulevard. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. On the north- and southbound approaches to the traffic circle, a bicycle ramp to the sidewalk will provide bicyclists with the option of navigating the circle via the sidewalks and crosswalks if they prefer not to merge into the vehicle lane. The bicycle lane marking on the southbound approach will be removed to clarify bicyclists should either merge into the vehicle lane or move onto the sidewalk. Meadow Drive to Louis Avenue At Mayview Avenue, a raised intersection will enhance walking by reducing motorist and bicyclist speeds, and by increasing visibility of pedestrians. A new stop sign for bicyclists at the Ramos Park access point will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard. Crosswalk markings and landscaped raised medians at both sides of the intersections with Corina Way will enhance walking, reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway, and improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Louis Road will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. This bicycle boulevard segment connects directly to the Meadow-Louis-Montrose bicycle Boulevard, described below, and via that route to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 overcrossing. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Policy Implications The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of the bicycle boulevard network. The Plan objectives that are addressed by the development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects are: Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Objective 4΄ ΄Μ̯Σ ̽ΪΣνχιϢ̽χ ̯Σ͇ ̯ΊΣχ̯ΊΣ ·CΪζΜ͋χ͋ χι͋͋χν͛ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects include: Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Program T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. Program T-22: Implement a network of bike boulevards. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector City of Palo Alto Page 18 residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. While it is difficult to estimate the impacts of individual bicycle boulevard projects, the City of Portland, Oregon has recently completed and assessment of its bicycle boulevard program and recorded counts of between 1,000 and 4,000 cyclists per day on its busiest corridors. Increasing the number of cyclists using the bicycle boulevard network within Palo Alto to these levels would meet many of the objectives and goals listed above and also help the City increase bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020. Resource Impact There are sufficient resources in Capital Improvement Project PL-04010, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Project, to fund these two professional services contracts. Detailed cost estimates for the bicycle boulevard projects will be developed as part of the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates΅ !ν ζ̯ιχ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ̯ζζιΪϭ̯Μ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. For Fiscal Years 2014 through FY 2020, $12.4 million has been budgeted in the CIP for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL-04010). Of that amount, $0.9 million has been spent to date and an additional $1.9M has been encumbered. Staff actively seeks regional, state and federal grant funding to offset resources identified for bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. As grant funds are secured or low-cost project improvements identified, Transportation Division staff will coordinate with the Public Works Department for implementation as part of the street resurfacing program. Minor elements of the Concept Plan Lines may be implemented opportunistically through the Transportation DΊϭΊνΊΪΣ͛ν Ϊχ·͋ι C͜Ps for pavement markings, signs and traffic signals. Timeline Staff anticipates that the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road, Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects will take approximately one year to complete, with construction planned to begin in mid- to late-2017. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration for the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on September 4, 2012. Each individual project is subject to environmental assessment after there is agreement on a Concept Plan Line for further study. As part of the current phase of work, an assessment was made of the potential environmental impacts of this work and a Categorical Exemption is recommended under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 for minor alternation of existing facilities. This project will make bicycle and City of Palo Alto Page 19 pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb- outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the existing public right-of-way. The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities. The draft CEQA Notice of Exemption is attached as Attachment F. This exemption will be filed upon approval by City Council. Attachments: Attachment A - Maps of Proposed Bicycle Blvds from the BPT Plan and the Four Projects Identified (PDF) Attachment B - Outreach Materials from Public Meetings (PDF) Attachment C - Traffic Analysis (PDF) Attachment D - Parking Occupancy Study (PDF) Attachment E - Concept Plans (11X17 reduced) (PDF) Attachment F - CEQA Categorically Exempt Filing (PDF) Attachment G - March 29 Public Meeting (PDF) Attachment H: C16163533 Alta Planning Bicycle Blvd Contract (PDF) Attachment I: City Manager Report 4372 Award of Contract for Bicycle Boulevard Concept Planning (PDF) Attachment J: Fehr & Peers Contract C16163534 (PDF) Attachment K: CMR4372 Award of Contract for Bicycle Boulevard Concept Planning 3- 17-14 (PDF) Attachment L - Parking Occupancy Update (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 20 Attachment A - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment A – Maps Map 1 – Palo Alto Proposed Bikeway Network Map 2 – Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Attachment B - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment B – Public Meeting Advertising Attachment C - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment C – Traffic Analysis DRAFT Memorandum Date: February 26, 2016 To: Hugh Louch, Alta Planning + Design, Inc. From: Gary Black Ling Jin Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis for the proposed bicycle boulevards along Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose, and Moreno-Amarillo in Palo Alto, California. Bicycle Boulevard projects are on streets where bicycling is already appealing for many riders due to low traffic volumes and speeds, and good access to key destinations such as schools, parks, and connections across key barriers. The City has identified potential improvements on these routes including revised traffic controls to promote cycling convenience, custom signage and wayfinding, additional traffic calming, and other measures. The purpose of the project is to enhance bikeway facilities across the Palo Alto communities. This memo documents the results of the traffic analysis to identify potential operational issues that could occur as a result of the proposed changes along the bicycle boulevards. The following intersections would be affected by changes in traffic control (see Figure 1): Bryant Street and Palo Alto/Poe – 4-way stop to Roundabout Bryant Street and Addison Avenue - Traffic circle to Roundabout Bryant Street and N California Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout Bryant Street and Loma Verde Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout Bryant Street and Kingsley Avenue - 2-way stop to Roundabout Ross Road and Moreno Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop Ross Road and East Meadow Drive – 4-way stop to Roundabout Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to one-side stop Ross Road and Louis Road – 4-way stop to Roundabout Louie Road and E Meadow Drive - 4-way stop to Roundabout E Meadow Drive and E Meadow Circle - 4-way stop to Roundabout Moreno Avenue and Louis Road - 2-way stop to 4-way stop Louis Road and Fielding Drive - 2-way stop to 4-way stop Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road - 4-way to Roundabout Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 manual turning- movement counts. The new intersection count data are included in Appendix A. Existing with Project Conditions. Existing with project conditions were evaluated using existing traffic volumes and proposed changes for the intersection control type. The results were compared to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on traffic operations. Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Table 2 Roundabout Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Level of Service by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio * Control Delay (sec/veh) v/c< 1.0 v/c>1.0 0-10 A F >10-15 B F >15-25 C F >25-30 D F >35-50 E F >50 F F * For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined by control delay. Source: NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts, An Information Guide, Second Edition, Washington, D. C., Transportation Research Board, (2010). Existing Intersection Levels of Service The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 turning-movement counts. The new traffic count data are included in Appendix A. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that all of the study intersections are currently operating with delays corresponding to level of service A or B during both AM and PM peak hours. Page | 4 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Study Number Intersection Peak Count Average Delay Hour Date (sec) LOS 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 13.0 PM 02/09/16 12.4 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 02/09/16 11.8 PM 02/09/16 9.9 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 02/09/16 9.4 PM 02/09/16 8.1 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 02/09/16 8.6 PM 02/09/16 8.8 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 02/09/16 11.0 PM 02/09/16 11.3 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 02/09/16 12.2 PM 02/09/16 10.5 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.9 PM 02/09/16 7.8 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 02/09/16 9.0 PM 02/09/16 7.7 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.4 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.6 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 02/09/16 8.5 PM 02/09/16 8.3 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.6 PM 02/09/16 9.1 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.6 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 8.4 PM 02/09/16 8.3 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.3 PM 02/09/16 8.7 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 02/09/16 8.1 PM 02/09/16 7.7 B B B A A A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Existing with Project Conditions The intersection levels of service were recalculated with the proposed changes to traffic control. The results of the intersection level of service analysis with the project are summarized in Table 4. The results of the level of service calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from 4-way stop to 2-way stop. Page | 5 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to on-side stop However, even at these three intersections, the delays would be relatively short and would correspond with LOS B. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 4 Existing with Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Existing Existing + Project 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 13.0 B 9.1 A PM 12.4 B 8.9 A 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 11.8 B 8.7 A PM 9.9 A 8.7 A 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 9.4 A 5.6 A PM 8.1 A 4.6 A 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 8.6 A 3.3 A PM 8.8 A 3.4 A 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 11.0 B 4.3 A PM 11.3 B 4.1 A 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 12.2 B 4.8 A PM 10.5 B 4.3 A 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 7.9 A 4.4 A PM 7.8 A 4.3 A 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 9.0 A 5.5 A PM 7.7 A 4.4 A 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 7.7 A 4.1 A PM 7.4 A 4.0 A 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 7.7 A 10.4 B PM 7.6 A 10.2 B 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 8.5 A 14.1 B PM 8.3 A 12.3 B 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.6 A 5.6 A PM 9.1 A 5.3 A 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 7.7 A 10.1 B PM 7.6 A 9.9 A 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 8.4 A 4.9 A PM 8.3 A 4.8 A 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.3 A 5.5 A PM 8.7 A 5.0 A 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 8.1 A 4.7 A PM 7.7 A 4.3 A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Future (Year 2040) with Project Conditions Future (Year 2040) conditions reflect traffic growth in the study area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying a yearly growth factor to the existing AM and PM peak-hour volumes traffic for 34 Page | 6 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 years. The growth factors of 0.44% per year for the AM peak hour and 0.48% per year for the PM peak hour were developed by Hexagon based on the Palo Alto Travel Demand Model. Future with project condition level of service results are shown in Table 5. The results show that all the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS C or better with future traffic volumes. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 5 Future (Year 2040) with Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay Existing with Project Future (2040) with Project Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 9.1 A 9.7 A PM 8.9 A 9.5 A 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 8.7 A 9.2 A PM 8.7 A 9.1 A 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 5.6 A 6.1 A PM 4.6 A 4.8 A 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 3.3 A 3.4 A PM 3.4 A 3.5 A 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 4.3 A 4.6 A PM 4.1 A 4.3 A 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 4.8 A 5.1 A PM 4.3 A 4.6 A 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 4.4 A 4.6 A PM 4.3 A 4.6 A 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 5.5 A 5.9 A PM 4.4 A 4.6 A 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 4.1 A 4.3 A PM 4.0 A 4.1 A 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 10.4 B 10.9 B PM 10.2 B 10.5 B 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 14.1 B 16.3 C PM 12.3 B 13.5 B 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.6 A 6.3 A PM 5.3 A 5.8 A 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 10.1 B 10.5 B PM 9.9 A 10.3 B 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 4.9 A 5.2 A PM 4.8 A 5.1 A 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.5 A 6.0 A PM 5.0 A 5.5 A 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 4.7 A 5.0 A PM 4.3 A 4.5 A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Page | 7 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Conclusions Based on the intersection level of service calculation results, all the study intersections are currently experiencing minor delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed traffic control changes, most of the study intersections would experience less delay than existing conditions except for three intersections along Ross Road, which would experience increases in delay, but would still operate at LOS B. In the future year 2040 with expected traffic growth, all the study intersection would operate at acceptable level of service C or better with the proposed traffic control changes. Page | 8 Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Level of Service Calculations HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 EBT 208 208 Free EBR WBL 21 34 21 34 WBT WBR 165 8 165 8 Free NBL 12 12 NBT 10 10 Stop NBR 15 15 SBL 8 8 SBT 11 11 Stop SBR 16 16 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 11 0.92 226 0% 0.92 23 0.92 37 0.92 179 0% 0.92 9 0.92 13 0.92 11 0% 0.92 16 0.92 9 0.92 12 0% 0.92 17 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 203 203 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 264 264 4.1 2.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 472 570 552 264 566 558 214 264 566 558 214 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 15 3.5 1 12.0 15 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1349 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 225 NB 1 SB 1 40 38 1281 97 382 570 7.1 3.5 97 414 552 6.5 4.0 97 754 3.3 98 387 3.5 98 410 4.0 97 803 3.3 98 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 23 260 11 9 37 16 13 17 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1349 1 0.4 0.03 1281 2 1.5 0.08 489 516 7 6 12.5 0.07 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.4 A 1.5 A 13.0 13.0 B 12.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.6 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 Future Volume (Veh/h) 226 EBR 5 5 WBL WBT 2 199 2 199 NBL NBR 4 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 246 Free 0% 0.92 5 0.92 2 0.92 216 Free 0% 0.92 4 4 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 7 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 50 3.5 5 None 12.0 50 3.5 5 None 171 301 12.0 50 3.5 5 568 348 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 251 WB 1 NB 1 218 11 1200 301 4.1 2.2 100 438 568 348 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 99 630 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 5 0 0 2 7 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700 0 0.0 0.00 1200 0 0.1 0.02 544 2 11.8 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 11.8 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 101 EBR WBL 48 15 WBT WBR Stop 123 7 NBL 98 NBT Stop 31 NBR 50 SBL 15 SBT Stop 40 SBR 59 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 35 32 32 0.92 110 101 0.92 52 48 0.92 16 15 0.92 134 123 0.92 8 7 0.92 107 98 0.92 34 31 0.92 54 50 0.92 16 15 0.92 43 40 0.92 64 59 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 197 EB 1 35 52 -0.09 4.8 0.26 158 WB 1 16 8 0.02 5.0 0.22 195 NB 1 107 54 -0.02 4.9 0.27 123 SB 1 16 64 -0.25 4.8 0.16 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 690 9.6 9.6 A 663 9.4 9.4 A 677 9.7 9.7 A 677 8.8 8.8 Delay Level of Service 9.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.0% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBR 3 3 WBL WBT 17 2 17 2 NBL NBR 2 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 Free 0% 0.92 3 0.92 18 0.92 2 Free 0% 0.92 2 2 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 10 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 19 66 30 66 30 6.4 6.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 12.0 12 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 7 WB 1 NB 1 20 12 1579 19 4.1 2.2 99 908 3.5 3.3 100 99 1021 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 18 10 2 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1579 1 6.6 0.01 1001 1 8.6 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.6 A 8.6 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 6.0 21.0% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 EBT 26 26 Free EBR WBL 15 13 15 13 WBT WBR 102 11 102 11 Free NBL 5 5 NBT 52 52 Stop NBR 6 6 SBL 9 9 SBT 48 48 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 7 0.92 28 0% 0.92 16 0.92 14 0.92 111 0% 0.92 12 0.92 5 0.92 57 0% 0.92 7 0.92 10 0.92 52 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 134 134 4.1 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 54 54 4.1 2.2 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 255 222 59 254 224 139 59 254 224 139 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 12.0 11 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1435 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 137 NB 1 SB 1 69 75 10 1537 99 617 255 7.1 3.5 99 654 222 6.5 4.0 91 985 3.3 99 617 3.5 98 652 4.0 92 890 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 16 51 7 12 14 7 5 13 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1435 0 1.1 0.01 1537 1 0.8 0.10 674 679 9 9 11.0 0.11 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.1 A 0.8 A 10.9 10.9 B 11.0 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.3 24.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 EBT 41 41 Free EBR WBL 1 6 1 6 WBT WBR 147 23 147 23 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 11 11 Stop NBR 2 2 SBL 71 71 SBT 12 12 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 12 0.92 45 0% 0.92 1 0.92 7 0.92 160 0% 0.92 25 0.92 1 0.92 12 0% 0.92 2 0.92 77 0.92 13 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 208 208 4.1 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 64 64 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 23 3.5 2 None 310 310 86 310 298 212 86 310 298 212 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 18 3.5 2 12.0 23 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1333 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 192 NB 1 SB 1 15 103 77 1512 578 310 7.1 3.5 100 574 310 6.5 4.0 98 935 3.3 100 580 3.5 87 583 4.0 98 798 3.3 98 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 58 12 25 7 2 1 13 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1333 1 1.7 0.00 1512 0 0.3 0.02 605 601 2 15 12.2 0.17 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.7 A 0.3 A 11.1 11.1 B 12.2 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 4.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 78 EBR WBL 4 2 WBT WBR Stop 27 24 NBL 0 NBT Stop 59 NBR 17 SBL 49 SBT Stop 40 SBR 7 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 14 13 13 0.92 85 78 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 29 27 0.92 26 24 0.92 0 0 0.92 64 59 0.92 18 17 0.92 53 49 0.92 43 40 0.92 8 7 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 103 EB 1 14 4 0.04 4.4 0.13 57 WB 1 2 26 -0.23 4.2 0.07 82 NB 1 0 18 -0.10 4.3 0.10 104 SB 1 53 8 0.09 4.4 0.13 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 777 8.1 8.1 A 801 7.5 7.5 A 798 7.8 7.8 A 768 8.1 8.1 Delay Intersection Summary 7.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 EBR WBL 12 9 WBT WBR Stop 1 5 NBL 7 NBT Stop 168 NBR 5 SBL 5 SBT Stop 240 SBR 14 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 29 27 27 0.92 3 3 0.92 13 12 0.92 10 9 0.92 1 1 0.92 5 5 0.92 8 7 0.92 183 168 0.92 5 5 0.92 5 5 0.92 261 240 0.92 15 14 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 45 EB 1 29 13 -0.01 5.0 0.06 16 WB 1 10 5 -0.03 5.0 0.02 196 NB 1 8 5 0.03 4.4 0.24 281 SB 1 5 15 0.01 4.3 0.33 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 654 8.3 8.3 A 643 8.1 8.1 A 798 8.7 8.7 A 818 9.4 9.4 Delay Level of Service 9.0 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 35.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 42 EBR WBL 3 15 WBT WBR Stop 39 11 NBL 12 NBT Stop 35 NBR 17 SBL 26 SBT Stop 54 SBR 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 3 3 0.92 46 42 0.92 3 3 0.92 16 15 0.92 42 39 0.92 12 11 0.92 13 12 0.92 38 35 0.92 18 17 0.92 28 26 0.92 59 54 0.92 7 6 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 52 EB 1 3 3 0.01 4.4 0.06 70 WB 1 16 12 -0.02 4.3 0.08 69 NB 1 13 18 -0.08 4.2 0.08 94 SB 1 28 7 0.05 4.3 0.11 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 790 7.6 7.6 A 802 7.7 7.7 A 822 7.6 7.6 A 811 7.8 7.8 Delay Intersection Summary 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 23.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 102 EBR WBL 1 2 WBT WBR Stop 96 9 NBL 1 NBT Stop 0 NBR 5 SBL 22 SBT Stop 2 SBR 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 111 102 0.92 1 1 0.92 2 2 0.92 104 96 0.92 10 9 0.92 1 1 0.92 0 0 0.92 5 5 0.92 24 22 0.92 2 2 0.92 9 8 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 116 EB 1 4 1 0.04 4.1 0.13 116 WB 1 2 10 -0.01 4.1 0.13 6 NB 1 1 5 -0.43 4.0 0.01 35 SB 1 24 9 0.02 4.4 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 852 7.8 7.8 A 863 7.7 7.7 A 838 7.0 7.0 A 760 7.6 7.6 Delay Intersection Summary 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 135 EBR WBL 5 21 5 21 WBT WBR Stop 94 36 NBL 2 NBT Stop 21 NBR 12 SBL 33 SBT Stop 13 SBR 47 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 38 35 35 0.92 147 135 0.92 5 0.92 23 0.92 102 94 0.92 39 36 0.92 2 2 0.92 23 21 0.92 13 12 0.92 36 33 0.92 14 13 0.92 51 47 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 190 EB 1 38 5 0.06 4.5 0.24 164 WB 1 23 39 -0.08 4.4 0.20 38 NB 1 2 13 -0.16 4.7 0.05 101 SB 1 36 51 -0.20 4.6 0.13 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 775 8.9 8.9 A 783 8.5 8.5 A 703 7.9 7.9 A 725 8.2 8.2 Delay Intersection Summary 8.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 88 EBR WBL 35 28 WBT WBR Stop 51 9 NBL 73 NBT Stop 115 NBR 19 SBL 12 SBT Stop 160 SBR 14 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 12 11 11 0.92 96 88 0.92 38 35 0.92 30 28 0.92 55 51 0.92 10 9 0.92 79 73 0.92 125 115 0.92 21 19 0.92 13 12 0.92 174 160 0.92 15 14 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 146 EB 1 12 38 -0.11 5.0 0.20 95 WB 1 30 10 0.03 5.2 0.14 225 NB 1 79 21 0.05 4.8 0.30 202 SB 1 13 15 0.00 4.8 0.27 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 655 9.3 9.3 A 622 9.0 9.0 A 703 9.9 9.9 A 699 9.6 9.6 Delay Level of Service 9.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 45.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 39 WBL WBT Stop 28 44 NBL NBR 26 26 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 95 87 87 0.92 42 39 0.92 30 28 0.92 48 44 0.92 47 Stop 43 43 0.92 0.92 28 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 137 EB 1 0 42 -0.15 4.0 0.15 78 WB 1 30 0 0.11 4.3 0.09 75 NB 1 47 28 -0.06 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 876 7.7 7.7 A 812 7.8 7.8 A 793 7.7 7.7 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 2 2 EBR WBL 119 12 WBT WBR Stop 4 2 NBL 47 NBT Stop 89 NBR 2 SBL 0 SBT Stop 156 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 2 2 0.92 2 2 0.92 129 119 0.92 13 12 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 51 47 0.92 97 89 0.92 2 2 0.92 0 0 0.92 170 156 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 133 EB 1 2 129 -0.54 4.1 0.15 19 WB 1 13 2 0.11 4.9 0.03 150 NB 1 51 2 0.09 4.5 0.19 171 SB 1 0 1 0.03 4.4 0.21 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 805 7.9 7.9 A 669 8.0 8.0 A 760 8.6 8.6 A 772 8.6 8.6 Delay Level of Service 8.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 39.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 126 EBR WBL 64 21 WBT WBR Stop 63 22 NBL 41 NBT Stop 89 NBR 15 SBL 9 SBT Stop 93 SBR 17 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 22 20 20 0.92 137 126 0.92 70 64 0.92 23 21 0.92 68 63 0.92 24 22 0.92 45 41 0.92 97 89 0.92 16 15 0.92 10 9 0.92 101 93 0.92 18 17 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 229 EB 1 22 70 -0.13 4.7 0.30 115 WB 1 23 24 -0.05 4.9 0.16 158 NB 1 45 16 0.03 5.0 0.22 129 SB 1 10 18 -0.03 4.9 0.18 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 723 9.6 9.6 A 677 8.8 8.8 A 674 9.3 9.3 A 669 9.0 9.0 Delay Level of Service 9.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 0 10 EBR WBL 8 73 WBT WBR Stop 48 64 NBL 13 NBT Stop 19 NBR 85 SBL 20 SBT Stop 10 SBR 0 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 0 0.92 11 10 0.92 9 8 0.92 79 73 0.92 52 48 0.92 70 64 0.92 14 13 0.92 21 19 0.92 92 85 0.92 22 20 0.92 11 10 0.92 0 0 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 20 EB 1 0 9 -0.24 4.2 0.02 201 WB 1 79 70 -0.10 4.2 0.23 127 NB 1 14 92 -0.38 4.1 0.14 33 SB 1 22 0 0.17 4.7 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 805 7.3 7.3 A 823 8.4 8.4 A 839 7.7 7.7 A 716 7.9 7.9 Delay Level of Service 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 EBT 204 204 Free EBR WBL 16 10 16 10 WBT WBR 178 6 178 6 Free NBL 27 27 NBT 5 5 Stop NBR 22 22 SBL 8 8 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 7 0.92 222 0% 0.92 17 0.92 11 0.92 193 0% 0.92 7 0.92 29 0.92 5 0% 0.92 24 0.92 9 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 210 210 4.1 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 249 249 4.1 2.2 12.0 9 3.5 1 None 472 488 486 250 508 492 216 250 508 492 216 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 12.0 10 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1348 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 211 NB 1 SB 1 58 15 1304 99 465 488 7.1 3.5 94 466 486 6.5 4.0 99 775 3.3 97 437 3.5 98 463 4.0 100 808 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 17 246 7 7 11 24 29 4 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1348 0 0.3 0.01 1304 1 0.5 0.10 557 502 9 2 12.4 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.5 A 12.2 12.2 B 12.4 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.0 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 Future Volume (Veh/h) 233 EBR 3 3 WBL WBT 2 181 2 181 NBL NBR 0 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 253 Free 0% 0.92 3 0.92 2 0.92 197 Free 0% 0.92 0 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 4 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 12.0 14 3.5 1 None 171 270 12.0 14 3.5 1 480 282 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 256 WB 1 NB 1 199 4 1276 270 4.1 2.2 100 531 480 282 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 100 99 736 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 2 4 0 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700 0 0.0 0.00 1276 0 0.1 0.01 736 0 9.9 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 9.9 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.1 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 13 3 WBT WBR Stop 108 11 NBL 8 NBT Stop 21 NBR 2 SBL 5 SBT Stop 25 SBR 39 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 41 38 38 0.92 97 89 0.92 14 13 0.92 3 3 0.92 117 108 0.92 12 11 0.92 9 8 0.92 23 21 0.92 2 2 0.92 5 5 0.92 27 25 0.92 42 39 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 152 EB 1 41 14 0.03 4.3 0.18 132 WB 1 3 12 -0.02 4.3 0.16 34 NB 1 9 2 0.05 4.7 0.04 74 SB 1 5 42 -0.29 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 806 8.3 8.3 A 800 8.1 8.1 A 715 7.9 7.9 A 776 7.7 7.7 Delay Intersection Summary 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 Future Volume (Veh/h) 1 EBR 4 4 WBL WBT 22 4 22 4 NBL NBR 2 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 1 Free 0% 0.92 4 0.92 24 0.92 4 Free 0% 0.92 2 2 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 7 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 26 92 45 92 45 6.4 6.2 12.0 21 3.5 2 None 12.0 21 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 5 WB 1 NB 1 28 9 1556 26 4.1 2.2 98 863 3.5 3.3 100 99 984 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 4 0 0 24 7 2 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700 0 0.0 0.02 1556 1 6.3 0.01 954 1 8.8 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.3 A 8.8 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 6.1 23.1% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBT 34 34 Free EBR WBL 8 18 8 18 WBT WBR 71 10 71 10 Free NBL 8 8 NBT 51 51 Stop NBR 7 7 SBL 4 4 SBT 28 28 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 0.92 37 0% 0.92 9 0.92 20 0.92 77 0% 0.92 11 0.92 9 0.92 55 0% 0.92 8 0.92 4 0.92 30 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 107 107 4.1 12.0 26 3.5 2 None 77 77 4.1 2.2 12.0 31 3.5 3 None 257 228 104 258 226 128 104 258 226 128 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 31 3.5 3 12.0 19 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1457 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 108 NB 1 SB 1 72 47 1477 99 596 257 7.1 3.5 98 630 228 6.5 4.0 91 896 3.3 99 584 3.5 99 631 4.0 95 883 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 9 50 4 11 20 8 9 13 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1457 0 0.6 0.01 1477 1 1.5 0.11 647 680 9 6 10.7 0.07 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.6 A 1.5 A 11.3 11.3 B 10.7 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.4 28.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 Future Volume (Veh/h) 15 EBT 23 23 Free EBR WBL 1 3 1 3 WBT WBR 128 17 128 17 Free NBL 0 0 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 3 3 SBL 6 6 SBT 3 3 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 16 0.92 25 0% 0.92 1 0.92 3 0.92 139 0% 0.92 18 0.92 0 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 7 0.92 3 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 185 185 4.1 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 61 61 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 35 3.5 3 None 285 284 96 278 275 203 96 278 275 203 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 35 3.5 3 12.0 28 3.5 3 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1353 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 160 NB 1 SB 1 5 20 1491 584 285 7.1 3.5 100 580 284 6.5 4.0 100 898 3.3 100 595 3.5 99 587 4.0 99 794 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 42 16 18 3 3 0 10 7 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1353 1 3.0 0.00 1491 0 0.2 0.01 737 679 1 2 10.5 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 3.0 A 0.2 A 9.9 9.9 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.8 29.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 45 EBR WBL 3 10 WBT WBR Stop 31 43 NBL 2 NBT Stop 80 NBR 19 SBL 39 SBT Stop 24 SBR 10 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 13 12 12 0.92 49 45 0.92 3 3 0.92 11 10 0.92 34 31 0.92 47 43 0.92 2 2 0.92 87 80 0.92 21 19 0.92 42 39 0.92 26 24 0.92 11 10 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 65 EB 1 13 3 0.05 4.5 0.08 92 WB 1 11 47 -0.25 4.2 0.11 110 NB 1 2 21 -0.08 4.3 0.13 79 SB 1 42 11 0.06 4.4 0.10 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 765 7.9 7.9 A 814 7.7 7.7 A 805 7.9 7.9 A 769 7.9 7.9 Delay Intersection Summary 7.8 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 1 EBR WBL 3 2 WBT WBR Stop 0 0 NBL 2 NBT Stop 28 NBR 8 SBL 6 SBT Stop 145 SBR 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 1 1 0.92 3 3 0.92 2 2 0.92 0 0 0.92 0 0 0.92 2 2 0.92 30 28 0.92 9 8 0.92 7 6 0.92 158 145 0.92 3 3 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 8 EB 1 4 3 -0.09 4.3 0.01 2 WB 1 2 0 0.23 4.6 0.00 41 NB 1 2 9 -0.09 4.0 0.05 168 SB 1 7 3 0.03 4.0 0.19 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 802 7.3 7.3 A 746 7.6 7.6 A 881 7.2 7.2 A 894 7.9 7.9 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 25.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 27 EBR WBL 7 6 WBT WBR Stop 22 6 NBL 7 NBT Stop 55 NBR 33 SBL 6 SBT Stop 23 SBR 2 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 29 27 0.92 8 7 0.92 7 6 0.92 24 22 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 60 55 0.92 36 33 0.92 7 6 0.92 25 23 0.92 2 2 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 41 EB 1 4 8 -0.06 4.2 0.05 38 WB 1 7 7 -0.04 4.2 0.04 104 NB 1 8 36 -0.16 3.9 0.11 34 SB 1 7 2 0.04 4.2 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 831 7.4 7.4 A 825 7.4 7.4 A 883 7.5 7.5 A 831 7.4 7.4 Delay Level of Service 7.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 21.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 3 3 WBT WBR Stop 69 10 NBL 1 NBT Stop 2 NBR 3 SBL 10 SBT Stop 2 SBR 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 12 11 11 0.92 97 89 0.92 3 3 0.92 3 3 0.92 75 69 0.92 11 10 0.92 1 1 0.92 2 2 0.92 3 3 0.92 11 10 0.92 2 2 0.92 3 3 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 112 EB 1 12 3 0.04 4.1 0.13 89 WB 1 3 11 -0.03 4.0 0.10 6 NB 1 1 3 -0.23 4.1 0.01 16 SB 1 11 3 0.06 4.4 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 870 7.7 7.7 A 882 7.5 7.5 A 824 7.1 7.1 A 779 7.5 7.5 Delay Intersection Summary 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 145 EBR WBL 9 5 WBT WBR Stop 133 23 NBL 2 NBT Stop 6 NBR 7 SBL 26 SBT Stop 4 SBR 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 18 17 17 0.92 158 145 0.92 10 9 0.92 5 5 0.92 145 133 0.92 25 23 0.92 2 2 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 28 26 0.92 4 4 0.92 9 8 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 186 EB 1 18 10 0.02 4.2 0.22 175 WB 1 5 25 -0.05 4.2 0.20 17 NB 1 2 8 -0.22 4.5 0.02 41 SB 1 28 9 0.04 4.7 0.05 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 830 8.4 8.4 A 841 8.3 8.3 A 729 7.6 7.6 A 695 8.0 8.0 Delay Intersection Summary 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 7 50 EBR WBL 63 19 WBT WBR Stop 81 17 NBL 53 NBT Stop 119 NBR 18 SBL 10 SBT Stop 114 SBR 11 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 8 7 0.92 54 50 0.92 68 63 0.92 21 19 0.92 88 81 0.92 18 17 0.92 58 53 0.92 129 119 0.92 20 18 0.92 11 10 0.92 124 114 0.92 12 11 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 130 EB 1 8 68 -0.27 4.7 0.17 127 WB 1 21 18 -0.02 4.9 0.17 207 NB 1 58 20 0.03 4.8 0.27 147 SB 1 11 12 0.00 4.8 0.20 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 703 8.6 8.6 A 671 9.0 9.0 A 714 9.6 9.6 A 697 9.0 9.0 Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 43.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 29 WBL WBT Stop 10 65 NBL NBR 18 18 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 52 48 48 0.92 32 29 0.92 11 10 0.92 71 65 0.92 55 Stop 51 51 0.92 0.92 20 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 84 EB 1 0 32 -0.19 4.0 0.09 82 WB 1 11 0 0.06 4.2 0.10 75 NB 1 55 20 0.02 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 884 7.4 7.4 A 833 7.7 7.7 A 805 7.7 7.7 Delay Level of Service 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 3 EBR WBL 52 5 WBT WBR Stop 1 0 NBL 78 NBT Stop 114 NBR 10 SBL 0 SBT Stop 111 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 3 3 0.92 3 3 0.92 57 52 0.92 5 5 0.92 1 1 0.92 0 0 0.92 85 78 0.92 124 114 0.92 11 10 0.92 0 0 0.92 121 111 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 63 EB 1 3 57 -0.50 4.2 0.07 6 WB 1 5 0 0.20 4.9 0.01 220 NB 1 85 11 0.08 4.3 0.26 122 SB 1 0 1 0.03 4.3 0.15 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 790 7.5 7.5 A 667 8.0 8.0 A 823 8.8 8.8 A 804 8.0 8.0 Delay Level of Service 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 46 10 WBT WBR Stop 101 10 NBL 45 NBT Stop 51 NBR 28 SBL 10 SBT Stop 71 SBR 22 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 22 20 20 0.92 97 89 0.92 50 46 0.92 11 10 0.92 110 101 0.92 11 10 0.92 49 45 0.92 55 51 0.92 30 28 0.92 11 10 0.92 77 71 0.92 24 22 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 169 EB 1 22 50 -0.12 4.6 0.21 132 WB 1 11 11 0.00 4.7 0.17 134 NB 1 49 30 -0.03 4.7 0.18 112 SB 1 11 24 -0.07 4.7 0.15 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 738 8.8 8.8 A 712 8.7 8.7 A 708 8.8 8.8 A 704 8.5 8.5 Delay Level of Service 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 33.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 0 60 EBR WBL 20 50 WBT WBR Stop 6 12 NBL 6 NBT Stop 7 NBR 57 SBL 57 SBT Stop 18 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 0 0.92 65 60 0.92 22 20 0.92 54 50 0.92 7 6 0.92 13 12 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 62 57 0.92 62 57 0.92 20 18 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 87 EB 1 0 22 -0.12 4.2 0.10 74 WB 1 54 13 0.07 4.4 0.09 77 NB 1 7 62 -0.43 3.9 0.08 83 SB 1 62 1 0.18 4.5 0.10 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 816 7.7 7.7 A 770 7.9 7.9 A 868 7.3 7.3 A 755 8.0 8.0 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 208 EBR WBL 21 34 WBT WBR Stop 165 8 NBL 12 NBT Stop 10 NBR 15 SBL 8 SBT Stop 11 SBR 16 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 11 10 10 0.92 226 208 0.92 23 21 0.92 37 34 0.92 179 165 0.92 9 8 0.92 13 12 0.92 11 10 0.92 16 15 0.92 9 8 0.92 12 11 0.92 17 16 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 260 EB 1 11 23 -0.01 4.3 0.31 225 WB 1 37 9 0.04 4.4 0.28 40 NB 1 13 16 -0.14 4.9 0.05 38 SB 1 9 17 -0.19 4.9 0.05 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 810 9.3 9.3 A 785 9.1 9.1 A 661 8.2 8.2 A 662 8.1 8.1 Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 5 WBL WBT Stop 2 199 NBL NBR 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 246 226 226 0.92 5 5 0.92 2 2 0.92 216 199 0.92 4 Stop 4 4 0.92 0.92 7 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 251 EB 1 0 5 0.02 4.2 0.29 218 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.25 11 NB 1 4 7 -0.28 4.6 0.01 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 852 8.9 8.9 A 844 8.6 8.6 A 703 7.7 7.7 Delay Intersection Summary 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBT 102 102 Free EBR WBL 1 2 1 2 WBT WBR 96 9 96 9 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 0 0 Stop NBR 5 5 SBL 22 22 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 8 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 0.92 111 0% 0.92 1 0.92 2 0.92 104 0% 0.92 10 0.92 1 0.92 0 0% 0.92 5 0.92 24 0.92 2 0% 0.92 9 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 128 128 4.1 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 120 120 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 14 3.5 1 None 264 260 134 266 255 136 134 266 255 136 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 8 3.5 1 12.0 14 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1438 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 116 NB 1 SB 1 6 35 24 1457 654 264 7.1 3.5 100 629 260 6.5 4.0 100 896 3.3 99 653 3.5 96 633 4.0 100 889 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 116 4 10 2 5 1 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1438 0 0.3 0.00 1457 0 0.1 0.01 844 699 1 4 10.4 0.05 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.3 9.3 A 10.4 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.7 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 Future Volume (Veh/h) 35 EBT 135 135 Free EBR WBL 5 21 5 21 WBT WBR 94 36 94 36 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 21 21 Stop NBR 12 12 SBL 33 33 SBT 13 13 Stop SBR 47 47 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 38 0.92 147 0% 0.92 5 0.92 23 0.92 102 0% 0.92 39 0.92 2 0.92 23 0% 0.92 13 0.92 36 0.92 14 0% 0.92 51 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 194 194 4.1 12.0 53 3.5 5 None 187 187 4.1 2.2 12.0 52 3.5 5 None 539 500 236 522 484 228 236 522 484 228 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 35 3.5 3 12.0 53 3.5 5 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1310 2.2 97 EB 1 WB 1 164 NB 1 SB 1 38 101 36 1341 98 342 539 7.1 3.5 99 414 500 6.5 4.0 94 737 3.3 98 357 3.5 90 423 4.0 97 732 3.3 93 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 5 190 38 39 23 13 2 51 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.03 1310 2 1.8 0.02 1341 1 1.2 0.08 481 496 6 19 14.1 0.20 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.8 A 1.2 A 13.1 13.1 B 14.1 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.0 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 Future Volume (Veh/h) 87 EBR 39 39 WBL WBT 28 44 28 44 NBL NBR 43 26 26 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 95 Free 0% 0.92 42 0.92 30 0.92 48 Free 0% 0.92 47 43 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 28 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 8 3.5 1 None 145 240 131 240 131 6.4 6.2 12.0 7 3.5 1 None 12.0 8 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 137 WB 1 NB 1 78 75 1426 145 4.1 2.2 98 721 3.5 3.3 93 97 905 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 42 0 0 30 28 47 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.08 1700 0 0.0 0.02 1426 2 3.0 0.10 781 8 10.1 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.0 A 10.1 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.4 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 197 201 76 311 3.186 40 0.995 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 158 161 180 183 3.186 23 0.997 5.5 A Left 1 1 195 199 164 113 3.186 40 0.995 5.9 A Left 1 1 123 125 262 79 3.186 31 0.996 5.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 201 161 199 125 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1047 944 959 870 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.983 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 197 158 195 123 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 925 936 853 V/C Ratio 0.193 0.171 0.209 0.144 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.5 5.9 5.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.3 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 7 7 18 4 3.186 11 0.998 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 20 20 2 14 3.186 12 0.998 3.4 A Left 1 1 12 12 4 21 3.186 12 0.998 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1110 1128 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1124 1124 V/C Ratio 0.006 0.018 0.011 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 51 52 77 131 3.186 11 0.998 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 137 139 70 46 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A Left 1 1 69 70 46 83 3.186 10 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 75 76 132 77 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 52 139 70 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1046 1054 1079 990 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 51 137 69 75 Cap Entry, veh/h 1033 1035 1060 975 V/C Ratio 0.050 0.132 0.065 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 4.7 4.0 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 58 59 99 177 3.186 16 0.998 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 192 196 25 127 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Left 1 1 15 15 137 21 3.186 18 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 103 105 171 49 3.186 23 0.997 4.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 196 15 105 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1023 1102 985 952 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 192 15 103 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 1075 967 929 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.178 0.015 0.111 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 5.0 3.9 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.4 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 103 105 100 38 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 57 59 79 159 3.186 9 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 82 83 155 50 3.186 13 0.998 4.6 A Left 1 1 104 106 32 106 3.186 13 0.998 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 105 59 83 106 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1022 1044 968 1094 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.973 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 57 82 104 Cap Entry, veh/h 1004 1015 951 1073 V/C Ratio 0.103 0.057 0.086 0.097 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 45 46 281 24 3.186 114 0.982 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 16 16 225 13 3.186 48 0.993 4.2 A Left 1 1 196 200 38 289 3.186 114 0.979 5.2 A Left 1 1 281 286 19 222 3.186 84 0.988 5.8 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 46 16 200 286 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 853 902 1088 1109 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 45 16 196 281 Cap Entry, veh/h 818 895 1046 1076 V/C Ratio 0.055 0.018 0.188 0.261 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.2 5.2 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 52 53 105 63 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 70 71 55 94 3.186 4 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 69 70 79 79 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A Left 1 1 94 96 72 54 3.186 4 0.999 4.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 71 70 96 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1017 1069 1044 1051 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.988 0.989 0.977 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 70 69 94 Cap Entry, veh/h 999 1056 1032 1027 V/C Ratio 0.052 0.066 0.067 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 146 149 221 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.7 A EB Left 1 1 95 97 220 132 3.186 13 0.998 5.1 A Left 1 1 225 230 123 247 3.186 12 0.998 5.9 A Left 1 1 202 205 168 149 3.186 15 0.998 6.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 149 97 230 205 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 906 907 999 955 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.978 0.980 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 146 95 225 202 Cap Entry, veh/h 886 886 978 937 V/C Ratio 0.165 0.107 0.231 0.215 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 5.1 5.9 6.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.9 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 133 136 186 57 3.186 16 0.998 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 19 19 153 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 150 153 4 318 3.186 11 0.998 4.5 A Left 1 1 171 174 69 103 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 136 19 153 174 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 970 1125 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.996 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 133 19 150 171 Cap Entry, veh/h 915 964 1102 1032 V/C Ratio 0.145 0.020 0.136 0.165 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 3.9 4.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 229 233 136 133 3.186 19 0.997 6.1 A EB Left 1 1 115 116 167 166 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Left 1 1 158 161 172 197 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A Left 1 1 129 131 138 145 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 116 161 131 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 986 956 951 984 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.988 0.982 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 229 115 158 129 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 942 932 966 V/C Ratio 0.237 0.122 0.170 0.134 Control Delay, s/veh 6.1 5.0 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.7 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 20 20 114 67 3.186 20 0.997 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 201 205 35 127 3.186 17 0.998 5.1 A Left 1 1 127 129 33 101 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 33 33 148 92 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 20 205 129 33 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1008 1091 1093 974 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.980 0.981 0.993 Flow Entry, veh/h 20 201 127 33 Cap Entry, veh/h 995 1067 1070 965 V/C Ratio 0.020 0.188 0.118 0.034 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 5.1 4.4 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 6 204 EBR WBL 16 10 WBT WBR Stop 178 6 NBL 27 NBT Stop 5 NBR 22 SBL 8 SBT Stop 2 SBR 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 7 6 0.92 222 204 0.92 17 16 0.92 11 10 0.92 193 178 0.92 7 6 0.92 29 27 0.92 5 5 0.92 24 22 0.92 9 8 0.92 2 2 0.92 4 4 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 246 EB 1 7 17 0.00 4.3 0.29 211 WB 1 11 7 0.02 4.4 0.26 58 NB 1 29 24 -0.11 4.8 0.08 15 SB 1 9 4 -0.01 5.0 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 815 9.1 9.1 A 794 8.9 8.9 A 679 8.2 8.2 A 644 8.1 8.1 Delay Intersection Summary 8.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 3 WBL WBT Stop 2 181 NBL NBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 253 233 233 0.92 3 3 0.92 2 2 0.92 197 181 0.92 0 Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 4 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 256 EB 1 0 3 0.03 4.1 0.29 199 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.23 4 NB 1 0 4 -0.57 4.3 0.00 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 861 8.8 8.8 A 848 8.4 8.4 A 753 7.3 7.3 Delay Intersection Summary 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 EBT 89 89 Free EBR WBL 3 3 3 3 WBT WBR 69 10 69 10 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 3 3 SBL 10 10 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 3 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 12 0.92 97 0% 0.92 3 0.92 3 0.92 75 0% 0.92 11 0.92 1 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 11 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 98 98 4.1 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 113 113 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 239 240 122 235 236 106 122 235 236 106 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 13 3.5 1 12.0 12 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1478 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 89 NB 1 SB 1 6 16 11 1458 676 239 7.1 3.5 100 639 240 6.5 4.0 100 909 3.3 100 683 3.5 98 643 4.0 100 926 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 112 12 11 3 3 1 3 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1478 1 0.9 0.00 1458 0 0.3 0.01 759 712 1 2 10.2 0.02 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.8 9.8 A 10.2 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.5 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 EBT 145 145 Free EBR WBL 9 5 9 5 WBT WBR 133 23 133 23 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 6 6 Stop NBR 7 7 SBL 26 26 SBT 4 4 Stop SBR 8 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 18 0.92 158 0% 0.92 10 0.92 5 0.92 145 0% 0.92 25 0.92 2 0.92 7 0% 0.92 8 0.92 28 0.92 4 0% 0.92 9 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 185 185 4.1 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 195 195 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 432 421 217 420 414 200 217 420 414 200 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 27 3.5 3 12.0 15 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1370 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 175 NB 1 SB 1 17 41 28 1343 477 432 7.1 3.5 100 495 421 6.5 4.0 99 781 3.3 99 489 3.5 94 499 4.0 99 808 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 10 186 18 25 5 8 2 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1370 1 0.8 0.00 1343 0 0.3 0.03 595 537 2 6 12.3 0.08 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.8 A 0.3 A 11.2 11.2 B 12.3 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.1 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 Future Volume (Veh/h) 48 EBR 29 29 WBL WBT 10 65 10 65 NBL NBR 51 18 18 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 52 Free 0% 0.92 32 0.92 11 0.92 71 Free 0% 0.92 55 51 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 20 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 17 3.5 2 None 101 195 95 195 95 6.4 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 12.0 17 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 84 WB 1 NB 1 82 75 1467 101 4.1 2.2 99 763 3.5 3.3 93 98 937 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 32 0 0 11 20 55 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.05 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1467 1 1.1 0.09 802 8 9.9 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 9.9 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.5 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 152 155 36 171 3.186 20 0.997 4.6 A EB Left 1 1 132 134 74 106 3.186 25 0.997 4.7 A Left 1 1 34 34 146 45 3.186 25 0.997 4.1 A Left 1 1 74 76 131 77 3.186 22 0.997 4.4 A Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 155 134 34 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1090 1049 976 991 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.983 0.987 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 152 132 34 74 Cap Entry, veh/h 1066 1028 960 968 V/C Ratio 0.143 0.128 0.035 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 4.6 4.7 4.1 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.4 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 5 5 24 6 3.186 16 0.998 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 28 28 2 8 3.186 21 0.997 3.4 A Left 1 1 9 9 1 28 3.186 21 0.997 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1103 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.996 0.997 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1121 1126 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.025 0.008 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 50 51 55 101 3.186 26 0.996 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 108 110 69 50 3.186 31 0.996 4.4 A Left 1 1 72 73 46 60 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A Left 1 1 47 48 108 71 3.186 19 0.997 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 110 73 48 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1069 1055 1079 1014 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 108 72 47 Cap Entry, veh/h 1050 1035 1058 999 V/C Ratio 0.048 0.105 0.068 0.047 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 42 43 13 152 3.186 27 0.996 3.6 A EB Left 1 1 160 163 18 35 3.186 35 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 5 5 48 7 3.186 35 0.995 3.4 A Left 1 1 20 20 145 36 3.186 28 0.996 3.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 43 163 5 20 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1115 1110 1077 977 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.992 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 42 160 5 20 Cap Entry, veh/h 1098 1086 1063 971 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.148 0.005 0.021 Control Delay, s/veh 3.6 4.6 3.4 3.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 65 66 81 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 92 94 104 114 3.186 23 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 110 112 106 41 3.186 34 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 79 81 48 150 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 66 94 112 81 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1042 1018 1016 1077 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.982 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 65 92 110 79 Cap Entry, veh/h 1021 997 996 1051 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.093 0.111 0.076 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.4 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 8 8 170 5 3.186 17 0.998 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 2 2 37 17 3.186 7 0.999 3.3 A Left 1 1 41 42 12 166 3.186 17 0.998 3.6 A Left 1 1 168 171 4 35 3.186 17 0.998 4.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 2 42 171 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 953 1089 1116 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 2 41 168 Cap Entry, veh/h 949 1088 1098 1102 V/C Ratio 0.008 0.002 0.038 0.152 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 3.3 3.6 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 41 42 39 34 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A EB Left 1 1 38 38 73 74 3.186 11 0.998 3.8 A Left 1 1 104 106 41 40 3.186 11 0.998 4.3 A Left 1 1 34 35 39 72 3.186 9 0.999 3.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 42 38 106 35 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1087 1050 1085 1087 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.988 0.979 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 41 38 104 34 Cap Entry, veh/h 1070 1036 1060 1070 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.036 0.098 0.032 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 3.8 4.3 3.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 130 132 158 161 3.186 11 0.998 5.1 A EB Left 1 1 127 129 199 86 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A Left 1 1 207 211 74 216 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A Left 1 1 147 149 170 158 3.186 18 0.998 5.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 132 129 211 149 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 965 926 1049 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.986 0.983 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 130 127 207 147 Cap Entry, veh/h 948 911 1029 935 V/C Ratio 0.137 0.140 0.202 0.157 Control Delay, s/veh 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 63 64 128 89 3.186 8 0.999 4.3 A EB Left 1 1 6 6 216 14 3.186 5 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 220 224 6 186 3.186 8 0.999 5.1 A Left 1 1 122 124 93 129 3.186 7 0.999 4.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 64 6 224 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 994 910 1123 1030 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.997 0.980 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 63 6 220 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 977 907 1100 1009 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.007 0.200 0.121 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.0 5.1 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 169 172 101 186 3.186 10 0.999 5.2 A EB Left 1 1 132 134 128 141 3.186 18 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 134 137 132 141 3.186 18 0.998 5.0 A Left 1 1 112 114 173 89 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 172 134 137 114 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1021 994 990 950 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.984 0.977 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 169 132 134 112 Cap Entry, veh/h 1003 975 965 935 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.135 0.139 0.120 Control Delay, s/veh 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 87 88 138 15 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 74 75 15 192 3.186 19 0.997 3.9 A Left 1 1 77 78 129 97 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 83 84 69 21 3.186 17 0.998 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 88 75 78 84 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 984 1113 993 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 87 74 77 83 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 1093 976 1035 V/C Ratio 0.090 0.068 0.079 0.080 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 242 EBR WBL 24 40 WBT WBR Stop 192 9 NBL 14 NBT Stop 12 NBR 17 SBL 9 SBT Stop 13 SBR 19 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 13 12 12 0.92 263 242 0.92 26 24 0.92 43 40 0.92 209 192 0.92 10 9 0.92 15 14 0.92 13 12 0.92 18 17 0.92 10 9 0.92 14 13 0.92 21 19 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 302 EB 1 13 26 -0.01 4.4 0.37 262 WB 1 43 10 0.04 4.5 0.33 46 NB 1 15 18 -0.14 5.1 0.07 45 SB 1 10 21 -0.20 5.0 0.06 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary B 791 10.0 10.0 A 768 9.7 9.7 A 626 8.5 8.5 A 630 8.4 8.4 Delay Level of Service 9.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 6 WBL WBT Stop 2 231 NBL NBR 7 7 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 286 263 263 0.92 7 6 0.92 2 2 0.92 251 231 0.92 5 Stop 5 5 0.92 0.92 8 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 293 EB 1 0 7 0.02 4.2 0.34 253 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.3 0.30 13 NB 1 5 8 -0.26 4.8 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 844 9.4 9.4 A 825 9.1 9.1 A 670 7.9 7.9 Delay Intersection Summary 9.2 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 32.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 EBT 119 119 Free EBR WBL 1 2 1 2 WBT WBR 112 10 112 10 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 0 0 Stop NBR 6 6 SBL 26 26 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 5 0.92 129 0% 0.92 1 0.92 2 0.92 122 0% 0.92 11 0.92 1 0.92 0 0% 0.92 7 0.92 28 0.92 2 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 149 149 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 139 139 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 306 302 154 310 296 158 154 310 296 158 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 9 3.5 1 12.0 16 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1411 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 135 NB 1 SB 1 8 40 28 1432 609 306 7.1 3.5 100 594 302 6.5 4.0 100 870 3.3 99 605 3.5 95 598 4.0 100 861 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 135 5 11 2 7 1 10 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1411 0 0.3 0.00 1432 0 0.1 0.01 826 653 1 5 10.9 0.06 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.4 9.4 A 10.9 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.8 26.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 Future Volume (Veh/h) 41 EBT 157 157 Free EBR WBL 6 24 6 24 WBT WBR 109 42 109 42 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 24 24 Stop NBR 14 14 SBL 38 38 SBT 15 15 Stop SBR 55 55 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 45 0.92 171 0% 0.92 7 0.92 26 0.92 118 0% 0.92 46 0.92 2 0.92 26 0% 0.92 15 0.92 41 0.92 16 0% 0.92 60 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 226 226 4.1 12.0 62 3.5 6 None 219 219 4.1 2.2 12.0 62 3.5 6 None 628 584 278 610 564 265 278 610 564 265 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 41 3.5 4 12.0 62 3.5 6 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1263 2.2 96 EB 1 WB 1 190 NB 1 SB 1 43 117 41 1298 98 280 628 7.1 3.5 99 362 584 6.5 4.0 93 688 3.3 98 296 3.5 86 371 4.0 96 685 3.3 91 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 7 223 45 46 26 15 2 60 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.04 1263 3 1.9 0.02 1298 2 1.2 0.10 427 435 8 27 16.3 0.27 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.9 A 1.2 A 14.4 14.4 B C 16.3 Approach LOS Intersection Summary B C Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.5 38.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/26/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101 Future Volume (Veh/h) 101 EBR 45 45 WBL WBT 33 51 33 51 NBL NBR 50 30 30 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 110 Free 0% 0.92 49 0.92 36 0.92 55 Free 0% 0.92 54 50 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 33 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 9 3.5 1 None 168 280 152 280 152 6.4 6.2 12.0 8 3.5 1 None 12.0 9 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 159 WB 1 NB 1 91 87 1398 168 4.1 2.2 97 680 3.5 3.3 92 96 880 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 49 0 0 36 33 54 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.09 1700 0 0.0 0.03 1398 2 3.1 0.12 744 10 10.5 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.1 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 31.0% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 228 233 88 360 3.186 48 0.993 5.7 A EB Left 1 1 182 185 207 212 3.186 28 0.996 6.0 A Left 1 1 226 230 189 132 3.186 48 0.993 6.5 A Left 1 1 144 146 302 90 3.186 36 0.995 6.2 A Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 185 230 146 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1035 919 935 835 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.983 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 228 182 226 144 Cap Entry, veh/h 1008 900 914 820 V/C Ratio 0.227 0.202 0.248 0.176 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 6.0 6.5 6.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.4 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 8 8 22 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.4 A EB Left 1 1 24 24 2 16 3.186 14 0.998 3.4 A Left 1 1 13 13 5 25 3.186 14 0.998 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1105 1128 1124 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry, veh/h 1090 1124 1122 V/C Ratio 0.007 0.021 0.012 Control Delay, s/veh 3.4 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 59 60 89 154 3.186 13 0.998 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 159 162 81 53 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 80 81 53 96 3.186 12 0.998 4.1 A Left 1 1 87 88 155 88 3.186 15 0.998 4.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 162 81 88 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1034 1042 1072 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 159 80 87 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 1023 1053 952 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.156 0.076 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.9 4.1 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 67 68 115 206 3.186 19 0.997 4.2 A EB Left 1 1 223 228 29 147 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A Left 1 1 17 17 159 24 3.186 21 0.997 4.0 A Left 1 1 120 122 199 58 3.186 27 0.996 5.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 68 228 17 122 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1007 1098 964 926 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 67 223 17 120 Cap Entry, veh/h 989 1071 946 905 V/C Ratio 0.068 0.208 0.018 0.132 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 5.3 4.0 5.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 120 122 117 44 3.186 15 0.998 4.8 A EB Left 1 1 66 68 92 186 3.186 10 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 97 98 180 59 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 122 124 37 123 3.186 15 0.998 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 122 68 98 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1005 1031 944 1089 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.975 0.985 0.984 Flow Entry, veh/h 120 66 97 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 987 1004 928 1069 V/C Ratio 0.122 0.066 0.104 0.114 Control Delay, s/veh 4.8 4.2 4.9 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.9 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 52 53 327 27 3.186 133 0.973 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 19 19 260 17 3.186 59 0.992 4.4 A Left 1 1 228 232 45 335 3.186 133 0.968 5.6 A Left 1 1 327 333 21 258 3.186 98 0.987 6.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 19 232 333 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 815 871 1080 1106 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 19 228 327 Cap Entry, veh/h 777 863 1027 1072 V/C Ratio 0.067 0.022 0.222 0.305 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 4.4 5.6 6.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 59 60 121 73 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A EB Left 1 1 81 82 64 110 3.186 5 0.999 4.1 A Left 1 1 82 83 91 90 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 109 111 83 63 3.186 5 0.999 4.5 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 82 83 111 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1001 1060 1032 1040 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.988 0.989 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 81 82 109 Cap Entry, veh/h 983 1047 1020 1017 V/C Ratio 0.060 0.077 0.080 0.107 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 170 173 258 176 3.186 17 0.998 6.2 A EB Left 1 1 111 113 257 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.5 A Left 1 1 262 267 142 289 3.186 14 0.998 6.5 A Left 1 1 234 238 196 174 3.186 17 0.998 6.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 173 113 267 238 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 873 874 980 929 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.980 0.982 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 170 111 262 234 Cap Entry, veh/h 855 855 960 911 V/C Ratio 0.199 0.130 0.273 0.257 Control Delay, s/veh 6.2 5.5 6.5 6.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.2 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 154 157 216 67 3.186 19 0.997 5.8 A EB Left 1 1 22 22 177 4 3.186 15 0.998 4.0 A Left 1 1 174 177 4 369 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A Left 1 1 198 202 81 118 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 157 22 177 202 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 910 947 1125 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.996 0.982 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 154 22 174 198 Cap Entry, veh/h 890 940 1103 1019 V/C Ratio 0.173 0.023 0.158 0.194 Control Delay, s/veh 5.8 4.0 4.7 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 264 270 157 156 3.186 22 0.997 6.7 A EB Left 1 1 133 137 192 191 3.186 27 0.996 5.4 A Left 1 1 182 185 198 228 3.186 15 0.998 5.9 A Left 1 1 150 152 161 168 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 270 137 185 152 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 966 933 927 962 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.974 0.983 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 264 133 182 150 Cap Entry, veh/h 941 905 909 944 V/C Ratio 0.280 0.147 0.200 0.159 Control Delay, s/veh 6.7 5.4 5.9 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 23 23 132 78 3.186 23 0.997 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 233 238 40 148 3.186 20 0.997 5.5 A Left 1 1 148 150 38 117 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A Left 1 1 38 39 172 106 3.186 23 0.997 4.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 23 238 150 39 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 990 1086 1088 951 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.978 0.984 0.968 Flow Entry, veh/h 23 233 148 38 Cap Entry, veh/h 976 1059 1067 918 V/C Ratio 0.023 0.220 0.138 0.041 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 5.5 4.6 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 7 240 EBR WBL 19 12 WBT WBR Stop 209 7 NBL 32 NBT Stop 6 NBR 26 SBL 9 SBT Stop 2 SBR 5 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 8 7 0.92 261 240 0.92 21 19 0.92 13 12 0.92 227 209 0.92 8 7 0.92 35 32 0.92 7 6 0.92 28 26 0.92 10 9 0.92 2 2 0.92 5 5 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 290 EB 1 8 21 0.00 4.4 0.35 248 WB 1 13 8 0.03 4.5 0.31 70 NB 1 35 28 -0.11 5.0 0.10 17 SB 1 10 5 -0.02 5.2 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 796 9.8 9.8 A 776 9.4 9.4 A 645 8.6 8.6 A 610 8.3 8.3 Delay Intersection Summary 9.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 4 WBL WBT Stop 2 213 NBL NBR 5 5 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 298 274 274 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 232 213 0.92 0 Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 5 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 302 EB 1 0 4 0.03 4.2 0.35 234 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.28 5 NB 1 0 5 -0.57 4.5 0.01 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 853 9.4 9.4 A 829 8.8 8.8 A 716 7.5 7.5 Delay Intersection Summary 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 28.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 EBT 105 105 Free EBR WBL 4 4 4 4 WBT WBR 81 12 81 12 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 4 4 SBL 12 12 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 14 0.92 114 0% 0.92 4 0.92 4 0.92 88 0% 0.92 13 0.92 1 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 13 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 115 115 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 133 133 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 282 282 143 278 278 124 143 278 278 124 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 15 3.5 1 12.0 14 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1454 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 105 NB 1 SB 1 7 19 13 1431 628 282 7.1 3.5 100 602 282 6.5 4.0 100 881 3.3 100 634 3.5 98 605 4.0 100 902 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 4 132 14 13 4 4 1 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1454 1 0.9 0.00 1431 0 0.3 0.01 740 673 1 2 10.5 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.9 9.9 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.6 25.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 EBT 170 170 Free EBR WBL 11 6 11 6 WBT WBR 156 27 156 27 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 7 7 Stop NBR 8 8 SBL 31 31 SBT 5 5 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 22 0.92 185 0% 0.92 12 0.92 7 0.92 170 0% 0.92 29 0.92 2 0.92 8 0% 0.92 9 0.92 34 0.92 5 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 217 217 4.1 12.0 32 3.5 3 None 229 229 4.1 2.2 12.0 32 3.5 3 None 510 498 255 496 490 234 255 496 490 234 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 32 3.5 3 12.0 18 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1329 2.2 98 EB 1 WB 1 206 NB 1 SB 1 19 49 34 1298 99 413 510 7.1 3.5 100 442 498 6.5 4.0 98 737 3.3 99 426 3.5 92 447 4.0 99 767 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 12 219 22 29 7 9 2 10 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.02 1329 1 0.9 0.01 1298 0 0.3 0.04 540 471 3 9 13.5 0.10 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 11.9 11.9 B 13.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.3 36.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/23/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 EBR 34 34 WBL WBT 12 76 12 76 NBL NBR 60 21 21 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 61 Free 0% 0.92 37 0.92 13 0.92 83 Free 0% 0.92 65 60 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 23 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 20 3.5 2 None 118 228 112 228 112 6.4 6.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 12.0 20 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 98 WB 1 NB 1 96 88 1442 118 4.1 2.2 99 724 3.5 3.3 91 97 913 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 37 0 0 13 23 65 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.06 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1442 1 1.1 0.11 766 10 10.3 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 10.3 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 25.7% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 179 182 44 202 3.186 24 0.997 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 156 159 88 125 3.186 29 0.996 5.0 A Left 1 1 39 40 173 53 3.186 29 0.996 4.2 A Left 1 1 89 91 155 92 3.186 26 0.996 4.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 182 159 40 91 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1081 1035 950 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.983 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 179 156 39 89 Cap Entry, veh/h 1058 1013 934 947 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.154 0.042 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 5.0 4.2 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.5 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 6 6 29 7 3.186 19 0.997 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 33 34 2 9 3.186 25 0.997 3.6 A Left 1 1 10 10 1 34 3.186 25 0.997 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 6 34 10 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1098 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.997 0.968 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 6 33 10 Cap Entry, veh/h 1091 1088 1125 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.030 0.009 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.6 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 58 59 65 117 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 126 128 81 58 3.186 36 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 84 85 54 70 3.186 36 0.995 4.1 A Left 1 1 56 57 125 84 3.186 22 0.997 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 128 85 57 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1059 1042 1071 997 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 126 84 56 Cap Entry, veh/h 1039 1022 1049 982 V/C Ratio 0.056 0.123 0.080 0.057 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.6 4.1 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 50 51 16 178 3.186 32 0.996 3.7 A EB Left 1 1 189 192 22 42 3.186 41 0.994 4.9 A Left 1 1 6 6 58 9 3.186 41 0.994 3.5 A Left 1 1 24 24 170 44 3.186 33 0.995 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 192 6 24 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1112 1105 1066 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.993 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 189 6 24 Cap Entry, veh/h 1094 1081 1053 946 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.175 0.006 0.025 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 4.9 3.5 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 77 78 95 55 3.186 47 0.994 4.3 A EB Left 1 1 107 109 121 134 3.186 27 0.996 4.7 A Left 1 1 128 130 125 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.9 A Left 1 1 93 95 55 175 3.186 47 0.994 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 78 109 130 95 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1028 1001 997 1069 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.984 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 77 107 128 93 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 981 976 1045 V/C Ratio 0.076 0.109 0.131 0.089 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 10 10 199 6 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 2 2 44 19 3.186 8 0.999 3.3 A Left 1 1 48 49 14 195 3.186 20 0.997 3.7 A Left 1 1 197 201 4 42 3.186 20 0.997 4.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 10 2 49 201 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 926 1081 1114 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 10 2 48 197 Cap Entry, veh/h 922 1080 1095 1102 V/C Ratio 0.011 0.002 0.044 0.179 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 3.3 3.7 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 49 50 46 40 3.186 13 0.998 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 44 45 86 87 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 122 124 49 47 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A Left 1 1 39 40 46 85 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 50 45 124 40 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1079 1037 1076 1079 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.987 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 49 44 122 39 Cap Entry, veh/h 1062 1022 1053 1062 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.043 0.115 0.037 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.9 4.4 3.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 153 156 186 187 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A EB Left 1 1 149 151 232 101 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A Left 1 1 242 246 87 255 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A Left 1 1 173 176 197 186 3.186 21 0.997 5.8 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 156 151 246 176 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 896 1036 928 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.986 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 153 149 242 173 Cap Entry, veh/h 917 881 1015 910 V/C Ratio 0.167 0.169 0.238 0.190 Control Delay, s/veh 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 74 75 151 104 3.186 9 0.999 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 8 8 255 17 3.186 6 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 259 264 8 218 3.186 9 0.999 5.5 A Left 1 1 142 145 110 153 3.186 8 0.999 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 75 8 264 145 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 972 876 1121 1012 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.998 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 74 8 259 142 Cap Entry, veh/h 956 873 1099 991 V/C Ratio 0.077 0.009 0.236 0.143 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.2 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 199 203 118 220 3.186 12 0.998 5.6 A EB Left 1 1 155 158 152 166 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A Left 1 1 159 162 156 165 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A Left 1 1 131 134 204 106 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 203 158 162 134 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1004 971 967 921 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.984 0.980 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 199 155 159 131 Cap Entry, veh/h 981 952 944 900 V/C Ratio 0.202 0.163 0.168 0.146 Control Delay, s/veh 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 103 106 162 17 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 87 88 17 227 3.186 22 0.997 4.0 A Left 1 1 90 91 153 115 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A Left 1 1 97 98 81 24 3.186 20 0.997 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 106 88 91 98 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 961 1111 970 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.976 0.987 0.987 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 87 90 97 Cap Entry, veh/h 936 1093 954 1024 V/C Ratio 0.111 0.079 0.094 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.0 4.6 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Attachment D - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment D – Parking Occupancy Study 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Table 1: Bryant Street Bike Boulevard # of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Palo Alto Ave (southside) Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Hawthorne Ave (southside) Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Everett Ave (southside) Everett Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Everett Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Everett Ave to 335 driveway (southside) Bryant St Channing Ave to Addison Ave (southside) Addison Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Addison Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Addison Ave to Lincoln Ave (southside) Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Kingsley Ave (southside) Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Kingsley Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Embarcadero Rd (southside) Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kellogg Ave (southside) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Emerson St (westside) Lowell Ave Emerson St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Santa Rita Ave to Washington Ave (southside) Bryant St Washington Ave to California Ave (southside) California Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) California Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St California Ave to Oregon Expy (southside) El Verano Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) El Verano Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) El Verano Ave Bryant St to South Ct (eastside) El Verano Ave South Ct to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Oregon Expy to California Ave (northside) Bryant St California Ave to Santa Rita Ave (northside) California Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside) 88.00 4 0 0.0% 2 2 0% 487.00 22 9.25 41.8% 20 2 46% 274.00 12 8.25 66.2% 11 1 72% 112.00 5 5 98.2% 4 1 122% 139.00 6 6.25 98.9% 5 1 118% 196.00 9 7.5 84.2% 8 1 95% 256.00 12 9.75 83.8% 10 2 101% 157.00 7 3 42.0% 5 2 58% 181.00 8 3.5 42.5% 6 2 56% 335.00 15 5.75 37.8% 13 2 43% 387.00 18 7.25 41.2% 15 3 50% 207.00 9 3 31.9% 6 3 47% 165.00 8 0.75 10.0% 5 3 17% 253.00 12 3.25 28.3% 7 5 50% 264.00 12 5.5 45.8% 12 0 46% 424.00 19 8.5 44.1% 17 2 49% 370.00 17 10 59.5% 15 2 67% 362.00 16 5.5 33.4% 16 0 33% 105.00 5 1.5 31.4% 3 2 54% 176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 6 2 8% 206.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0% 432.00 20 5.75 29.3% 18 2 33% 215.00 10 1.25 12.8% 8 2 16% 192.00 9 1 11.5% 7 2 15% 211.00 10 2.25 23.5% 8 2 30% 204.00 9 0.5 5.4% 7 2 7% 513.00 23 6.25 26.8% 21 2 29% 1600.00 73 12.5 17.2% 71 2 18% 300.00 14 0.7 4.9% 12 2 6% 17 # of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment California Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside) Lowell Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Kellogg Ave to Embarcadero Rd (northside) Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kingsley Ave (northside) Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside) Kinglsey Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Lincoln Ave (northside) Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Addison Ave (northside) Addison Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside) Addison Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Addison Ave to Channing Ave (northside) Bryant St mixed use building to Everett Ave (northside) Everett Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside)* Everett Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Everett Ave to Hawthorn Ave (northside) Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Poe St (northside) Poe St Bryant St to Palo Alto Ave (eastside) Poe St Palo Alto Ave to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Poe St to Palo Alto Ave (northside) 387.00 18 8.3 47.4% 16 2 53% 421.00 19 4.3 22.6% 17 2 25% 415.00 19 3.3 17.7% 17 2 20% 255.00 12 1.75 15.1% 10 2 18% 237.00 11 2.5 23.2% 5 6 52% 425.00 19 15.25 78.9% 16 3 93% 410.00 19 13.25 71.1% 16 3 85% 332.00 15 5.25 34.8% 12 3 43% 313.00 14 6.75 47.4% 12 2 55% 400.00 18 7.5 41.3% 16 2 46% 334.00 15 7.5 49.4% 13 2 57% 340.00 15 12.25 79.3% 13 2 91% 166.00 8 5.75 76.2% 7 1 88% 177.00 8 12.5 155.4% 7 1 177% 346.00 16 11.75 74.7% 15 1 80% 250.00 11 9 79.2% 10 1 87% 371.00 17 14.5 86.0% 17 0 86% 388.00 18 4.75 26.9% 18 0 27% 281.00 13 2.25 17.6% 13 0 18% 131 6 0.5 8.4% 2 4 26% TOTAL 15,190.00 690.5 279 40.4% 595 95 47% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 24, 2016 at 12:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Daytime #1 for select locations were surveyed on March 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM (California btwn Bryant and Waverely; Lowell Ave btwn Bryant and Waverley) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) California Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) *A high number of compact cars were observed on Everett Street (Bryant Street to Waverley Street - east side) which culminated in more parkings spaces observed than typically available when estimated at 22 feet per space. 18 Table 2: Ross Road Bike Boulevard # ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces Ross Rd Oregon Expy to Moreno Ave (southside) Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Rosewood Dr (southside) Ross Rd Rosewood Dr to Colorado Ave (southside) Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Randers Ct (westside) Colorado Ave Randers Ct to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Sutter Ave (southside) Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Clara Dr (southside) Ross Rd Clara Dr to Stern Ave (southside) Ross Rd Stern Ave to Allen Ct (southside) Ross Rd Allen Ct to Loma Verde Ave (southside) Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Loma Verde Pl (westside) Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Pl to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Ames Ave (southside) Ross Rd Ames Ave to Stone Ln (southside) Ross Rd Stone Ln to Talisman Dr (northside) Talisman Dr Ross Rd to bend in road (westside) Talisman Dr bend in road to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Christine Dr (southside) Ross Rd Christine Dr to Meadow Dr (southside) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Mayview Ave (southside) Ross Rd Mayview Ave to Corina Wy (southside) Ross Rd W Corina Wy to E Corina Wy (southside) Ross Rd E Corina Wy to Louis Rd (southside) Ross Rd Louis Rd to Nathan Wy (southside) Ross Rd Nathan Wy to Louis Rd (northside) Ross Rd Louis Rd to Corina Wy (northside) Ross Rd Corina Wy to Ramos Park Path (northside) Ross Rd Ramos Park Path to Meadow Dr (northside) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Talisman Dr (northside) Talisman Dr Ross to Arbutus Ave (eastside) Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside) Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Ames Ave (northside) Ross Rd Ames Ave to Richardson Ct (northside) Ross Rd Richardson Ct to Ross Ct (northside) Ross Rd Ross Ct to Loma Verde Ave (northside) Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Manchester Ct (eastside) Loma Verde Ave Manchester Ct to Ross Rd (westside) Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Wintergreen Wy (northside) Ross Rd Wintergreen Wy to Clara Dr (northside) Ross Rd Clara Dr to Sutter Ave (northside) 402.00 18 4.75 26.0% 16 2 29% 176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 5 3 10% 548.00 25 7 28.1% 23 2 31% 138.00 6 0.25 4.0% 5 1 5% 68.00 3 0 0.0% 1 2 0% 155.00 7 1.5 21.3% 5 2 30% 151.00 7 0.75 10.9% 5 2 15% 354.00 16 2.75 17.1% 14 2 20% 180.00 8 2.25 27.5% 2 6 103% 386.00 18 5.5 31.3% 15 3 38% 225.00 10 2.25 22.0% 8 2 27% 201.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0% 488.00 22 4 18.0% 19 3 21% 405.00 18 7.5 40.7% 13 5 56% 227.00 10 1.75 17.0% 9 1 19% 255.00 12 2.5 21.6% 11 1 24% 282.00 13 2 15.6% 11 2 18% 183.00 8 0.5 6.0% 7 1 7% 275.00 13 4.5 36.0% 12 1 39% 284.00 13 3.25 25.2% 13 0 25% 102.00 5 1.25 27.0% 5 0 27% 317.00 14 1.75 12.1% 13 1 13% 148.00 7 0.25 3.7% 4 3 7% 129.00 6 0.5 8.5% 6 0 9% 125.00 6 0.25 4.4% 5 1 5% 141.00 6 0.75 11.7% 3 3 22% 453.00 21 5.25 25.5% 20 1 27% 332.00 15 5.5 36.4% 14 1 39% 445.00 20 4 19.8% 19 1 21% 190.00 9 3.25 37.6% 8 1 43% 172.00 8 1.5 19.2% 7 1 22% 779.00 35 10.5 29.7% 32 3 32% 95.00 4 1 23.2% 3 1 30% 145.00 7 0 0.0% 7 0 0% 184.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0% 106.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0% 122.00 6 2 36.1% 4 2 56% 793.00 36 6.5 18.0% 30 6 22% 173.00 8 0.75 9.5% 8 0 10% 220.00 10 0.25 2.5% 8 2 3% 19 Block Segment Feet of Parking Space # of Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percentage of Use Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Expected Utilization Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Colorado Ave (northside) 177.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0% Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Sevyson Ct (eastside) 432.00 20 0 0.0% 18 2 0% Colorado Ave Sevyson Ct to Ross Rd (westside) 492.00 22 7.5 33.5% 20 2 37% Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Marshall Dr (northside) 381.00 17 4.75 27.4% 16 1 29% Ross Rd Marshall Dr to Moreno Ave (northside) 274.00 12 3.75 30.1% 10 2 36% Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Oregon Expy (northside) 447.00 20 6.75 33.2% 18 2 37% TOTAL 12,757.00 579.9 121.5 21.0% 495 85 25% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 23, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification 4) Louis Road is no parking on the north side of street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) Colorado Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 6) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 20 Table 3: Moreno-Amarillo Avenues Bike Boulevard # ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces Moreno Ave Rosewood Dr to Ross Rd (eastside) Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Marshall Dr (eastside) Moreno Ave Marshall Dr to Ross Rd (westside) Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Coastland Dr (westside) Moreno Ave Coastland Dr to Rosewood Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave Louis Rd to Ohlone Elem driveway (eastside) Amarillo Ave Ohlone Elem driveway to Greer Rd (eastside) Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Greer Park Pathway (eastside) Amarillo Ave Greer Park Pathway to W Bayshore Rd (eastside) Amarillo Ave W Bayshore Rd to N Tanland Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave N Tanland Dr to S Tanland Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave S Tanland Dr to Greer Rd (westside) Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Louis Rd (westside) Louis Rd Moreno Ave to Fielding Dr (southside) Louis Rd Fielding Dr to Bruce Dr (southside) Louis Rd Bruce Dr to Amarillo Ave (northside) Louis Rd Amarillo Ave to Moreno Ave (northside) 357.00 16 1.25 7.7% 14 2 9% 172.00 8 0.75 9.6% 6 2 13% 162.00 7 0.5 6.8% 5 2 9% 217.00 10 2.25 22.8% 8 2 29% 113.00 5 0.75 14.6% 5 0 15% 206.00 9 2.75 29.4% 0 9 #DIV/0! 311.00 14 4.25 30.1% 13 1 33% 559.00 25 4.5 17.7% 24 1 19% 640.00 29 14.5 49.8% 18 11 81% 223.00 10 8 78.9% 5 5 160% 197.00 9 5.25 58.6% 7 2 75% 473.00 22 10.75 50.0% 20 2 54% 702.00 32 10.25 32.1% 16 16 64% 200.00 9 0 0.0% 0 9 0% 206.00 9 4.75 50.7% 9 0 51% 67.00 3 0 0.0% 3 0 0% 124.00 6 0 0.0% 6 0 0% TOTAL 4,929.00 224 70.5 31.5% 160 65 44% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 5) Amarillo from Louis next to Ohlone has one no parking space from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. A maintenance truck was parked in that spot Daytime #1 6) Amarillo north of Ohlone, the first house has a no parking sign from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. 21 Table 4: Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Feet of # of Available Average ProposedPercentage Spaces ExpectedParking Parking Cars Parkingof Use Lost UtilizationSpace Spaces Observed SpacesBlock Segment Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Arbutus Ave (eastside) Meadow Dr Ortega Ct to Louis Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Meadow Cir (eastside) Meadow Cir Meadow Dr to Paloma St (eastside) Meadow Cir Paloma St to Meadow Cir (westside) Meadow Cir Meadow Cir to Loral Space Systems (1085) (northside) Meadow Cir Loral Space Systems to Meadow Dr (southside) Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Fabian Wy (southside) Meadow Dr Fabian Wy to Meadow Cir (northside) Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Louis Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Ortega Ct (eastside) Meadow Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Grove Ave (westside) Meadow Dr Grove Ave to Ross Rd (eastside) Montrose Ave Middlefield Rd to Sutherland Dr (westside) Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Seminole Wy (westside) Montrose Ave Seminole Wy to Charleston Rd (westside) Louis Rd Charleston Rd to Bibbits Dr (westside) Louis Rd Bibbits Dr to Charleston Rd (eastside) Montrose Ave Charleston Rd to Sutherland Dr (eastside) Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Middlefield Rd (eastside) Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Corina Wy (southside) Louis Rd Corina Wy to Meadow Dr (northside) Louis Rd Aspen Wy to Meadow Dr (northside) Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Aspen Wy (southside) 106.00 5 1.75 36.3% 4 1 46% 143.00 7 0.75 11.5% 6 1 14% 867.00 39 9.25 23.5% 38 1 24% 282.00 13 8.5 66.3% 13 0 66% 293.00 13 7 52.6% 12 1 57% 342.00 16 2.75 17.7% 16 0 18% 355.00 16 3.25 20.1% 15 1 21% 381.00 17 0.25 1.4% 17 0 1% 342.00 16 14.75 94.9% 16 0 95% 445.00 20 9 44.5% 19 1 47% 148.00 7 1.75 26.0% 6 1 31% 112.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0% 386.00 18 4 22.8% 17 1 24% 365.00 17 0.75 4.5% 15 2 5% 170.00 8 1.25 16.2% 8 0 16% 700.00 32 10.75 33.8% 32 0 34% 158.00 7 0.75 10.4% 7 0 11% 101.00 5 1.5 32.7% 4 1 38% 116.00 5 0 0.0% 0 5 #DIV/0! 736.00 33 11.25 33.6% 31 2 36% 170.00 8 2.75 35.6% 8 0 34% 106.00 5 0 0.0% 5 0 0% 139.00 6 0 0.0% 5 1 0% 584.00 27 0.25 0.9% 27 0 1% 596.00 27 6.5 24.0% 26 1 25% TOTAL 8,143.00 370.1 98.75 26.7% 348 22 28% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 22 Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment E – Concept Plans Attachment F - C E Q A N O T I C E O F E X E M P T I O N To: Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder From: City of Palo Alto 70 West Hedding Street, First Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, CA 95110 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Title: Bicycle Boulevards – Bryant Street, Moreno-Amarillo Avenues, and Ross Road Project Location: Several streets throughout the City of Palo Alto, including Bryant Street (Palo Alto to East Meadow), Moreno Avenue (Middlefield to Louis), Louis Road (Moreno to Amarillo), Amarillo Avenue (Louis to West Bayshore), and Ross Road (Garland to East Meadow) Project Location – City: Palo Alto Project Location – County: Santa Clara Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto Description of Project: This project will make bicycle and pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb-outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the existing public right-of-way. Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Palo Alto Exempt Status: Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. Reasons why Project is Exempt: The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities. Per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the project is not located on a hazardous waste site, would not result in a significant impact due to unusual circumstances, damage scenic resources, affect a historic resource, or result in a cumulative impact. For these reasons and those stated above, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Lead Agency Contact Person: Josh Mello Phone Number: Signature: John Hesler Date: Title: Senior Environmental Specialist Attachment G - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose and Amarillo- Moreno Bicycle Boulevards Staff Report Attachment G – March 29, 2016 Public Meeting Summary On March 29, 2016, The City of Palo Alto staff with help from Alta Planning + Design (Alta), the consultant team, held a public meeting to present the concept plans for four bicycle boulevards: Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues, Bryant Street, Louis Road & Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road. The meeting was held at Ohlone Elementary School from 6:30-8:30 PM. 61 people were recorded in attendance. The meeting began with a presentation by the City of Palo Alto and Alta staff. The presentation focused on why these projects are important to the city, previous meetings held for this project, how the concept plans have changed based on public feedback at previous meetings, some technical aspects of bicycle boulevard treatments, and the comment cards available to record comments. Participants were invited to ask clarifying and process questions, but save corridor specific questions and comments for the individual discussions. Several questions were raised, many regarding the proposed mini-roundabouts and their efficacy. City staff directed attendees to the Federal Highway Administration’s website on proven safety countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/) for data and research to support the use of roundabouts in Palo Alto. After the presentation, attendees were directed to the back of the room where the concept plans were presented on tables by corridor. Comment cards and pens were available at each table for attendees to provide feedback. The comments provided by participants were scanned as written and are attached to this document. Several emails and a flyer that was distributed before the event are also attached. Common themes expressed on the comment cards are below. General comments are presented first, followed by corridor-specific comments. General Comments The proposed designs are great and thank you for listening to us (9) The proposed roundabouts are welcome (10) The proposed removal of stop signs in favor of roundabouts does not seem safe for pedestrians (2) Palo Alto should be more bold with these designs (2) More education should be done for all roadway users on these treatments (3) The proposed raised intersections are welcome and should be implemented elsewhere (3) When implementing these plans, do not add too many signs. Signs are an urban blight and can distract from the roadway (3) The proposed slotted speed bumps are welcome (2) Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues The increase in landscaping along Amarillo is welcome (4) The removal of parking on Amarillo near Greer Park should be mitigated by adding more parking to the parking lot nearby (2) Two attendees mentioned the proposed mini-roundabout at Ross at Moreno. One was in favor and one was opposed. Bryant Street The proposed roundabout at Bryant at California was a major topic for discussion. Some attendees commented that a roundabout at this intersection is a safety concern and will not work as intended (6). Other attendees were in favor of the design and noted that it will go a long way to make all roadway users feel safe (5). The proposed parking removal near the First Baptist Church is worrisome due to the large number of Sunday and nighttime events (4) Louis Road & Montrose Avenue The proposed roundabouts are welcome (1) Although not technically part of this project, the concept plans note to consider relocating the existing crossing and bus stop from the driveway into Walgreens to Moreno as a potential future project. One person was in favor of this and two were against Ross Road The proposed landscaping on Ross in front of the YMCA parking lot should be kept short for maximum visibility (2) The existing traffic signal at Ross and Oregon Expressway is not timed for bicyclists even though bicyclists are the only ones that use the signal. This light should either be removed or retimed (2) Keep the stop signs on Ross at Ames (2) In addition to the comments received about the project corridors, there were two comments made about other projects or policy issues. Specifically: Charleston Road. Although not a part of this project, two comments were made about the markings along Charleston Road needing to be reworked. Trash Pickup Policy. The new policy regarding leaving trash cans in bike lanes is hazardous for all roadway users as bicyclists must swerve out of the bike lane into the vehicle lane to not run into them (2) Event Photos RE: Bryant street blvd Mello, Joshuah to me, jonathanschuppert@altaplanning.com 4:19 PM FYI From: Annette Glanckopf [mailto:] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:16 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd Thanks again White is better than green. The green marking are distasteful and and distracting. Why do we need any markings at all? Drivers ignore signage. Bikers already know the street, All of this signage gets ignored very quickly (almost immediately after it is installed) and is just - IMHO - urban blight. The visual effect is unpleasant and it changes the character of suburban to urban Annette On 3/28/2016 3:48 PM, Mello, Joshuah wrote: Ms. Glanckopf: Those markings are white. … Regards, JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Transportation office: 650.329.2136 fax: 650.329.2154 Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the or click to make a service request. From: Annette Glanckopf [] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 3:28 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd Thank you for your reply That is not what I see on plans. annetteglanckopf@att.net Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org app here mailto:annetteglanckopf@att.net No biker has difficulty knowing this is a bike path. From the plans it looks to me like the green "gateway markings" will be at the intersection of Colorado and Bryant as well as the intersection of El Dorado and Bryant. The only problem I witness on a daily basis is the bike speeders who consider Bryant their own personal street. They are extremely rude and just this weekend one came within inches of hitting me as I was trimming my bushes, I oppose the green markings. They are urban blight and do not belong on a residential street. Several of my neighbors agree with me. If I am looking at the plans incorrectly, please let me know. Annette … FW: Bryant Street emails me to me 9:50 AM … ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Brunicardi <> To: Transportation <> Cc: Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:59:28 +0000 Subject: Bryant/N. California Street(s) roundabout Dear Mr. Mello, I realize this is coming to you on the eve of a community meeting about changes to the Bryant Street Bike Blvd, but I wanted to get in touch with you about the proposal for the Bryant/ N . California intersection. Let me say up front that my family enjoys the "bikability" of Palo Alto and we bike to school and work every day. But we also live within 150' of the above mentioned intersection and have some serious concerns about the proposed changes. My wife and I, as well as every neighbor in the vicinity, feel that the roundabout idea is a poor one at best. From what I've seen at previous meetings, and from the current drawing, it appears to merge bicycles and vehicular traffic into one lane, leaving very little room for error. Remember this intersection is heavily used by young teens coming and going to Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School. If the city is expecting them to abide by the rules of a roundabout 100% of the time they are deluding themselves. My wife and I have said separately that the most dangerous section of Bryant street for a cyclist is the roundabout at Addison. Cars fly into it without looking, or completely do not understand the right of way. I've had to lock up my brakes and veer out of the way several times. This would be worse and Bryant and N. California because there is more traffic of every type. The second issue regarding a roundabout at N. California and Bryant streets is the parking problem that will arise from the removal of parking spaces at each corner of the intersection. If you take into consideration the size of the chicanes it seems feasible that we'd lose sixteen in total. This is unacceptable because the First Baptist Church at that corner has become less of a church and more of a community center. Without exaggeration, well over a hundred people come and go every afternoon. There is a large music school comprising the entire top floor of the former church rectory. There are other businesses on site as well and they all need to park somewhere. My family is rarely afforded the luxury of parking in from of our own home. Same is true for our neighbors. The loss of any parking spaces would be detrimental to the flow of everyday life for the neighborhood. In short this is a reckless proposal that has not been studied properly and it should not be allowed to proceed. Thank you for your time. All best, David Brunicardi 2183 Bryant Street ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Miriam W Palm <> To: Transportation <> Cc: Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:58:30 +0000 Subject: Traffic circles I don’t have an objection to circles per se, I actually like them. But I urge you to build and implement them as they are intended to be, and as Stanford has done on campus: they should be a four way YIELD , and not have stop signs on two sides, as the one at Bryant and Addison does. This defeats the purpose of the circle. If you construct more in Palo Alto, please keep this in mind. And get rid of the stop signs on Addison. Miram Palm 2185 Waverley St. Miriam Palm Librarian Emerita, Stanford University Phone & Fax (650) 327-8989 david.brunicardi@gmail.com Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org mwpalm@stanford.edu Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16163533 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 18th day of April, 2016, (“Agreement”) by andbetween the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN, a California corporation, located at 100 Webster Street, Suite 300, Oakland, California, 94607, Telephone Number (510)540-5008 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to develop the final construction plans and associated engagement activities necessary for the successful completion of the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard design (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 ATTACHMENT H Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Seven Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four Dollars ($749,584.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Eight Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two Dollars ($824,542.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 636 9th Street Oakland, California, 94607 (510) 590-3421 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Brett Hondorp as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Hugh Louch as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Joshuah Mello, Planning & Community Services Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-3126. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Principal Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES This scope of services provides details for the development of final construction plans and associated engagement activities necessary for the successful completion of the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard design for Bryant, Moreno-Amarillo, Ross, Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Corridors. Task 1: Project Initiation, Surveying & Mapping 1.1 Kick-off Meeting and Data Collection (CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant) CONSULTANT will schedule and lead a project kick-off meeting with the CITY to confirm the project goals, schedule, lines of communication and collect background information. The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT Team with detailed direction and design standards including CITY specific details for roundabout and landscaping configurations and material finishes, traffic control, wayfinding sign type and color, greenback or conventional sharrows, and other CITY Standards and preferences. Deliverables: Meeting Minutes 1.2 Topographic Surveys, Utility and ROW Investigation (Sub-Consultant) Topographic surveys will be performed by Sub-Consultant for the locations listed below: Bryant Corridor Bryant Street and Poe Street/Palo Alto Avenue Bryant Street and Everett Avenue Bryant Street and Homer Avenue Bryant Street and Channing Avenue Bryant Street and Addison Avenue Bryant Street and Kingsley Avenue Bryant Street and Embarcadero Road Bryant Street and N California Avenue Bryant Street at Matadero Creek (north of El Carmelo Ave) Bryant Street and Loma Verde Avenue Bryant Street and Campesino Avenue Bryant Street and El Verano Avenue Moreno-Amarillo Corridor Moreno Avenue and Ross Road Louis Road between Moreno Avenue and Amarillo Avenue Amarillo Avenue (south side of street) between Louis Road and westernmost Ohlone Elementary School Driveway Amarillo Avenue Mid-block between center and easternmost Ohlone Elementary School Driveway Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road Amarillo Avenue and Tanland Drive (West) including south side of Amarillo Avenue between westernmost Greer Park path and Tanland Drive (West) DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Amarillo Avenue and Tanland Drive (East) Amarillo Avenue and West Bayshore Road including approximately 165 feet west of the intersection Ross Corridor Ross Road at Garland Ross Road and Moreno Avenue Ross Road and Colorado Avenue Ross Road and Clara Drive Ross Road from Stern Avenue to approximately 250 feet south of Allen Court Ross Road and Loma Verde Avenue Ross Road and Ames Avenue Ross Road and Talisman Drive Ross Road and East Meadow Drive Ross Road and Mayview Avenue Ross Road and Corina Way Ross Road and Louis Rd. Locations with proposed landscaped planters as shown on 30% plans (approximately 450’ West of Stone Lane and approximately 130’ East of Stone Lane) Meadow-Louis-Montrose Corridor Montrose Ave. and Sutherland Dr. Montrose Ave. and Seminole Way Louis Rd. and Bibbits Dr. Louis Rd. and Gailen Ave. East Meadow Drive and Louis Rd. East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle East Meadow Drive and Adobe Creek Areas surveyed for the intersections listed above will be from right of way line to right of way line and will extend past the intersection to cover areas of proposed improvements shown on 30% concept plans. Features to be mapped include: surface utilities, sidewalks, curb and gutter, signs, fences, walls, overhead utilities, street lights, structures, trees, pavement elevations, and street monuments. Storm drain inlets, manholes and pipes will be shown and inverts and pipe sizes noted. Additional survey points may be collected between intersections as needed to validate roadway dimensions. In addition to locating surface utilities at the locations listed above, Sub-Consultant will contact utility companies operating in the project area and obtain as-built and system maps of existing underground utilities. Existing utilities will be shown within areas where significant surface and drainage improvements are proposed based on information obtained from utility companies and CITY. Right of Way information will be collected for the entire length of the project from record maps, deeds and other researched materials. Right of way lines, street centerlines and property lines will be provided in the AutoCAD base map. CITY to provide maps, plans, and any other information available to help locate existing right of way, easements and underground utilities. DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 This scope of work does not include acquisition of any additional right-of-way that may be required, nor does it include any related surveying, certification, relocation, deed preparation and recording. With the exception of adjusting covers to grade, this scope also does not include potholing or relocating existing utilities. Such services can be quoted separately. Deliverables: Data files for use in developing AutoCAD base map as described in 1.3 below. 1.3 Base Map Preparation (Sub-Consultant and CONSULTANT) Sub-Consultant and CONSULTANT will utilize GIS, aerial data, as-builts, ROW information and topographic survey to prepare base mapping in AutoCAD for the project corridor. The base maps will show site features including topography, right-of-way and adjacent streets, buildings, fences, existing railroad tracks, utilities, significant vegetation, drainage facilities, paved areas, walls, and other key features. Survey control and benchmark information will be included in the base map. Deliverables: AutoCAD base map Task 2: 75% and 100% Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate Documents 2.1 Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant) The Project team will prepare 75% and 100% Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) in accordance with the latest edition of the Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications for the CITY. The design plans will be prepared based on the approved preliminary design plans. Pavement marking and signing improvements will be prepared in CAD on the base sheets with special detail sheets to cover signing and pavement markings through intersections. The plans will be signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer and will be prepared on 22”x34” sheets at a minimum scale of 1”=40’. Detailed intersection sheet (at 1” = 10’ or 1” = 20’) will be included for intersections that are non-typical and require specific details and grades of improvements. These drawings will include adjustments to existing storm drain system at locations with proposed curb extensions, adjustment of utility covers to grade; no relocations of overhead or underground utilities are anticipated for this project. Landscape design will be included for roundabouts, curb extensions, landscaped planters and other areas identified on the 30% plans. A standard palette established by the CITY will be utilized by corridor and/or treatment. Preliminary Storm water Pollution Prevention, Erosion Control & Demo Plans will be included. Bike boulevard and route wayfinding signage will be included in final plans and coordinated with other projects in progress to facilitate a network of bicycle boulevard signing. A detailed wayfinding sign schedule will be included. Project specifications will be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications for the CITY. Line item unit price construction cost estimates will be developed for each corridor. DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 PS&E documents will be transmitted to the CITY for review and approval. The CONSULTANT will revise plans based on consolidated and internally consistent comments from the CITY. With each submittal, CITY Staff will review and provide a consolidated and internally consistent set of comments to be incorporated in the next plan set. Prior to making any changes, CONSULTANT will review requested significant changes with the CITY and agree on next steps. It is assumed that CITY review time will be two (2) weeks per corridor per submittal. After receiving final comments on the 100% PS&E, CONSULTANT will incorporate comments and prepare the final Bid Documents for advertising and bidding the project for construction. The proposed budget does not include additional revisions at this stage. The following example are the anticipated sheets to be included in the sets for each submittal: Bryant, Moreno-Amarillo & Ross & Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Corridors Final Design Plans Sheet Names Estimated Number of Sheets by Corridor Bryant Moren o- Ross Meadow- Louis- Title Sheet 1 Key Map 1 1 1 1 General Notes 2 Storm water Pollution Prevention & Demo 7 6 8 3 Typical Sections 1 1 1 1 Layout Plans 11 7 7 4 Intersection Details 7 5 8 3 Grading and Drainage Sheets 7 6 8 3 Utility Adjustment Plans and Details 6 6 8 3 Landscaping & Irrigation Plans and Details 5 5 7 3 Lighting Plans 3 5 5 1 Signing, Wayfinding and Striping Detail Sheets 2 2 2 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Geometric Detail Sheets 2 2 2 1 Deliverables: ● 75% PS&E - Five (5) sets of 11” X 17” plan documents, along with 8.5” X 11” specifications and estimates. One (1) CD with PDFs of the documents. ● 100 % Final PS&E - One (1) set of 22”x34” plan documents on reproducible bond, five (5) sets of 11” X 17” plan documents, along with 8.5” X 11” specifications and estimates. One (1) CD with PDFs of the documents. 2.2 Project Engagement (CONSULTANT) Working with the CITY, the team will assist the CITY on engaging stakeholders who are critical to the development of the final plan documents and identify those who should be communicated with through the implementation. It is anticipated that the level of work effort may include preparing presentation boards, presentations, and informational flyers. Expected stakeholders include: ● Planning and Transportation Commission ● CITY Council ● Architectural Review Board ● City neighborhood/Advocacy groups ● Department Staff ● Schools ● Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee Deliverables: ● Up to four (8) official meetings or presentations. This may include providing information for the CITY to present for board meetings and neighborhood meetings. ● Meeting notes / summaries Task 3: Project Management 3.1 Project Management (CONSULTANT) Project team will manage activities with the CITY to provide a continual flow of information and coordination of activities and other active projects. The design team will achieve this through meetings with the CITY every two weeks throughout the duration of the project. These meetings may be in person or conference calls. The goal of these meetings is to provide detailed information regarding the community engagement, plan development or any special issues that arise on the project. It is assumed that meetings will last no longer than one hour each. Deliverables: ● Meeting minutes from client meetings for up to ten (10) meetings. 3.2 Project Administration (CONSULTANT) CONSULTANT will consolidate the invoices of the project team into one invoice that will be submitted monthly to the CITY. CONSULTANT will prepare and submit invoices as outlined in the DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 contract language provided by CITY. The project team will provide task level descriptions of work completed and percent of tasks completed. Deliverables: ● Monthly invoices with project updates 3.3 Quality Control (CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant) For all submittals to the CITY, CONSULTANT will provide a two-tier quality control system for written and graphic material that includes (1) peer review, and (2) independent review of materials prior to submittal. CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant will utilize each other’s staff in QA/QC, as an example CONSULTANT will review the Grading & Drainage Plans prepared by Sub-Consultant and Sub-Consultant will review the Signing & Striping Plans prepared by CONSULTANT. The supervising engineer sealing the plans will guide review of all work. Deliverables: ● Documentation of project deliverable review process Contingency Included in the budget is a 10% contingency to cover unanticipated tasks such as: ● Parking survey ● Additional surveying ● Design contingency ● Additional community workshops and public meetings ● Additional project team meetings ● Final SWPPP plan and documents ● Traffic Control Plans ● Potholing and Utility Relocations CITY and the CONSULTANT Team shall discuss each additional (contingency) task in writing and identify a cost for each service prior to commencement of work. Exclusions This scope of work is intended to cover the work identified above. It does not include any of the following: ● Environmental documents (CEQA or NEPA) or permits. ● Tree Survey ● Final SWPPP plan or documents ● Hydrologic calculations ● Soils or geotechnical testing or analysis ● Preparation of Traffic Control Plans or Specifications ● Bid and Construction Support DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 ● Construction Management and Inspection ● Right-of-way acquisition or any tasks related to acquisition (i.e. plat preparation, etc.) ● Any other services not explicitly stated above DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Project Initiation Surveying & Mapping TBD 2. Final Plans, Specifications, TBD & Estimate Docs 3. Project Management TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $749,584.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $824,542.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $749,584.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $824,542.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $80,570.00 (Project Initiation Surveying & Mapping) Task 2 $597,344.00 (Final Plans, Specifications, & Estimate Docs) Task 3 $63,670 (Project Management) Sub-total Basic Services $741,584.00 Reimbursable Expenses $8,000.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $749,584.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $74,958.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Maximum Total Compensation $824,542.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,000.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 64B40DEA284F4470993E89613DC59216 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C16163533 Alta Planning Bicycle Blvd Contract.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 22 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/4/2016 12:43:38 PM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Brett Hondorp bretthondorp@altaplanning.com Principal Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 173.13.163.165 Sent: 4/4/2016 12:45:43 PM Resent: 4/6/2016 1:32:01 PM Viewed: 4/4/2016 5:34:48 PM Signed: 4/13/2016 3:40:01 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Robin Ellner robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org Admin Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/13/2016 3:40:03 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 2/11/2015 9:51:24 AM ID: efb775a7-f39e-4c9f-817a-5ec939666ecf Sherry N kzat Sherry.N kzat@CityofPaloAlto.org Sr. Management Analyst City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM Completed Security Checked 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies ofany such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You mayrequest delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any timechange your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have givenus. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format throughthe paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes theconsequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Robin Ellner have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4372) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects Title: Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment G) in the amount of $335,000, transferring funds from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic Impact Fee Fund to the Capital Improvement Project Fund, increasing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE-13011 by $335,000, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute contracts with the following firms for design services and related actions necessary for implementation of priority projects within the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan: 1.Alta Planning + Design (Attachment A) in the amount of $400,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update (Palo Alto Avenue to 100-FT North of E Meadow Drive); the Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard (Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Boulevard); the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard (North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Project (Alma Street to Boyce Avenue-Guinda Avenue). 2.Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Attachment B) in the amount of $450,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park Neighborhood Class III Bicycle Facilities project; the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (E Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road); the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road); the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase (Castilleja Avenue to W Charleston Road); and the Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (El Camino Real to Park Boulevard). This contract ATTACHMENT I City of Palo Alto Page 2 also includes online community outreach efforts for both the Alta Planning + Design and Fehr and Peers Bicycle Boulevard projects. 3. Sandis Engineers (Attachment C) in the amount of $275,000 for design and environmental assessment of the Churchill Avenue Improvement Project (El Camino Real to Castilleja Avenue). This contract also includes a focused Caltrans study to help procure encroachment permits for future construction. 4. Alta Planning + Design (Attachment D) in the amount of $369,446 for a feasibility study and preliminary environmental assessment for the Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Project (Alma Street to Highway 101). 5. Mark Thomas & Associates (Attachment E) in the amount of $736,765 for preliminary design and environmental assessment of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Plan (Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue). Staff also recommends that Council concurrently authorize staff to coordinate with Google and their transportation planning consultant, Alta Planning + Design, for the planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Highway 101 to Alma Street); San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Byron Street to Alma Street); the Alma Street Enhanced Bikeway (San Antonio Avenue to Charleston Road); and the Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route. Background The Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on July 9, 2012 and includes a Proposed Bikeway Network (Attachment F) and associated priority projects by project type including Bicycle Boulevards, Across Barrier Connections, Bike Lanes/Sharrows/Enhanced Bikeways, and other project types. As part of the current year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the City made a significant commitment to help advance the plan through the funding of several key projects, not including prior year or future year funding: CIP PL-04010, Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan $1,318,009 CIP PL-14000, El Camino Real & Churchill Ave Improvements $283,651 CIP PE-11011, Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass $1,396,168 CIP PL-14001, Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown $383,651 City of Palo Alto Page 3 CIP PL-00026, Safe Routes to School $169,536 The recommended consultant contracts in this report represent a major step forward in the advancement of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. In addition to the proposed projects, the City has other pending projects including: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass This project is currently in the Environmental Assessment Phase and the City plans to solicit design consultant proposals in this Spring. Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard This project is being designed using in-house resources and will be presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission later this month. City Council consideration for approval of a Final Plan is anticipated by Spring. The funding for this project will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010). Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard This project is currently being designed through on-call consultant contracts by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. The City has already held two community outreach meetings and a third is anticipated this Spring. Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council approvals will be requested this Summer. The funding for this project will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010). Safe Routes to School – Phase 1 Safety Improvements As part of the development of new Walk and Roll Maps for each of the city’s public schools, the community assisted in identifying key intersections where minor safety improvements were prioritized and implemented this winter. A total of 40 intersections were upgraded with enhanced crosswalk markings or signage. A Phase 2 Safety Improvements project is anticipated in the Fall 2014. Bicycle Detection Improvements The City procured microwave-focused bicycle detectors and installed them at key bicycle crossing intersections for trial evaluation. The units were installed earlier this month at the intersections of Bryant Street & Embarcadero Road, Charleston Road & Wilkie Way, and Charleston Road & Carlson Drive. The units detected bicyclists up to 300-FT in advance of a signalized intersection and prioritize bicycle detection to help City of Palo Alto Page 4 ensure an earlier “green” indication at the traffic signal. Bicycle Marking Improvements This year the City deployed its first green bicycle lane safety markings along the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard near Oregon Expressway and on the Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway near Newell Road. Additional “greenback” Sharrow roadway markings were also installed along Cowper Street between E Meadow Drive and St Claire Drive. The proposed design contracts allow for a continued and significant advancement in implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan with 17 new Bicycle Boulevard, Enhanced Bikeway or Bicycle Routes projects. Summary of Key Issues Each of the recommended consultant contracts was developed based on proposals submitted and evaluated in response to several Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by the City in the Summer and Fall of 2013. Bicycle Boulevards The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope included ten Bicycle Boulevard or Enhanced Bikeway projects. Each has been included in one of the recommended contracts as indicated below: Project Lead Consultant 1. Barron Park Neighborhoods Class III Bicycle Facilities Fehr & Peers 2. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update Alta 3. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Fehr & Peers 4. Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta 5. Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Alta 6. Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Alta 7. Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase 2 Fehr & Peers 8. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta 9. Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers 10. Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers City of Palo Alto Page 5 The City received a total of five (5) proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed each of the firms. Alta Planning + Design and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants were identified as the recommended firms to partner with the City in the completion of the projects. The ten projects were divided between the two firms and identified above. Each of the firms represented demonstrated strong skills and experience in the development of innovative bicycle projects including bicycle boulevard facility design and community outreach & engagement. Community Outreach Strategy During the interviews each of the firms interviewed expressed concern regarding “community fatigue” from community outreach participation given that many of the projects overlap neighborhoods. The projects were divided in such a manner that allows meetings to target multiple neighborhoods and allow for discussion on various projects. Each of the consultant work scopes also includes “bike-along” outreach events to help solicit community input in the field to help residents better explain their areas of concern or suggested improvements directly in the field. The City also consolidated online outreach for all of the projects onto the Fehr & Peers work scope to take advantage of GIS-based outreach tools to ensure that the online community involvement process appears seamless to all participants. Technical Advisory Committee The City is also exploring the development of a small Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that will meet during normal business hours and include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), City-School Traffic Safety Committee, Planning & Transportation Commission, and local business leaders. The TAC is intended as a forum where consultants could share ideas and ensure consistency in project designs. The TAC will also help inform the consultants regarding initial community interest areas to help prepare and advance design concepts prior to community meetings. Having representatives from both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will also help ensure preliminary feedback from each of those bodies. Both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will continue to receive on-going program updates for each project. 11. Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements This project includes the design of both bicycle & pedestrian facilities along Churchill Avenue between Castilleja Avenue and El Camino Real as well as roadway capacity improvements for vehicles through the addition of a westbound right turn lane at El Camino Real. The City pursued grant-funds for this project as part of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program last year but was unsuccessful in receiving funds for the project. The proposed project has synergies with the Castilleja Avenue-Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard project and the El City of Palo Alto Page 6 Camino Real element of the Stanford Perimeter Trail. As part of the OBAG proposal review process, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also identified this project as having opportunities to integrate with their proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. The City released an RFP for this project on July 6, 2013 and received only one proposal in response to the RFP from Sandis Engineers. Sandis Engineers has extensive experience working in the City of Palo Alto and was selected for the design of the project. 12. Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Feasibility Study This project includes the completion of a Feasibility Study to identify community-preferred alignments for the project and Across Barrier Connection alternatives at each end of the project segment, Alma Street and Highway 101. This project currently is eligible for $1.5 million in dedicated grant-funding for the construction phase of the project via a grant from the County of Santa Clara – Alternative Mitigation Program through the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program. The grant is reimbursable and will be received upon completion of the project. The City released an RFP for this project on May 20, 2013 and received two proposals in response. Alta Planning + Design was selected to complete this project because of their extensive community experience through the development of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, work on the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing project, and their nationwide experience in developing innovative bicycle-pedestrian crossing solutions along trail segments. The successful completion of a Feasibility Study is required before the Santa Clara County grant funding can be released to the City. The Feasibility Study will require approval by the both the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 13. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project This project advances the Complete Street elements of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Trial Projects including: new landscaped median islands; intersection bulb-outs to help reduce pedestrian crossing distances; enhanced bike lanes and bikeway facilities; new street trees; new streetlights; and streetscape treatments. The current phase of the project is for the Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Phases of the project to help build consensus around community-preferred improvements before initiating final design. The City has received partial grant-funding for the construction phases of this project including a $450,000 grant from the State of California – Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Safe Routes to School Program for the portion of Charleston Road between Middlefield Road and City of Palo Alto Page 7 Alma Street; and a $1,000,000 grant from the VTA – VERBS Program for the portion of Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Miranda Avenue including an upgrade of the Los Altos Trail between Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue. The City released an RFP for this project on June 4, 2013 and received eight (8) proposals in response. The Mark Thomas & Company design team was identified as the preferred consultant for the project demonstrating strong civil experience in the design of enhanced bikeway and streetscape facilities. The recommendation includes a request for adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to transfer additional funding in the amount of $350,000 from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to CIP Project PE-13011 (Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project. Google – Bicycle Facility Projects Google has its central headquarters in the City of Mountain View in the North Bayshore Business Park. Google is in the process of completing tenant improvements for future occupancy of the 200 San Antonio Avenue, the site formerly occupied by Hewlett-Packard. The future Google facility is located on the Mountain View-Palo Alto border and is the southern terminus of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard via Nelson Drive-Mackay Drive. Google places a high priority in providing alternative transportation modes to its employees and contractors and has requested the ability to participate in the Bicycle Boulevard program through the funding of facilities identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Google proposed to fund the planning and preliminary environmental assessment phases for the following projects: Project Lead Consultant 14. San Antonio Road Class III Route (Hwy 101 to W City Limit) Alta 15. San Antonio Avenue Class III Route (Byron St to Alma St) Alta 16. Alma Street (San Antonio Avenue to E Charleston Road) Alta 17. Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route Alta Alta is the lead consultant for several of the proposed bicycle projects in this staff report. Staff sees synergy opportunities in expanding this project to include these bicycle linkages. Inclusion of the projects now also ensures consolidated community outreach opportunities. Google will fund all consultant expenses for these projects directly; no city resources beyond staff costs for coordination are anticipated. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Schedule of Design and Implementation Each of the 17 projects provides for either preliminary planning to help identify concept plan line alternatives that can then be advanced into final design and environmental assessment at a later stage, or complete design for development of construction bid packages. Staff anticipates each of projects to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Concept plan line development allows for development of more refined construction schedules, which depend on the level of improvements requested by communities through which the projects pass. Final design is generally undertaken upon Council approval of the concept plan line alternatives, and results in more refined cost estimates. The City anticipates pursuing grants to support construction of the projects and the use of available infrastructure funding to match or supplement grant funding as needed. Policy Implications Each of the proposed project helps to implement the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportaiton Plan and is consistent with the following Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Policy T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Program T-22 Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Resource Impact A total of five consultant contracts are recommended through this staff report, each with a different funding source: 1. Alta Planning + Design – Bicycle Boulevards A contract in the amount of $400,000 from CIP PL-04010 (Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan – Implementation Project) is recommended allowing for a base City of Palo Alto Page 9 project of $350,000 and an Additional Services budget of $50,000 to assist in grant writing development and additional graphics development. 2. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants – Bicycle Boulevards A contract in the amount of $450,000 from CIP PL-04010 is recommended allowing for a base project of $390,685 and an Additional Services budget of $59,315 to assist in online community outreach support, website development and maintenance, and grant writing development. 3. Sandis Engineers – Churchill Avenue Improvements A contract in the amount of $275,000 from CIP PL-14000 (El Camino Real & Churchill Avenue Intersection Improvements – Design) is recommended allowing for a base project of $250,000 and an Additional Services budget of $25,000 to assist in project coordination with the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the VTA Bus Rapid Transit projects. 4. Alta Planning + Design – Matadero Creek Trail A contract in the amount of $369,446 from CIP PL-14001 (Matadero Creek Trail) is recommended allowing for the complete project. No Additional Services budget is anticipated as part of this project as the current project phase include just Feasibility Study and Prleiminary Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the amount of funding allocated for the entire design of this project in FY 2014 is $383,651. With the funding for the feasibility study and environmental assessment anticpated to use nearly all of the design funding, an alternative funding source will need to be pursued for the remaining design costs. It is anticipated that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project will be funded in FY 2015 in the amount of $1.2 million. The additional funding required for the design is expected to be allocated to the FY 2015 appropriation for this project. 5. Mark Thomas & Company – Charleston Rd-Arastradero Rd Corridor Project A contract in the amount of $736,765 from CIP PE-13011 (Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project) is recommended allowing for a base project of $669,765 and an Additional Services budget of $67,000 to accommodate environmental assessment studies that may be required for the project and to assist in grant writing development. A budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $335,000 is recommended as part of this report to increase funding in the project to accommodate the expense. The increased expense would be supported by a transfer from the Charleston/Arastradero Developer Impact Fee Fund. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Google is funding four proposed linkages directly with Alta Planning + Design as their lead consultant. The City anticipates staff resources to help coordinate additional community meetings but no direct costs for the design development of these Bike Plan projects. Timeline The City anticates that preliminary design and environmental assessment of each of the above projects will take approximately one year to complete, although the level of effort and timeline will depend on community participation and interest. Realistically, it will likely take two years for all of the contracted work to be complete, however some projects will be ready for construction in advance of that timeline if funding becomes available. Staff can provide a regular update to the Council on these projects and overall implementaiton of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Environmental Review The requested contracts would allow for environmental review of those projects requiring further review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) Attachment B: Fehr & Peers Transportation Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) Attachment C: Sandis Engineers Contract - Design & Environment Assessment - Churchill Ave. Improvement Project (PDF) Attachment D: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Matadero Creek Trail, Phase I (PDF) Attachment E: Mark Thomas & Associates - Preliminary Design & Environmental Assessment - Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (PDF) Attachment F: PABP 2012 - Proposed Bikeway Network (PDF) Attachment G: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Charleston/Arastradero (DOC) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 20111 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MARK THOMAS & COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of March, 2014, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 1960 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95112 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to make streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston Arastadero Corridor (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional design services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through 10/31/2015 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB ATTACHMENT E Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed six hundred and sixty-nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty five Dollars ($669.765.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed sixty seven thousand Dollars ($67,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: - TJKM - Gates - DJ Powers - Bicycle Solutions CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Jimmy W. Sims, PE as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Holly Boyd, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2612. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 8 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. / / / / 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 9 executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney MARK THOMAS & COMPANY Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Robert A. Himes 1/28/2014 President Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CHARLESTON & ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK The Project scope of work shall consist of the following tasks: TASK A Site Analysis and Field Survey 1. The Consultant shall attend a kick‐off Meeting with City staff to review the project scope and general field conditions. 2. The Consultant shall review and analyze the existing data augmented by discussion with City staff including review of City‐provided information. 3. Consultant shall provide a field survey of site for purposes of use as a base plan. The survey shall contain the following: curb and gutter, flow lines, sidewalks, edge of pavements, edge of sidewalks, edge of pavement way (gutter line), drainage structures, street lights, signage, roadway delineation, traffic signal standards, trees, railroad facilities, and visible utility boxes and valves within the roadway and sidewalk zones in order to prepare improvements along the Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road Corridor between Charleston Road and Fabian Way, and Arastradero Road and Miranda Avenue. Field elements and drainage information not collected by the Consultant during this task that may be identified in future tasks as required for the completion of design plans for the project will be completed by the Consultant without additional payment. 4. The Consultant shall provide a site investigation including observation and research, identifying all utilities, easements, right‐of‐way and signage and striping/ median lane geometry, lighting and soil and tree conditions. 5. The Consultant shall develop site plans and cross sections show existing and new grades, topography, location of trees, utilities, lights and structures including intersections, road frontages and medians, invert elevations and direction of flow to storm drains in the project area. 6. Plans shall be in AutoCAD 2012 format. Consultant shall also provide 5 hard copy sets of the field survey (1 DRAFT Set/1 FINAL Set upon City Approval of Survey) ‐ 24” x 36” sheets of consecutive plan views of roadway, including center medians and sidewalk frontage planning areas and all intersections of the project corridor from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue at a scale of 1”=20’. 7. Consultant Survey and Base Mapping for the work described above will serve as the Project Topographic Base Map. Survey Control will be provided to the design team in both the hard copy and electronic version. Consultant will distribute DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 project base mapping to all design team members and make accessible readily upon each design state. This topographic base map will be the uniform “x‐reference” for all design work. Topographic base mapping will be updated for all subconsultants at the beginning of each design phase. 8. Consultant shall provide a 2 page technical report summarizing findings. TASK B Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations 1. The consultant shall prepare a new Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Relevant / accurate information contained in the previously approved 2003 MND will be used much as possible. 2. The City anticipates a Traffic Study to be required to allow for the consideration of additional safety and roadway capacity configurations not included in the original 2004 Corridor Study at the following intersections, the Consultant shall be responsible for collecting peak‐hour turning movement count and 7‐day tube count data to respond to the following design alternatives: ・ Charleston Road & Fabian Way ‐ Charleston Road Left Turn Signal Phasing Option ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Louis Road‐Montrose Avenue ‐ Reconfiguration of Median Island Access and Pedestrian Improvements ・ Charleston Road & Middlefield Road ‐ Reconfigure Bicycle Lanes and consider option for Dedicated WBRT lane ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Consider Bicycle Box Treatments ・ Charleston Road & Nelson Drive ‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Hoover School Driveway ‐ Existing break in painted Median Island, validate Charleston Road Left storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Carlson Court ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements ・ Charleston Road & Mumford Pl ‐ Existing uncontrolled Crossing, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Wright Place ‐ Existing uncontrolled crossing with transit operations, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 ・ Charleston Road & Alma Street ‐ Existing adjacent Caltrain operations ‐ Evaluate opportunities to clearly designate bicycle lane facilities across intersection and trackway ・ Charleston Road & Park Boulevard ‐ Evaluate opportunity for median islands across intersection providing limited right turn only access from Park Boulevard ‐ Evaluate Enhanced Crosswalk Improvement opportunities across Charleston Road ・ Charleston Road & Ruthelma Avenue ‐ Existing uncontrolled crosswalk across Charleston Road, evaluate for Enhanced Crosswalk Treatments ・ Charleston Road & Wilkie Way ‐ Existing traffic signal facility, evaluate for permitted left turn lanes on Charleston Road or with exclusive left turn signal phasing ‐ Wilkie Way is a Bicycle Boulevard crossing, consider special intersection improvements including exclusive microwave bicycle detection and roadway markings ・ El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road ‐ Caltrans maintained intersection; evaluate intersection for bicycle‐pedestrian focused treatments including intersection bulb‐outs to support future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations planned by the VTA ‐ Consider removal of existing Free Right Turn “Slip Lanes” at intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Alta Mesa‐McKellar Lane ‐ Evaluate intersection for median island improvements to restrict left turn access out of Alta Mesa‐McKeller but allow left turns off of Arastradero Road ‐ Evaluate Transit Shelter/Bike Station at westbound approach of intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Clemo Drive‐Suzanne Drive ‐ Existing Enhanced Crosswalk location, consider additional bicycle‐pedestrian safety measures including widening of sidewalk widening at Briones Park ‐ Study alternative to provide permanent No Parking Restrictions along the South side of Arastradero Road westerly from Suzanne Drive ‐ Protect fire station access at intersection and along Arastradero Road frontage ・ Arastradero Road & Los Palos Avenue ‐ Evaluate opportunities to improve left turn egress access from Los Palos Avenue to westbound Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road & Coulombe Drive ‐ Evaluate options for Bike Box facilities at intersection ‐ Evaluate option for Cycle Track with Sidewalk Widening along the South side of Arastradero Road westerly to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive ‐ Existing signal with permitted‐protected signal phasing, study appropriate left turn capacity storage requirements DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 4 ‐ Consider intersection bulb‐out treatments along North side of intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Pomona Avenue‐King Arthur Court ‐ Evaluate opportunities left turn egress access from side streets onto Arastradero Road ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Evaluate intersection bulb‐out treatments at Pomona Avenue ‐ Evaluate sidewalk widening along the South side of Arastradero Road west of Pomona Avenue to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive ・ Arastradero Road & Donald Drive‐Terman Drive ‐ Evaluate opportunities for intersection bulb‐out treatments ‐ Evaluate Terman Drive operations and provide recommendations for improvements to improve circulation out of Terman Drive ‐ Evaluate opportunity to provide dedicate EBRT movement at the intersection ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Arastradero Road – Georgia Avenue to Donald Drive‐Terman Drive ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements, protect two‐way left turn access for side streets along North side of Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road – West of Georgia Avenue ‐ Evaluate options to provide Cycle Track or Improved sidewalk access along the north side of Arastradero Road to Gunn High School ‐ Evaluate options to provide decorative guard rail and widened sidewalk treatments along the South side of Arastradero Road to Miranda Avenue ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements to Georgia Avenue, Arastradero West Apartments, and Alta Mesa Cemetery Driveway ‐ Evaluate trail integration options at Hetch‐Hetchy Los Altos Trail intersection on South side of Arastradero Road; no trail crossing along the North side of Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road & Gunn High School Driveway ‐ Consider Bike Box treatments at intersection ‐ Evaluate left turn storage requirements at intersection and consider traffic signal phasing improvements to improve intersection capacity ・ Arastradero Road & Miranda Avenue ‐ Evaluate opportunities to provide WBLT lane to Southbound Miranda Avenue 3. Provide required documentation for NEPA certification as required by Caltrans Local Assistance including Traffic Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Technical Memorandums for Air Quality, Biology, Hydraulic Study, Land Use and Cultural Impact, Hazard Materials, Historical Resources, Temporary 4(f) Impact, Tree Preservation/Removal, Construction Staging, etc. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 4. Consultant shall provide value engineering report to help determine project elements and limits of work for each phase. 5. Consultant shall provide an arborist report per the City’s Tree Technical Manual for trees in the public‐right‐of‐way along with corridor. 6. Consultant shall provide innovative storm drain study for water conservation and irrigation design. 7. Coordination with Caltrans and prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for traffic signal/intersection modification at El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐ Arastradero Road. TASK C Plan Line Development and Public Meetings Immediately upon survey of the project area and collection of traffic data, the Consultant shall begin development of Plan Line Alternatives for presentation to the community. The Consultant shall develop up to five Plan Line Alternatives and begin an extensive public outreach process to develop a Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative that will serve as the basis for the development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates (PS&E) for the project. The Consultant should allow up to six months of community outreach for the development of the Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative. The City anticipates the following community outreach meeting schedule for development of the Preferred Community Plan Line: ・ General Community Outreach Meetings (3 Total) ・ Neighborhood Specific Focused Outreach Meetings (4 Total) o Green Meadow/Walnut Grove o Monroe Park/Charleston Meadows o Barron Park o Palo Alto Orchard/Green Acres I/II ・ Study Session with Planning & Transportation Commission ・ Study Session with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee ・ Study Session with City‐School Traffic Safety Committee ・ Study Session with City Council ・ Presentation Planning & Transportation Commission 1. Consultant shall prepare all outreach, notices and meeting and presentation materials for stakeholder, community and public meetings. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours including travel time. 2. Deliverables: o Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment for Charleston Road‐ Arastradero Road Corridor Project DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 TASK D Conceptual and Preliminary Designs Upon approval the Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment, the Consultant shall begin development of Conceptual and Preliminary Design to engage the community on the identification of Streetscape Treatments along the corridor including development of Community‐Preferred Landscape and Streetscape Furniture Palette’s. 1. The conceptual and preliminary design task includes selecting the locations of the new crosswalks, signs, street lighting & traffic signal standards, and intersection improvements, medians and curb bulb‐outs. Prepare presentation boards for City staff to use at public meetings. Consultant to provide section and elevation concept plans. 2. Prepare all noticing, presentation materials, plan sets copies, meeting summaries for public meetings to present preliminary design proposals, and act as facilitator of the meetings. 3. Meet and confer with City Staff to respond to and address City, stakeholder and Community comments. 4. Present the plans to the stakeholder, community, Public Art Commission, Architectural Review Board and to the Planning and Transportation Commission and address comments. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours including travel time. 5. Collect comments received during Conceptual and Preliminary Designs to include in project specifications. 6. Refined cost estimates based on value engineering. Public Art Programming & Coordination Provide consultation and technical input on the solicitation of offers for public art, the selection of qualified artists and selection of public art proposals. ・ Coordination with Arts Commission during the early design stages ・ Work with City, users and design team in the selection art sites available within the project area 5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION Additional services may be required and services are subject to project manager approval. Examples of services are as follows: ・ Additional meetings with ARB, Council and the public and associated materials ・ Additional plan drawings and revisions 6. INFORMATION and SERVICES PROVIDED BY the City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 The City will provide the following during the design phase: ・ Base Map from GIS for use in Identifying City‐Owned Utility Information ・ 2004 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan ・ 2004 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ・ AutoCAD title block ・ Plan line drawings submitted as part of the OBAG and VERBS Grant Applications ・ City standard construction details and technical specifications for irrigation work, asphalt, concrete, sidewalk, curb and gutter, tree planting, landscaping and median details in AutoCAD 2012; ・ Environmental documents; ・ City staff shall assist in obtaining design review comments from City staff; The City will provide the following during the Bid and Construction phase: ・ City shall advertise, provide bidders list, assist in obtaining bid document review comments and reproduce copies of bid and construction documents to contractors. ・ City shall provide general and supplementary conditions and City’s boilerplate specifications (work hours, duration, truck routes, etc.) Consultant is responsible for reviewing and verifying all supplied information. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 1 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. TIMELINE: Weeks from NTP Task 1 – Site Analysis and Field Surveys Field Surveys and Aerial Mapping 10 Task 2 – Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations Traffic Study 20 CEQA and NEPA 50 Caltrans PEER 50 Task 3 – Plan Line Development and Public Meetings 40 Task 4 – Conceptual and Preliminary Design 55 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 14 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $669,765. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $67,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $669,765 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $67,000. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $71,588 (Site Analysis and Field Survey) Task 2 $300,225 (Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations) Task 3 $207,598 (Plan Line Development) Task 4 $90,354 (Conceptual and Preliminary Designs) Sub-total Basic Services $669,765 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $669,765 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $67,000 Maximum Total Compensation $736,765 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 18 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Project Manager: $245/hr Lead Civil Designer: $178/hr Project Engineer: $178/hr Utility Lead Designer: $178/hr VA Lead Designer: $178/hr Drainage Designer $140/hr Design Engineer III: $128/hr Design Engineer II: $113/hr Design Engineer I: $105/hr Engineering Tech: $74/hr Survey Manager: $158/hr Field Surveyor: $116/hr Right of Way Coordinator: $116/hr 1 person field survey crew: $160/hr 2 person survey crew: $215/hr DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 19 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 20 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 6 Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network ATTACHMENT F 6-4 | Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan City of Palo Alto Chapter 6 ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $335,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-13011, CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT SUPPORTED BY A TRANSFER FROM THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and B. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $250,000 for CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, for the design of the permanent reconfiguration identified in the Council adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan. Also in fiscal year 2013, $210,505 was moved from CIP Project PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan to CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project to consolidate these two projects into one project; and C. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a contract in the amount of $736,765 be awarded to Mark Thomas & Company for conceptual and preliminary designs of the project; and D. Additional funding is also required for seven public outreach meetings planned for FY 2014 at a cost of approximately $5,500 per meeting; and E. CIP Project PE-13011 has available funds of $440,368 requiring additional funding of $335,000 from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund; and AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk __________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney __________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Public Works __________________________ Director of Administrative Services Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16163534 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FEHR & PEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 18th day of April, 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and FEHR & PEERS, a California corporation, located at 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose, CA. 95113, Telephone: (408) 278-1700 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to prepare construction documents for the Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension and Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevards (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB ATTACHMENT J Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Four Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Eight Dollars ($495,008.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Five Hundred Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Nine Dollars ($544,509.00. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: NV5 Companies 200 South Park Road, Suite 350 Hollywood FL, 33012 (954)495-2112 Callander Associates 311 7th Avenue San Mateo CA, 94401 (650) 375-1313 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Matt Haynes as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Ryan McClain as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written reasonable approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY reasonably finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Joshuah Mello, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650) 329-2136. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: FEHR & PEERS Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB President/CEO Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK E 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & KICK-OFF CONSULTANT’S approach to project management shall ensure that both CITY staff and the CONSULTANT’S team have real time project information to effectively manage project staff and budget resources. Task E1.2 Ongoing Coordination Calls Scheduling opportunities for consistent, regular coordination with CITY staff and CONSULTANT’S team members shall be an effective strategy to ensure project success. It provides an opportunity to set approach and direction on subtasks, discuss questions, and review project deliverables. For this task, CONSULTANT will engage the CITY in biweekly phone calls during key work periods. Deliverable: Biweekly phone calls during work periods; Meeting notes to be distributed after conference call. TASK E 2 – COMMUNITY OUTREACH Continued community outreach will be very important as the project continues into the design phase. CONSULTANT will build on the stakeholder relationships and work completed through our work on the planning phase of bicycle boulevard projects to transition the project from the conceptual design stage to full PS&E. Task E 2.1 Community Outreach Meetings CONSULTANT will lead up to six community outreach meetings, with support from CITY staff and Callander. These meetings will be run as workshops similar to previous community meetings for these projects. The main focus will be to show how the previous planning work and community feedback has resulted in the various design elements included with the project. Deliverable: Draft and final Powerpoint presentations and boards based on one round of consolidated comments. Meeting preparation and attendance by CONSULTANT and Callander Task E 2.2 Enhanced Outreach Coordination The CITY is contracting to provide visualizations of potential improvements. The CONSULTANT’S design team will coordinate with the contractor to provide requested CAD files and other relevant materials. Task E 2.3 Tactical Urbanism Demonstration Project CONSULTANT will work with the CITY and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to develop a demonstration project to be installed for a single day, such as Bike to Work Day. CONSULTANT will develop a traffic control plan for each demonstration location, showing temporary signing, striping, planters, and other materials to be used for the demonstration. CONSULTANT will also develop quantities for items such as temporary traffic tape, spray chalk, signs and other material. This proposal does not include the cost of materials. CONSULTANT will provide up to three staff members for each demonstration on the day of the event, available to help with setup and cleanup. CONSULTANT shall assume that volunteers will be available to assist on the day of the events (typically 10 to 15 volunteers is sufficient depending on size of the demonstration). CONSULTANT will attend up to two DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 meetings with CITY and/or Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition staff. Deliverable: One site-specific traffic control plan illustrating the proposed demonstration (draft and final) with quantities and implementation plan. TASK E3– SURVEY AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE This task will develop base mapping to be used for construction plans as well as tree surveys. Task E 3.1 Topographic Surveys, Utilities, Base Mapping Topographic Survey: The control for the topographic survey will be performed using GPS methods, and processed through the National Geodetic Survey program OPUS (Online Positioning User Service). Survey datum for this project will be tied horizontally to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), and vertically to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAvD88). Topographic surveys for this project will be performed with both conventional surveying as well as terrestrial based scanning methods based off of previously completed surveys. NV5 will establish centerline and stationing for the length of the project along Wilkie Way (between 2nd Street and Miller Court), Bryant Street/E. Meadow Drive to Mackay Drive/Calcaterra Place, El Camino Way, Maybell Avenue, Donald Drive, and Georgia Avenue. NV5 will create and furnish 1”=20’ scale detailed topographic base maps in Cadd, limited to the street intersections areas with proposed improvements for design and construction of the Park Blvd, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension, and Maybell Bike Boulevards projects. A design survey was conducted as part of previous tasks for Park Blvd (between Castilleja Avenue and West Meadow Drive). CONSULTANT shall assume that no sheet mapping will be required. The following key street intersections will be surveyed: 1. 2nd Street/Maclane St 2. Wilkie Way/W. Meadow Drive 3. Wilkie Way/James Road 4. Bryant Street/E. Meadow Drive 5. Bryant Street/Redwood Circle 6. Redwood Circle/South Court 7. Redwood Circle/Carlson Court 8. Carlson Court/E. Charleston Road 9. Ely Place Between Carlson Court & Duncan Place 10. Duncan Place at Adobe Creek Bridge Path 11. Creekside Drive at Adobe Creek Bridge Path 12. Nelson Drive/Creekside Drive 13. Nelson Drive between El Capitan Place & Nelson Court 14. Mackay Drive/Ferne Avenue 15. Mackay Drive/Calcaterra Place 16. El Camino Way/Maybell Ave (optional) 17. W. Meadow Drive/El Camino Way 18. James Road/El Camino Way 19. Amaranta Avenue/Maybell Avenue 20. Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue 21. Donald Drive/Maybell Avenue DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 It is anticipated that NV5 will perform topographic mapping based on detailed ground level surveys. The survey data within the limits will include major topographic features such as curbs, concrete and asphalt pavement, driveways, sidewalks, building, poles, signs, trees, (6” or greater DBH), utility poles, fences, walls, striping and pavement markings, grade breaks, locations and rims of storm drain and sanitary sewer manholes, grates of inlets, other above ground utility facilities within the survey limits, and observed right-of-way monumentation. Higher density of survey points will be taken at curb ramps, driveways and other improvements that the project improvements will be conforming to, assuring viable usable conforms. This task also includes the following: Utility Identification and Locations: Facility base maps of the utility companies will be requested under this task. CONSULTANT will reconcile the facility base map information with the above-ground topographic survey information, i.e. utility boxes, valves covers, manholes, etc., and plot our best estimate to actual locations (plan view) of underground utilities and include in the project base maps. Based on the current conceptual plans no underground utilities impact are anticipated hence locating underground utilities is not included in this scope. Base Mapping: The above-described topographic survey and utility information will be plotted in Cadd, creating a base map for the intersection areas listed above at a scale of 1”=20’. The base maps will include right-of-way boundary (CITY– furnished) and will be used for design and final project plans. Deliverable: Utility and Base Mapping in AutoCAD format. Task E 3.2: Site Reconnaissance and Tree Inventory CONSULTANT will work with the CITY to gather all available record plans and drainage inventory plans within and adjacent to proposed intersection improvement areas and include them into the survey base map. Callander Associates’ in-house arborist will conduct a detailed site reconnaissance with base maps to document location, number, type, diameter at breast height (DBH) and condition of existing trees within the existing median island near College, Chestnut, and Margarita Avenues on Park Boulevard. A photo log will document each evaluated tree and the collected data will be summarized in a Tree Inventory Spreadsheet and Tree Locations Plan. Deliverable: Draft and Final Arborist Report including Tree Inventory Spreadsheet and Tree Locations Plan TASK E4– PRELIMINARY DESIGN (35%) PLANS AND ESTIMATE Based on the current Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension, and Maybell Avenue conceptual plans, the CONSULTANT’S team will develop 35% plans and cost estimate. The emphasis for the 35% level plans will be to prepare the proposed improvement plan view and profiles (if appropriate), including proposed drainage modifications, driveway, path conforms, and ADA facilities (plan views). This also includes plans for traffic circles at DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 the Stanford Avenue/Ash Street and Stanford Avenue/Birch Street intersections. The preliminary plans will also include a cycletrack on Park Boulevard between California Avenue and Lambert Avenue as well as curb modifications at the Park Boulevard/California Avenue intersections. As part of this task, Callander Associates will prepare concepts to incorporate storm water treatment areas into the Castelleja Avenue/Park Boulevard intersection and the Redwood Circle/Bryan Street intersection, including development of 3D renderings. Callander will work with Peers Park maintenance staff to identify potential irrigation tie-ins to the park. The plans will be presented in 1”=20’ scale plots. The plans will include the Typical Sections, and Layout sheets (showing proposed improvements, drainage modifications if needed, driveway improvements if needed, ADA ramps). A 35% estimate of probable costs will be prepared. Another key goal of the 35% design phase is to clarify and resolve issues that may impact schedule and budget. Deliverables: 35% design plans, Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs TASK E5 – CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT will prepare the plans, specifications, and cost estimates (PS&E) for construction of the Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension, and Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevards. Task E5.1 75% PS&E The CONSULTANT’S team will prepare 75% signing and striping, civil, landscaping, and RRFBs plans. PS&E for the construction work will be developed using the applicable Caltrans 2010 Standard Plans and Specifications. CONSULTANT will consider existing drainage patterns and new inlets and storm drain pipe that may be necessary where curb ramp pop-outs are required and interfere with gutter flow. CONSULTANT shall assume that if modifications to the existing drainage systems are required a drainage study or storm water control plan will not be necessary. Deliverable: 75% design plans, draft technical special provisions, quantities; and construction cost estimates. Task E5.2 Final PS&E After receiving a single, consolidated set of internally-consistent comments from the CITY, CONSULTANT will develop Final PS&E. Plans will be stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer. Deliverable: Final 100% design plans, quantities, and construction cost estimates and response to comments matrix based on one (1) round of internally-consistent, consolidated set of comments on the 75% design DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Project Management TBD 2. Community Outreach TBD 3. Survey Site Reconnaissance TBD 4. Preliminary Design TBD 5. Construction Documents TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $495,008.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $544,509.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $495,008.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $544,509.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $41,261.00 (Project Management) Task 2 $42,163.00 (Community Outreach) Task 3 $75,175.00 (Survey: Site Reconnaissance) Task 4 $92,247.00 (Preliminary Design) Task 5 $242,163.00 (Construction Documents) Sub-total Basic Services $495,008.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $495.008.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $49,501.00 Maximum Total Compensation $544,509.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT FOR THE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB City of Palo Alto (ID # 4372) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects Title: Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment G) in the amount of $335,000, transferring funds from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic Impact Fee Fund to the Capital Improvement Project Fund, increasing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE-13011 by $335,000, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute contracts with the following firms for design services and related actions necessary for implementation of priority projects within the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan: 1.Alta Planning + Design (Attachment A) in the amount of $400,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update (Palo Alto Avenue to 100-FT North of E Meadow Drive); the Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard (Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Boulevard); the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard (North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Project (Alma Street to Boyce Avenue-Guinda Avenue). 2.Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Attachment B) in the amount of $450,000 for planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park Neighborhood Class III Bicycle Facilities project; the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (E Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road); the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road); the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase (Castilleja Avenue to W Charleston Road); and the Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (El Camino Real to Park Boulevard). This contract ATTACHMENT K City of Palo Alto Page 2 also includes online community outreach efforts for both the Alta Planning + Design and Fehr and Peers Bicycle Boulevard projects. 3. Sandis Engineers (Attachment C) in the amount of $275,000 for design and environmental assessment of the Churchill Avenue Improvement Project (El Camino Real to Castilleja Avenue). This contract also includes a focused Caltrans study to help procure encroachment permits for future construction. 4. Alta Planning + Design (Attachment D) in the amount of $369,446 for a feasibility study and preliminary environmental assessment for the Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Project (Alma Street to Highway 101). 5. Mark Thomas & Associates (Attachment E) in the amount of $736,765 for preliminary design and environmental assessment of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Plan (Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue). Staff also recommends that Council concurrently authorize staff to coordinate with Google and their transportation planning consultant, Alta Planning + Design, for the planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Highway 101 to Alma Street); San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Byron Street to Alma Street); the Alma Street Enhanced Bikeway (San Antonio Avenue to Charleston Road); and the Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route. Background The Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on July 9, 2012 and includes a Proposed Bikeway Network (Attachment F) and associated priority projects by project type including Bicycle Boulevards, Across Barrier Connections, Bike Lanes/Sharrows/Enhanced Bikeways, and other project types. As part of the current year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the City made a significant commitment to help advance the plan through the funding of several key projects, not including prior year or future year funding: CIP PL-04010, Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan $1,318,009 CIP PL-14000, El Camino Real & Churchill Ave Improvements $283,651 CIP PE-11011, Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass $1,396,168 CIP PL-14001, Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown $383,651 City of Palo Alto Page 3 CIP PL-00026, Safe Routes to School $169,536 The recommended consultant contracts in this report represent a major step forward in the advancement of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. In addition to the proposed projects, the City has other pending projects including: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass This project is currently in the Environmental Assessment Phase and the City plans to solicit design consultant proposals in this Spring. Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard This project is being designed using in-house resources and will be presented to the Planning & Transportation Commission later this month. City Council consideration for approval of a Final Plan is anticipated by Spring. The funding for this project will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010). Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard This project is currently being designed through on-call consultant contracts by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. The City has already held two community outreach meetings and a third is anticipated this Spring. Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council approvals will be requested this Summer. The funding for this project will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010). Safe Routes to School – Phase 1 Safety Improvements As part of the development of new Walk and Roll Maps for each of the city’s public schools, the community assisted in identifying key intersections where minor safety improvements were prioritized and implemented this winter. A total of 40 intersections were upgraded with enhanced crosswalk markings or signage. A Phase 2 Safety Improvements project is anticipated in the Fall 2014. Bicycle Detection Improvements The City procured microwave-focused bicycle detectors and installed them at key bicycle crossing intersections for trial evaluation. The units were installed earlier this month at the intersections of Bryant Street & Embarcadero Road, Charleston Road & Wilkie Way, and Charleston Road & Carlson Drive. The units detected bicyclists up to 300-FT in advance of a signalized intersection and prioritize bicycle detection to help City of Palo Alto Page 4 ensure an earlier “green” indication at the traffic signal. Bicycle Marking Improvements This year the City deployed its first green bicycle lane safety markings along the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard near Oregon Expressway and on the Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway near Newell Road. Additional “greenback” Sharrow roadway markings were also installed along Cowper Street between E Meadow Drive and St Claire Drive. The proposed design contracts allow for a continued and significant advancement in implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan with 17 new Bicycle Boulevard, Enhanced Bikeway or Bicycle Routes projects. Summary of Key Issues Each of the recommended consultant contracts was developed based on proposals submitted and evaluated in response to several Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by the City in the Summer and Fall of 2013. Bicycle Boulevards The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope included ten Bicycle Boulevard or Enhanced Bikeway projects. Each has been included in one of the recommended contracts as indicated below: Project Lead Consultant 1. Barron Park Neighborhoods Class III Bicycle Facilities Fehr & Peers 2. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update Alta 3. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Fehr & Peers 4. Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta 5. Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Alta 6. Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Alta 7. Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase 2 Fehr & Peers 8. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta 9. Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers 10. Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers City of Palo Alto Page 5 The City received a total of five (5) proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed each of the firms. Alta Planning + Design and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants were identified as the recommended firms to partner with the City in the completion of the projects. The ten projects were divided between the two firms and identified above. Each of the firms represented demonstrated strong skills and experience in the development of innovative bicycle projects including bicycle boulevard facility design and community outreach & engagement. Community Outreach Strategy During the interviews each of the firms interviewed expressed concern regarding “community fatigue” from community outreach participation given that many of the projects overlap neighborhoods. The projects were divided in such a manner that allows meetings to target multiple neighborhoods and allow for discussion on various projects. Each of the consultant work scopes also includes “bike-along” outreach events to help solicit community input in the field to help residents better explain their areas of concern or suggested improvements directly in the field. The City also consolidated online outreach for all of the projects onto the Fehr & Peers work scope to take advantage of GIS-based outreach tools to ensure that the online community involvement process appears seamless to all participants. Technical Advisory Committee The City is also exploring the development of a small Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that will meet during normal business hours and include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), City-School Traffic Safety Committee, Planning & Transportation Commission, and local business leaders. The TAC is intended as a forum where consultants could share ideas and ensure consistency in project designs. The TAC will also help inform the consultants regarding initial community interest areas to help prepare and advance design concepts prior to community meetings. Having representatives from both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will also help ensure preliminary feedback from each of those bodies. Both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will continue to receive on-going program updates for each project. 11. Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements This project includes the design of both bicycle & pedestrian facilities along Churchill Avenue between Castilleja Avenue and El Camino Real as well as roadway capacity improvements for vehicles through the addition of a westbound right turn lane at El Camino Real. The City pursued grant-funds for this project as part of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program last year but was unsuccessful in receiving funds for the project. The proposed project has synergies with the Castilleja Avenue-Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard project and the El City of Palo Alto Page 6 Camino Real element of the Stanford Perimeter Trail. As part of the OBAG proposal review process, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also identified this project as having opportunities to integrate with their proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program. The City released an RFP for this project on July 6, 2013 and received only one proposal in response to the RFP from Sandis Engineers. Sandis Engineers has extensive experience working in the City of Palo Alto and was selected for the design of the project. 12. Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Feasibility Study This project includes the completion of a Feasibility Study to identify community-preferred alignments for the project and Across Barrier Connection alternatives at each end of the project segment, Alma Street and Highway 101. This project currently is eligible for $1.5 million in dedicated grant-funding for the construction phase of the project via a grant from the County of Santa Clara – Alternative Mitigation Program through the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program. The grant is reimbursable and will be received upon completion of the project. The City released an RFP for this project on May 20, 2013 and received two proposals in response. Alta Planning + Design was selected to complete this project because of their extensive community experience through the development of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, work on the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing project, and their nationwide experience in developing innovative bicycle-pedestrian crossing solutions along trail segments. The successful completion of a Feasibility Study is required before the Santa Clara County grant funding can be released to the City. The Feasibility Study will require approval by the both the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 13. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project This project advances the Complete Street elements of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Trial Projects including: new landscaped median islands; intersection bulb-outs to help reduce pedestrian crossing distances; enhanced bike lanes and bikeway facilities; new street trees; new streetlights; and streetscape treatments. The current phase of the project is for the Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Phases of the project to help build consensus around community-preferred improvements before initiating final design. The City has received partial grant-funding for the construction phases of this project including a $450,000 grant from the State of California – Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Safe Routes to School Program for the portion of Charleston Road between Middlefield Road and City of Palo Alto Page 7 Alma Street; and a $1,000,000 grant from the VTA – VERBS Program for the portion of Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Miranda Avenue including an upgrade of the Los Altos Trail between Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue. The City released an RFP for this project on June 4, 2013 and received eight (8) proposals in response. The Mark Thomas & Company design team was identified as the preferred consultant for the project demonstrating strong civil experience in the design of enhanced bikeway and streetscape facilities. The recommendation includes a request for adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to transfer additional funding in the amount of $350,000 from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to CIP Project PE-13011 (Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project. Google – Bicycle Facility Projects Google has its central headquarters in the City of Mountain View in the North Bayshore Business Park. Google is in the process of completing tenant improvements for future occupancy of the 200 San Antonio Avenue, the site formerly occupied by Hewlett-Packard. The future Google facility is located on the Mountain View-Palo Alto border and is the southern terminus of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard via Nelson Drive-Mackay Drive. Google places a high priority in providing alternative transportation modes to its employees and contractors and has requested the ability to participate in the Bicycle Boulevard program through the funding of facilities identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Google proposed to fund the planning and preliminary environmental assessment phases for the following projects: Project Lead Consultant 14. San Antonio Road Class III Route (Hwy 101 to W City Limit) Alta 15. San Antonio Avenue Class III Route (Byron St to Alma St) Alta 16. Alma Street (San Antonio Avenue to E Charleston Road) Alta 17. Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route Alta Alta is the lead consultant for several of the proposed bicycle projects in this staff report. Staff sees synergy opportunities in expanding this project to include these bicycle linkages. Inclusion of the projects now also ensures consolidated community outreach opportunities. Google will fund all consultant expenses for these projects directly; no city resources beyond staff costs for coordination are anticipated. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Schedule of Design and Implementation Each of the 17 projects provides for either preliminary planning to help identify concept plan line alternatives that can then be advanced into final design and environmental assessment at a later stage, or complete design for development of construction bid packages. Staff anticipates each of projects to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Concept plan line development allows for development of more refined construction schedules, which depend on the level of improvements requested by communities through which the projects pass. Final design is generally undertaken upon Council approval of the concept plan line alternatives, and results in more refined cost estimates. The City anticipates pursuing grants to support construction of the projects and the use of available infrastructure funding to match or supplement grant funding as needed. Policy Implications Each of the proposed project helps to implement the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportaiton Plan and is consistent with the following Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Policy T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Program T-22 Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Resource Impact A total of five consultant contracts are recommended through this staff report, each with a different funding source: 1. Alta Planning + Design – Bicycle Boulevards A contract in the amount of $400,000 from CIP PL-04010 (Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan – Implementation Project) is recommended allowing for a base City of Palo Alto Page 9 project of $350,000 and an Additional Services budget of $50,000 to assist in grant writing development and additional graphics development. 2. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants – Bicycle Boulevards A contract in the amount of $450,000 from CIP PL-04010 is recommended allowing for a base project of $390,685 and an Additional Services budget of $59,315 to assist in online community outreach support, website development and maintenance, and grant writing development. 3. Sandis Engineers – Churchill Avenue Improvements A contract in the amount of $275,000 from CIP PL-14000 (El Camino Real & Churchill Avenue Intersection Improvements – Design) is recommended allowing for a base project of $250,000 and an Additional Services budget of $25,000 to assist in project coordination with the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the VTA Bus Rapid Transit projects. 4. Alta Planning + Design – Matadero Creek Trail A contract in the amount of $369,446 from CIP PL-14001 (Matadero Creek Trail) is recommended allowing for the complete project. No Additional Services budget is anticipated as part of this project as the current project phase include just Feasibility Study and Prleiminary Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the amount of funding allocated for the entire design of this project in FY 2014 is $383,651. With the funding for the feasibility study and environmental assessment anticpated to use nearly all of the design funding, an alternative funding source will need to be pursued for the remaining design costs. It is anticipated that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project will be funded in FY 2015 in the amount of $1.2 million. The additional funding required for the design is expected to be allocated to the FY 2015 appropriation for this project. 5. Mark Thomas & Company – Charleston Rd-Arastradero Rd Corridor Project A contract in the amount of $736,765 from CIP PE-13011 (Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project) is recommended allowing for a base project of $669,765 and an Additional Services budget of $67,000 to accommodate environmental assessment studies that may be required for the project and to assist in grant writing development. A budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $335,000 is recommended as part of this report to increase funding in the project to accommodate the expense. The increased expense would be supported by a transfer from the Charleston/Arastradero Developer Impact Fee Fund. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Google is funding four proposed linkages directly with Alta Planning + Design as their lead consultant. The City anticipates staff resources to help coordinate additional community meetings but no direct costs for the design development of these Bike Plan projects. Timeline The City anticates that preliminary design and environmental assessment of each of the above projects will take approximately one year to complete, although the level of effort and timeline will depend on community participation and interest. Realistically, it will likely take two years for all of the contracted work to be complete, however some projects will be ready for construction in advance of that timeline if funding becomes available. Staff can provide a regular update to the Council on these projects and overall implementaiton of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Environmental Review The requested contracts would allow for environmental review of those projects requiring further review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) Attachment B: Fehr & Peers Transportation Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) Attachment C: Sandis Engineers Contract - Design & Environment Assessment - Churchill Ave. Improvement Project (PDF) Attachment D: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Matadero Creek Trail, Phase I (PDF) Attachment E: Mark Thomas & Associates - Preliminary Design & Environmental Assessment - Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (PDF) Attachment F: PABP 2012 - Proposed Bikeway Network (PDF) Attachment G: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Charleston/Arastradero (DOC) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 20111 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MARK THOMAS & COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of March, 2014, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 1960 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95112 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to make streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston Arastadero Corridor (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional design services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through 10/31/2015 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB ATTACHMENT E Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed six hundred and sixty-nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty five Dollars ($669.765.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed sixty seven thousand Dollars ($67,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: - TJKM - Gates - DJ Powers - Bicycle Solutions CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Jimmy W. Sims, PE as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Holly Boyd, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2612. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 8 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. / / / / 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 9 executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney MARK THOMAS & COMPANY Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Robert A. Himes 1/28/2014 President Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CHARLESTON & ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK The Project scope of work shall consist of the following tasks: TASK A Site Analysis and Field Survey 1. The Consultant shall attend a kick‐off Meeting with City staff to review the project scope and general field conditions. 2. The Consultant shall review and analyze the existing data augmented by discussion with City staff including review of City‐provided information. 3. Consultant shall provide a field survey of site for purposes of use as a base plan. The survey shall contain the following: curb and gutter, flow lines, sidewalks, edge of pavements, edge of sidewalks, edge of pavement way (gutter line), drainage structures, street lights, signage, roadway delineation, traffic signal standards, trees, railroad facilities, and visible utility boxes and valves within the roadway and sidewalk zones in order to prepare improvements along the Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road Corridor between Charleston Road and Fabian Way, and Arastradero Road and Miranda Avenue. Field elements and drainage information not collected by the Consultant during this task that may be identified in future tasks as required for the completion of design plans for the project will be completed by the Consultant without additional payment. 4. The Consultant shall provide a site investigation including observation and research, identifying all utilities, easements, right‐of‐way and signage and striping/ median lane geometry, lighting and soil and tree conditions. 5. The Consultant shall develop site plans and cross sections show existing and new grades, topography, location of trees, utilities, lights and structures including intersections, road frontages and medians, invert elevations and direction of flow to storm drains in the project area. 6. Plans shall be in AutoCAD 2012 format. Consultant shall also provide 5 hard copy sets of the field survey (1 DRAFT Set/1 FINAL Set upon City Approval of Survey) ‐ 24” x 36” sheets of consecutive plan views of roadway, including center medians and sidewalk frontage planning areas and all intersections of the project corridor from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue at a scale of 1”=20’. 7. Consultant Survey and Base Mapping for the work described above will serve as the Project Topographic Base Map. Survey Control will be provided to the design team in both the hard copy and electronic version. Consultant will distribute DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2 project base mapping to all design team members and make accessible readily upon each design state. This topographic base map will be the uniform “x‐reference” for all design work. Topographic base mapping will be updated for all subconsultants at the beginning of each design phase. 8. Consultant shall provide a 2 page technical report summarizing findings. TASK B Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations 1. The consultant shall prepare a new Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Relevant / accurate information contained in the previously approved 2003 MND will be used much as possible. 2. The City anticipates a Traffic Study to be required to allow for the consideration of additional safety and roadway capacity configurations not included in the original 2004 Corridor Study at the following intersections, the Consultant shall be responsible for collecting peak‐hour turning movement count and 7‐day tube count data to respond to the following design alternatives: ・ Charleston Road & Fabian Way ‐ Charleston Road Left Turn Signal Phasing Option ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Louis Road‐Montrose Avenue ‐ Reconfiguration of Median Island Access and Pedestrian Improvements ・ Charleston Road & Middlefield Road ‐ Reconfigure Bicycle Lanes and consider option for Dedicated WBRT lane ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Consider Bicycle Box Treatments ・ Charleston Road & Nelson Drive ‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Hoover School Driveway ‐ Existing break in painted Median Island, validate Charleston Road Left storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Carlson Court ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements ・ Charleston Road & Mumford Pl ‐ Existing uncontrolled Crossing, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Charleston Road & Wright Place ‐ Existing uncontrolled crossing with transit operations, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 3 ・ Charleston Road & Alma Street ‐ Existing adjacent Caltrain operations ‐ Evaluate opportunities to clearly designate bicycle lane facilities across intersection and trackway ・ Charleston Road & Park Boulevard ‐ Evaluate opportunity for median islands across intersection providing limited right turn only access from Park Boulevard ‐ Evaluate Enhanced Crosswalk Improvement opportunities across Charleston Road ・ Charleston Road & Ruthelma Avenue ‐ Existing uncontrolled crosswalk across Charleston Road, evaluate for Enhanced Crosswalk Treatments ・ Charleston Road & Wilkie Way ‐ Existing traffic signal facility, evaluate for permitted left turn lanes on Charleston Road or with exclusive left turn signal phasing ‐ Wilkie Way is a Bicycle Boulevard crossing, consider special intersection improvements including exclusive microwave bicycle detection and roadway markings ・ El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road ‐ Caltrans maintained intersection; evaluate intersection for bicycle‐pedestrian focused treatments including intersection bulb‐outs to support future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations planned by the VTA ‐ Consider removal of existing Free Right Turn “Slip Lanes” at intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Alta Mesa‐McKellar Lane ‐ Evaluate intersection for median island improvements to restrict left turn access out of Alta Mesa‐McKeller but allow left turns off of Arastradero Road ‐ Evaluate Transit Shelter/Bike Station at westbound approach of intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Clemo Drive‐Suzanne Drive ‐ Existing Enhanced Crosswalk location, consider additional bicycle‐pedestrian safety measures including widening of sidewalk widening at Briones Park ‐ Study alternative to provide permanent No Parking Restrictions along the South side of Arastradero Road westerly from Suzanne Drive ‐ Protect fire station access at intersection and along Arastradero Road frontage ・ Arastradero Road & Los Palos Avenue ‐ Evaluate opportunities to improve left turn egress access from Los Palos Avenue to westbound Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road & Coulombe Drive ‐ Evaluate options for Bike Box facilities at intersection ‐ Evaluate option for Cycle Track with Sidewalk Widening along the South side of Arastradero Road westerly to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive ‐ Existing signal with permitted‐protected signal phasing, study appropriate left turn capacity storage requirements DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 4 ‐ Consider intersection bulb‐out treatments along North side of intersection ・ Arastradero Road & Pomona Avenue‐King Arthur Court ‐ Evaluate opportunities left turn egress access from side streets onto Arastradero Road ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ‐ Evaluate intersection bulb‐out treatments at Pomona Avenue ‐ Evaluate sidewalk widening along the South side of Arastradero Road west of Pomona Avenue to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive ・ Arastradero Road & Donald Drive‐Terman Drive ‐ Evaluate opportunities for intersection bulb‐out treatments ‐ Evaluate Terman Drive operations and provide recommendations for improvements to improve circulation out of Terman Drive ‐ Evaluate opportunity to provide dedicate EBRT movement at the intersection ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements ・ Arastradero Road – Georgia Avenue to Donald Drive‐Terman Drive ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements, protect two‐way left turn access for side streets along North side of Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road – West of Georgia Avenue ‐ Evaluate options to provide Cycle Track or Improved sidewalk access along the north side of Arastradero Road to Gunn High School ‐ Evaluate options to provide decorative guard rail and widened sidewalk treatments along the South side of Arastradero Road to Miranda Avenue ‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements to Georgia Avenue, Arastradero West Apartments, and Alta Mesa Cemetery Driveway ‐ Evaluate trail integration options at Hetch‐Hetchy Los Altos Trail intersection on South side of Arastradero Road; no trail crossing along the North side of Arastradero Road ・ Arastradero Road & Gunn High School Driveway ‐ Consider Bike Box treatments at intersection ‐ Evaluate left turn storage requirements at intersection and consider traffic signal phasing improvements to improve intersection capacity ・ Arastradero Road & Miranda Avenue ‐ Evaluate opportunities to provide WBLT lane to Southbound Miranda Avenue 3. Provide required documentation for NEPA certification as required by Caltrans Local Assistance including Traffic Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Technical Memorandums for Air Quality, Biology, Hydraulic Study, Land Use and Cultural Impact, Hazard Materials, Historical Resources, Temporary 4(f) Impact, Tree Preservation/Removal, Construction Staging, etc. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 5 4. Consultant shall provide value engineering report to help determine project elements and limits of work for each phase. 5. Consultant shall provide an arborist report per the City’s Tree Technical Manual for trees in the public‐right‐of‐way along with corridor. 6. Consultant shall provide innovative storm drain study for water conservation and irrigation design. 7. Coordination with Caltrans and prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for traffic signal/intersection modification at El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐ Arastradero Road. TASK C Plan Line Development and Public Meetings Immediately upon survey of the project area and collection of traffic data, the Consultant shall begin development of Plan Line Alternatives for presentation to the community. The Consultant shall develop up to five Plan Line Alternatives and begin an extensive public outreach process to develop a Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative that will serve as the basis for the development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates (PS&E) for the project. The Consultant should allow up to six months of community outreach for the development of the Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative. The City anticipates the following community outreach meeting schedule for development of the Preferred Community Plan Line: ・ General Community Outreach Meetings (3 Total) ・ Neighborhood Specific Focused Outreach Meetings (4 Total) o Green Meadow/Walnut Grove o Monroe Park/Charleston Meadows o Barron Park o Palo Alto Orchard/Green Acres I/II ・ Study Session with Planning & Transportation Commission ・ Study Session with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee ・ Study Session with City‐School Traffic Safety Committee ・ Study Session with City Council ・ Presentation Planning & Transportation Commission 1. Consultant shall prepare all outreach, notices and meeting and presentation materials for stakeholder, community and public meetings. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours including travel time. 2. Deliverables: o Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment for Charleston Road‐ Arastradero Road Corridor Project DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 6 TASK D Conceptual and Preliminary Designs Upon approval the Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment, the Consultant shall begin development of Conceptual and Preliminary Design to engage the community on the identification of Streetscape Treatments along the corridor including development of Community‐Preferred Landscape and Streetscape Furniture Palette’s. 1. The conceptual and preliminary design task includes selecting the locations of the new crosswalks, signs, street lighting & traffic signal standards, and intersection improvements, medians and curb bulb‐outs. Prepare presentation boards for City staff to use at public meetings. Consultant to provide section and elevation concept plans. 2. Prepare all noticing, presentation materials, plan sets copies, meeting summaries for public meetings to present preliminary design proposals, and act as facilitator of the meetings. 3. Meet and confer with City Staff to respond to and address City, stakeholder and Community comments. 4. Present the plans to the stakeholder, community, Public Art Commission, Architectural Review Board and to the Planning and Transportation Commission and address comments. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours including travel time. 5. Collect comments received during Conceptual and Preliminary Designs to include in project specifications. 6. Refined cost estimates based on value engineering. Public Art Programming & Coordination Provide consultation and technical input on the solicitation of offers for public art, the selection of qualified artists and selection of public art proposals. ・ Coordination with Arts Commission during the early design stages ・ Work with City, users and design team in the selection art sites available within the project area 5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION Additional services may be required and services are subject to project manager approval. Examples of services are as follows: ・ Additional meetings with ARB, Council and the public and associated materials ・ Additional plan drawings and revisions 6. INFORMATION and SERVICES PROVIDED BY the City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 7 The City will provide the following during the design phase: ・ Base Map from GIS for use in Identifying City‐Owned Utility Information ・ 2004 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan ・ 2004 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ・ AutoCAD title block ・ Plan line drawings submitted as part of the OBAG and VERBS Grant Applications ・ City standard construction details and technical specifications for irrigation work, asphalt, concrete, sidewalk, curb and gutter, tree planting, landscaping and median details in AutoCAD 2012; ・ Environmental documents; ・ City staff shall assist in obtaining design review comments from City staff; The City will provide the following during the Bid and Construction phase: ・ City shall advertise, provide bidders list, assist in obtaining bid document review comments and reproduce copies of bid and construction documents to contractors. ・ City shall provide general and supplementary conditions and City’s boilerplate specifications (work hours, duration, truck routes, etc.) Consultant is responsible for reviewing and verifying all supplied information. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 1 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. TIMELINE: Weeks from NTP Task 1 – Site Analysis and Field Surveys Field Surveys and Aerial Mapping 10 Task 2 – Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations Traffic Study 20 CEQA and NEPA 50 Caltrans PEER 50 Task 3 – Plan Line Development and Public Meetings 40 Task 4 – Conceptual and Preliminary Design 55 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 14 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $669,765. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $67,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $669,765 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $67,000. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $71,588 (Site Analysis and Field Survey) Task 2 $300,225 (Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations) Task 3 $207,598 (Plan Line Development) Task 4 $90,354 (Conceptual and Preliminary Designs) Sub-total Basic Services $669,765 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $669,765 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $67,000 Maximum Total Compensation $736,765 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 18 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Project Manager: $245/hr Lead Civil Designer: $178/hr Project Engineer: $178/hr Utility Lead Designer: $178/hr VA Lead Designer: $178/hr Drainage Designer $140/hr Design Engineer III: $128/hr Design Engineer II: $113/hr Design Engineer I: $105/hr Engineering Tech: $74/hr Survey Manager: $158/hr Field Surveyor: $116/hr Right of Way Coordinator: $116/hr 1 person field survey crew: $160/hr 2 person survey crew: $215/hr DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 19 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011 20 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 6 Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network ATTACHMENT F 6-4 | Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan City of Palo Alto Chapter 6 ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $335,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-13011, CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT SUPPORTED BY A TRANSFER FROM THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and B. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $250,000 for CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, for the design of the permanent reconfiguration identified in the Council adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan. Also in fiscal year 2013, $210,505 was moved from CIP Project PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan to CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project to consolidate these two projects into one project; and C. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a contract in the amount of $736,765 be awarded to Mark Thomas & Company for conceptual and preliminary designs of the project; and D. Additional funding is also required for seven public outreach meetings planned for FY 2014 at a cost of approximately $5,500 per meeting; and E. CIP Project PE-13011 has available funds of $440,368 requiring additional funding of $335,000 from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund; and AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk __________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney __________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Public Works __________________________ Director of Administrative Services Table 1: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Block Segment Feet of Parking Space Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percent Used (Current) Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Percent Used (After removal) Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Palo Alto Ave (westside)88 4 0.0 0%22 0% Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Hawthorne Ave (westside)487 22 9.3 42%20 2 46% Bryant St Poe St to Palo Alto Ave (eastside)131 6 0.5 8%2426% Poe St Bryant St to Palo Alto Ave (southside)388 18 4.8 27%18 0 27% Poe St Palo Alto Ave to Bryant St (northside)281 13 2.3 18%13 0 18% Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Poe St (eastside)371 17 14.5 86%17 0 86% Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Everett Ave (westside)274 12 8.3 66%11 1 72% Bryant St Everett Ave to Hawthorn Ave (eastside)250 11 9.0 79%10 1 87% Everett Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)112 5 5.0 98%4 1 122% Everett Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)139 6 6.3 99%5 1 118% Everett Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (southside)177 8 12.5 155%7 1 177% Everett Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (northside)346 16 11.8 75%15 1 80% Bryant St Everett Ave to 335 driveway (westside)196 9 7.5 84%8195% Bryant St mixed use building to Everett Ave (eastside)166 8 5.8 76%7188% Bryant St Channing Ave to Addison Ave (westside)256 12 9.8 84%10 2 101% Bryant St Addison Ave to Channing Ave (eastside)340 15 12.3 79%13 2 91% Addison Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)157 7 3.0 42%5258% Addison Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)181 8 3.5 43%6256% Addison Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (southside)400 18 7.5 41%16 2 46% Addison Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (northside)334 15 7.5 49%13 2 57% Bryant St Addison Ave to Lincoln Ave (westside)335 15 5.8 38%13 2 43% Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Addison Ave (eastside)313 14 6.8 47%12 2 55% Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Kingsley Ave (westside)387 18 7.3 41%15 3 50% Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Lincoln Ave (eastside)332 15 5.3 35%12 3 43% Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)207 9 3.0 32%6347% Kingsley Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)165 8 0.8 10%5317% Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (southside)425 19 15.3 79%16 3 93% Kinglsey Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (northside)410 19 13.3 71%16 3 85% Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Embarcadero Rd (westside)253 12 3.3 28%7550% Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kingsley Ave (eastside)237 11 2.5 23%5652% Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kellogg Ave (westside)264 12 5.5 46%12 0 46% Bryant St Kellogg Ave to Embarcadero Rd (eastside)255 12 1.8 15%10 2 18% Lowell Ave Bryant St to Emerson St (northside)424 19 8.5 44%17 2 49% Lowell Ave Emerson St to Bryant St (southside)370 17 10.0 59%15 2 67% Table 1: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Block Segment Feet of Parking Space Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percent Used (Current) Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Percent Used (After removal) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (southside)421 19 4.3 23%17 2 25% Lowell Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (northside)415 19 3.3 18%17 2 20% Bryant St Santa Rita Ave to Washington Ave (westside)362 16 5.5 33%16 0 33% Bryant St California Ave to Santa Rita Ave (eastside)1600 73 12.5 17%71 2 18% Bryant St Washington Ave to California Ave (westside)105 5 1.5 31%3254% California Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)176 8 0.5 6%62 8% California Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)206 9 0.0 0%72 0% California Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (southside)300 14 0.7 5%12 2 6% California Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (northside)387 18 8.3 47%16 2 53% Bryant St California Ave to Oregon Expy (westside)432 20 5.8 29%18 2 33% Bryant St Oregon Expy to California Ave (eastside)513 23 6.3 27%21 2 29% El Verano Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)215 10 1.3 13%8216% El Verano Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)192 9 1.0 11%7215% El Verano Ave Bryant St to South Ct (southside)211 10 2.3 23%8230% El Verano Ave South Ct to Bryant St (northside)204 9 0.5 5%72 7% TOTAL 15,190 690 279 40%595 95 47% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 24, 2016 at 12:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend was surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Daytime #1 for select locations were surveyed on March 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM (California btwn Bryant and Waverely; Lowell Ave btwn Bryant and Waverley) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for counting instructions. 2) Parking Availability excludes driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use & functional classification. 4) California Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. Table 2: Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Block Segment Feet of Parking Space Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percent Used (Current) Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Percent Used (After removal) Ross Rd Oregon Expy to Moreno Ave (westside)402 18 4.75 26%16 2 29% Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Oregon Expy (eastside)447 20 6.75 33%18 2 37% Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Rosewood Dr (westside)176 8 0.5 6%5 3 10% Ross Rd Rosewood Dr to Colorado Ave (westside)548 25 7 28%23 2 31% Ross Rd Marshall Dr to Moreno Ave (eastside)274 12 3.75 30%10 2 36% Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Randers Ct (northside)138 6 0.25 4%51 5% Colorado Ave Randers Ct to Ross Rd (southside)68 3 00%12 0% Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Sevyson Ct (southside)432 20 00%18 2 0% Colorado Ave Sevyson Ct to Ross Rd (northside)492 22 7.5 34%20 2 37% Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Marshall Dr (eastside)381 17 4.75 27%16 1 29% Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Sutter Ave (westside)155 7 1.5 21%5 2 30% Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Colorado Ave (eastside)177 8 00%62 0% Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Clara Dr (westside)151 7 0.75 11%5 2 15% Ross Rd Clara Dr to Sutter Ave (eastside)220 10 0.25 3%82 3% Ross Rd Clara Dr to Stern Ave (westside)354 16 2.75 17%14 2 20% Ross Rd Wintergreen Wy to Clara Dr (eastside)173 8 0.75 10%8 0 10% Ross Rd Stern Ave to Allen Ct (westside)180 8 2.25 28%2 6 103% Ross Rd Allen Ct to Loma Verde Ave (westside)386 18 5.5 31%15 3 38% Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Wintergreen Wy (eastside)793 36 6.5 18%30 6 22% Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Loma Verde Pl (westside) 225 10 2.25 22%8 2 27% Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Pl to Ross Rd (southside)201 9 00%72 0% Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Manchester Ct (southside)106 5 00%32 0% Loma Verde Ave Manchester Ct to Ross Rd (northside)122 6 2 36%4 2 56% Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Ames Ave (westside)488 22 4 18%19 3 21% Ross Rd Ross Ct to Loma Verde Ave (eastside)184 8 00%62 0% Ross Rd Ames Ave to Richardson Ct (eastside)95 4 1 23%3 1 30% Ross Rd Richardson Ct to Ross Ct (eastside)145 7 00%70 0% Ross Rd Ames Ave to Stone Ln (westside)405 18 7.5 41%13 5 56% Ross Rd Stone Ln to Talisman Dr (eastside)227 10 1.75 17%9 1 19% Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Ames Ave (eastside)779 35 10.5 30%32 3 32% Talisman Dr Ross Rd to bend in road (northside)255 12 2.5 22%11 1 24% Talisman Dr bend in road to Ross Rd (southside)282 13 2 16%11 2 18% Talisman Dr Ross to Arbutus Ave (southside)190 9 3.25 38%8 1 43% Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (northside)172 8 1.5 19%7 1 22% Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Christine Dr (westside)183 8 0.5 6%71 7% Ross Rd Christine Dr to Meadow Dr (westside)275 13 4.5 36%12 1 39% Table 2: Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Block Segment Feet of Parking Space Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percent Used (Current) Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Percent Used (After removal) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Talisman Dr (eastside)445 20 4 20%19 1 21% Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Mayview Ave (westside)284 13 3.25 25%13 0 25% Ross Rd Ramos Park Path to Meadow Dr (eastside)332 15 5.5 36%14 1 39% E Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Grove Ave (northside)386 18 4 23%17 1 24% E Meadow Dr Grove Ave to Ross Rd (southside)365 17 0.75 5%15 2 5% E Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Arbutus Ave (southside)106 5 1.75 36%4 1 46% E Meadow Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (northside)112 5 00%32 0% Ross Rd Mayview Ave to Corina Wy (westside)102 5 1.25 27%5 0 27% Ross Rd W Corina Wy to E Corina Wy (westside)317 14 1.75 12%13 1 13% Ross Rd Corina Wy to Ramos Park Path (eastside)453 21 5.25 25%20 1 27% Ross Rd E Corina Wy to Louis Rd (westside)148 7 0.25 4%43 7% Ross Rd Louis Rd to Corina Wy (eastside)141 6 0.75 12%3 3 22% Ross Rd Louis Rd to Nathan Wy (westside)129 6 0.5 9%60 9% Ross Rd Nathan Wy to Louis Rd (eastside)125 6 0.25 4%51 5% TOTAL 13,726 624 128 21%533 91 24% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 23, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for counting instructionss. 2) Parking Availability excludes driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and functional classification. 4) Louis Road is no parking on the north side of street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) Colorado Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 6) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. Table 3: Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Block Segment Feet of Parking Space Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percent Used (Current) Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Percent Used (After removal) Moreno Ave Rosewood Dr to Ross Rd (southside)357 16 1.25 8%14 2 9% Moreno Ave Coastland Dr to Rosewood Dr (northside) 113 5 0.75 15%5 0 15% Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Coastland Dr (northside)217 10 2.25 23%8 2 29% Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Marshall Dr (southside)172 8 0.75 10%6 2 13% Moreno Ave Marshall Dr to Ross Rd (southside)162 7 0.5 7%52 9% Louis Rd Moreno Ave to Fielding Dr (westside)200 9 00%09 0% Louis Rd Fielding Dr to Bruce Dr (westside)206 9 4.75 51%9 0 51% Louis Rd Bruce Dr to Amarillo Ave (eastside)67 3 00%30 0% Louis Rd Amarillo Ave to Moreno Ave (eastside)124 6 00%60 0% Amarillo Ave Louis Rd to Ohlone Elem driveway (southsid 206 9 2.75 29%0 9 N/A Amarillo Ave Ohlone Elem driveway to Greer Rd (southsid 311 14 4.25 30%13 1 33% Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Greer Park Pathway (southside)559 25 4.5 18%24 1 19% Amarillo Ave Greer Park Pathway to W Bayshore Rd (south 640 29 14.5 50%18 11 81% Amarillo Ave W Bayshore Rd to N Tanland Dr (northside)223 10 8 79%5 5 160% Amarillo Ave N Tanland Dr to S Tanland Dr (northside)197 9 5.25 59%7 2 75% Amarillo Ave S Tanland Dr to Greer Rd (northside)473 22 10.75 50%20 2 54% Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Louis Rd (northside)702 32 10.25 32%16 16 64% TOTAL 4929 224 70.5 31%160 65 44% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 5) Amarillo from Louis next to Ohlone has one no parking space from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. A maintenance truck was parked in that spot Daytime 6) Amarillo north of Ohlone, the first house has a no parking sign from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. Table 4: Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Block Segment Feet of Parking Space Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percent Used (Current) Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Percent Used (After removal) Montrose Ave Middlefield Rd to Sutherland Dr (northside)170 8 1.25 16%8 0 16% Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Middlefield Rd (southside)170 8 2.75 36%8 0 34% Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Seminole Wy (northside)700 32 10.75 34%32 0 34% Montrose Ave Seminole Wy to Charleston Rd (northside)158 7 0.75 10%7 0 11% Montrose Ave Charleston Rd to Sutherland Dr (southside)736 33 11.25 34%31 2 36% Louis Rd Charleston Rd to Bibbits Dr (northside)101 5 1.5 33%4 1 38% Louis Rd Bibbits Dr to Charleston Rd (southside)116 5 00%0 5 N/A Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Corina Wy (westside)106 5 00%50 0% Louis Rd Corina Wy to Meadow Dr (eastside)139 6 00%51 0% Louis Rd Aspen Wy to E Meadow Dr (eastside)584 27 0.25 1%27 0 1% E Meadow Dr Ortega Ct to Louis Rd (northside)143 7 0.75 12%6 1 14% Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Aspen Wy (westside)596 27 6.5 24%26 1 25% E Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Ortega Ct (southside)148 7 1.75 26%6 1 31% E Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Meadow Cir (southside)867 39 9.25 23%38 1 24% E Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Louis Rd (northside)445 20 9 44%19 1 47% E Meadow Cir Meadow Dr to Paloma St (southside)282 13 8.5 66%13 0 66% E Meadow Cir Paloma St to Meadow Cir (northside)293 13 7 53%12 1 57% E Meadow Cir Meadow Cir to Loral Space Systems(eastside) 342 16 2.75 18%16 0 18% E Meadow Cir Loral Space Systems to Meadow Dr (westside) 355 16 3.25 20%15 1 21% E Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Fabian Wy (westside)381 17 0.25 1%17 0 1% E Meadow Dr Fabian Wy to Meadow Cir (eastside)342 16 14.75 95%16 0 95% TOTAL 7174 326 63.75 20%310 7 21% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/27/2016 11:55 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike Lanes and Public Safety Buildings $20M for bike boulevards when we still haven't spent one dime other than planning, on the new public safety building, is ridiculous. Please skip the nice-to-haves until the truly critical needs are met. Kathleen Goldfein Attachment M City of Palo Alto (ID # 6788) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2016 Summary Title: New RPP District Implementation Title: Direction to Staff Regarding Implementation Priority for the following New Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts: a portion of Crescent Park, the Edgewood Plaza area, the Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council determine implementation priority for new proposed RPP programs and direct staff to move forward with the outreach and stakeholder process for the priority program(s). Executive Summary Beginning in early 2014, the City has been actively addressing parking and transportation challenges throughout the City using a strategic, multi-faceted approach focused on parking management, parking supply, and transportation demand management programs. Parking management strategies have included the development of a city-wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) ordinance, which was adopted in December 2014, as well as establishment of a new RPP district in residential areas surrounding Downtown. The city-wide RPP ordinance includes parameters for neighborhoods to petition and request a new RPP district, or to request annexation to an existing RPP district. Petitions for new RPP districts are accepted until March 31st of each year and the City received four petitions this year from the Southgate neighborhood, the Evergreen Park neighborhood, from several streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood, and for a street adjacent to Edgewood Plaza. This staff report discusses the resident-organized petitions for new RPP districts, and requests Council prioritization. Pursuant to the city-wide RPP ordinance, the Planning and Transportation Commission is being asked for a recommendation on prioritization on April 27 and minutes of their meeting will be forwarded when available. Background and Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 1 Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, residents may self-organize and request the formation of an RPP district in their neighborhood. The process, as outlined in the Ordinance, is as follows: 1. Residents must request a petition from the Planning and Community Environment Department. The petition includes a narrative portion and a signature form to demonstrate resident support. 2. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will review all petitions received by March 31 of that year. 3. Following receipt of the petitions, staff will review and bring the complete petitions to the Planning and Transportation Commission for prioritization. The Planning and Transportation Commission will provide feedback and prioritization on April 27, 2016 (Attachment A when available). 4. After prioritization, Staff will initiate work on the priority RPP district(s), and the assumption has been that limited resources will likely preclude the simultaneous processing of all requests (hence the need for prioritization). Staff’s work will include gathering additional information, community outreach, and stakeholder engagement. This process includes parking occupancy counts and a stakeholder process to develop a program that meets the needs of all parties as best as possible. At the end of the stakeholder engagement process, the City Attorney will prepare a draft resolution containing the parameters of the proposed district(s). 5. Staff will bring the proposed RPP District to the Planning and Transportation Commission by the end of September of the same calendar year. The PTC will review the draft resolution and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the RPP district. 6. Following these steps, the City Council will hold a public hearing to review the proposed resolution, and to adopt, modify, or reject the proposal. As of March 31, 2016, staff has received petitions for the following neighborhoods: Crescent Park (Attachment B) Date submitted: January 2016 Boundary: 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, 500 block of Chaucer Street Background: A petition to add the 500 and 600 blocks of Hale Street, the 1000 and 1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue, and the 500 block of Chaucer Street to the Downtown RPP district was received by staff in early January. The blocks of Hamilton Avenue and Chaucer Street are outside the approved Eligibility Area for the Downtown RPP district, and the neighborhood was advised that the petitions received would be evaluated as a request for a new RPP district. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Residents have indicated interest in resident permits only, although the petitions were initially submitted to annex into the existing Downtown district which does offer employee permit parking. Streets could either annex into the existing Downtown RPP district, or a small, new district could be formed. Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted Potential Implications: The formation of a new, resident only RPP district on these few City of Palo Alto Page 2 streets would result in employee vehicles moving to other adjacent streets such as those within the existing Crescent Park NOP areas. Outreach would be necessary beyond the streets initially identified in the petitions. The Downtown RPP district boundary has been finalized, and would require Council direction and an updated resolution to modify. Edgewood Plaza (Attachment C) Date submitted: October 2015 Boundary: Greer Road/Edgewood Drive to Channing Avenue/West Bayshore Road to St. Francis Drive/Channing Avenue. Background: Petition notes parking intrusion from East Palo Alto and from Edgewood Plaza. Parking congestion is noted daily and on weekends, as well as overnight parking on the weekdays. Signatures were collected from 13 residents on Edgewood Drive. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: No specific program was requested. Petition notes daytime and overnight parking intrusion, and makes a reference to deterring non- resident parking. Parking Occupancy Levels: None Submitted Potential Implications: This is a very small area to consider implementing a permit program, and would likely need to be looked at as part of an existing program or a larger area for a focused program. Additional inquiries have been made in this area regarding overnight parking restrictions. Southgate (Attachment D) Date submitted: February 2016 Boundary: Southgate neighborhood, including Churchill Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue, and Miramonte Avenue. Background: Residents submitting the petition note parking overflow primarily on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session. The petition notes primary generators of the parking impact are Palo Alto High School students, employee parking from nearby medical offices, PAUSD offices, and Stanford employees and students. The designated bike boulevard on Castilleja has resulted in a high volume of cyclists in the neighborhood that are impacted by the narrow streets and saturated parking. Residents submitted a petition signed by 169 residents. Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City staff in March 2016 (Attachment E), collating data collected over a time period of November 2015 through March 2016. The occupancy studies indicate high levels of parking on streets in the northern portion of Southgate, including several streets reportedly in excess of 90% occupancy at 10 a.m. South of Manzanita, streets are less occupied, ranging from 14 to 83% of total capacity at 10 a.m. The reported occupancies reduce to a maximum of 56% occupied at 4 p.m., with most streets less than 40% occupied. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Specific program parameters were not noted City of Palo Alto Page 3 in the petition, and would be addressed and proposed based on the community outreach and stakeholder process. Residents note a daytime parking intrusion. Potential Implications: Establishment of a resident-only permit parking program in Southgate would not address the root causes of the parking overspill. An in-depth community outreach and stakeholder process would be necessary to address the causes of the parking issue and to establish other options for those who are parking in the neighborhood. Engineering and enforcement solutions for the neighborhood, including red curb, passing areas, and timed parking restrictions may be an option to pursue in lieu of or in addition to a permit program, and should be considered prior to or in tandem with the implementation of an RPP District Evergreen Park (Attachment F) Date submitted: March 2016 Boundary: El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard Background: The petition and attached letter requests annexation of the non- commercial core of Evergreen Park into the existing College Terrace RPP program. Residents note parking overflow on weekdays, and attribute the parking impacts to employees of neighboring businesses, employees from nearby office buildings, Caltrain commuters, and Stanford University affiliates including faculty, staff, students, and visitors. Residents have also noted safety concerns related to bike routes in the neighborhood. ouncilmembers Duois, Filseth, Holman, and Schmid have submitted a olleagues’ Memo recommending that ouncil direct Staff to return with either a “ollege Terrace- like” RPP with resident-only parking established by amending the College Terrace RPP, or a new RPP district under the city-wide RPP ordinance, but on an accelerated timeline with either zero non-resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) of the permits available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. The colleagues’ memo also requests that staff investigate allowing merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits among their own employees. Resident-Requested Program Parameters: Evergreen Park residents have requested to be annexed into the existing College Terrace resident-only parking permit program. Parking Occupancy Levels: Residents submitted occupancy counts to City Staff dated October 2015. The counts indicate parking saturation in excess of 90% of capacity, and on several blocks more than 100% occupancy, particularly on College Avenue and Oxford Avenue and adjacent blocks, and along El Camino Real and the adjacent blocks. Potential Implications: While annexation into an existing program would be a simplified approach from the planning perspective, a stakeholder process and community outreach process is recommended to develop a program that provides for residents and employees and could include permits for on-street parking, as well as parking management strategies at California Avenue lots and garages to increase supply, or evaluation of public-private parking partnerships. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Given the nature of the petitions received and the limitations in terms of staff resources to accomplish more than one new RPP district in this fiscal year, Staff requests Council to review the petitions and PTC prioritization list, and provide direction regarding which RPP district to move forward into implementation. Policy Implications The implementation of Residential Preferential Parking districts is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Evaluation and implementation of each program would be conducted as follows: Crescent Park: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be annexed to the adjacent Downtown RPP program rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary. Edgewood Plaza: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area. If the neighborhood wishes to be annexed to the Downtown RPP program or Crescent Park No Overnight Parking programs rather than establish a new program, further City Council action would be necessary. Southgate: Per the City-wide RPP Ordinance, staff would conduct a community outreach and stakeholder process to design a program for the area, ideally starting with a community forum to solicit feedback and identify stakeholders to participate in the process. At the conclusion of the stakeholder process, which would include residents as well as the source(s) of parking intrustions, the City Attorney will draft a resolution for evaluation by City Council to adopt, modify, or reject the proposed RPP district. Evergreen Park: If directed by Council to annex Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP district outside of the process set forth in the City-wide RPP ordinance, staff would work with the ity !ttorney’s office to develop a draft resolution proposing a program boundary. Following adoption of the resolution by City Council, staff would begin field work for signage and order additional permits for the newly annexed streets. Staff would need to evaluate staff impacts of handling permit fufillment and enforcement internally as is currently done for the College Terrace program instead of using contractors (similar to the Downtown RPP district). Resource Impact The Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Capital Improvement Budget includes funding of $300,000 for the creation of future RPP programs. There is no approved budget at this time for the operations of any new RPP program. Operating impacts are expected to include equipment and staff time to manage the program, customer service, office supplies, parking enforcement, and bank card charges. City of Palo Alto Page 5 ** Assume services provided by COPA and PAPD staff as in College Terrace RPP Source: Planning Department, April 2016 Based on the associated costs with implementation of a new RPP district, including signage, enforcement, permit sales, customer service, and staff time, staff estimates that the requested Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Fund budget of $300,000 is sufficient for the start-up of one new RPP district in the next fiscal year. Pricing of parking permits will be based on the City ouncil’s direction on the cost recovery level to be applied to these programs. Timeline Staff anticipates beginning a community outreach and stakeholder process for the priority RPP program immediately upon direction by City Council. Environmental Review The City Council decision this evening is expected to provide conceptual direction for a new RPP district in Palo Alto. Specific parameters for the new RPP district would be subject to approval of a formal resolution at a later date. That resolution would address compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: Planning and Transportation Prioritization At Places Document (DOCX) Attachment B: Crescent Park RPP Petition (PDF) Attachment C: Edgewood Drive Petition (PDF) Attachment D: Southgate RPP Petition (PDF) Attachment E: Resident-Submitted Southgate Parking Study_2015-2016 (PDF) Attachment F: Evergreen Park RPP Petition (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 7 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRIORITIZATION This document will be presented as an At Places item on May 9, 2016 Staff will be drafting the document based on the April 27th P&TC Meeting Attachment B - Attachment C - Attachment D - Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request FormThe purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request the initiation of a ResidentialPreferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential ParkingPermit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: The City of Palo AltoTransportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: Christine Shambora (main contact) Jim McFall, Keith Ferrell, Nancy Shepherd Address: 1565 Castilleja Avenue, 94306 Phone Number: 650 868-7523 Email(optional):christineshambora@gmail.com 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? Castilleja Ave, Mariposa Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Madrono Avenue, Escobita Avenue, Portola Avenue and Miramonte Avenue and Churchill between El Camino and Alma. 2. How often does the overflow occur? Primarily on weekdays from 8am to 4pm; during school hours when Palo Alto High School is in session. Although not the focus of this application, there are also significant parking impacts in our neighborhood during Palo Alto High School and Stanford University football games whichunderscores the non-residential parking burden the Southgate neighborhood bears and the unusual nature of our situation. 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? The greatest impact is when Palo Alto High School is in session, however we are beginning to experience Stanford employee and student parking, as well as employees from nearby medical offices, which occurs at all times during the year. Southgate RPP Page 1 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 1 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: -The primary impact is from Palo Alto High School students using Southgate neighborhood streets for school parking. -Secondary impact is employee parking from nearby medical offices, as well as from the PAUSD office, and Stanford employees and students. -A recent trend that has been observed is commuters parking in the neighborhood and walking or biking to other transportation links, e.g., CalTrain, SC Valley Transit (on El Camino). -These generators and related neighborhood parking problems are exacerbated by the unusually narrow public streets in Southgate. When cars are parked on both sides of the street it reduces travel to a single narrow lane. In such cases, the narrow, single lane cannot accommodate larger emergency vehicles or even delivery trucks that are now common to normal residential uses (e.g., UPS, FedEx, etc.) Further, normal neighborhood construction and service vehicles access, including garbage trucks, is difficult and in many cases impossible. We are losing our ability to make normal residential use of our neighborhood streets. 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood: An RPP will eliminate the use of Southgate streets for overflow parking of Palo Alto High School students, employees of local medical offices, PAUSD District employees and Stanford employees and students, as well as the recent trend for commuter parking. 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? A neighborhood meeting was held on December 3, 2015, a weekday morning with a strong turnout of 38 neighbors with City Transportation staff in attendance. Notice of the meeting was provided through the neighborhood email list (Southgate Watch) and a meeting notice was posted on Next Door Southgate. Leaflets were also distributed to each residence. In January ten residents on various streets in the Southgate neighborhood carried petitions to solicit signatures for the application. That effort was successfully completed resulting in contact with most residents in Southgate. In a few cases signatures were not obtained due to homes being for sale, under construction or residents away for an extended period. The results: 95% of residents who were contacted signed the petition and support proceeding with the RPP process. (See attached map, Exhibit 1.) Southgate RPP Page 2 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 2 Additional Information: BACKGROUND Southgate is a neighborhood along Churchill Avenue between Alma and El Camino.In the early 80’s the street linking Southgate to the Evergreen Neighborhood was closed in an effort to reduce cut-through traffic. This reduced the Southgateneighborhood entry roadways to three streets off Churchill and one off El Camino.The three Southgate entryway streets from Churchill (Madrono, Castilleja and Mariposa) are narrow 24 feet wide streets, making it difficult and dangerous for traffic, including the Castilleja public bike boulevard use, when significant numbers of cars are parked on the streets. BIKE BOULEVARD Castilleja Avenue has also been designated by the city as a public Bike Boulevard that has resulted in a very high volume of cyclists. Due to the saturated parking onCastilleja Avenue, visibility is impaired and that, along with the narrow street width,makes bike and auto movement very hazardous and has created an extreme safetyconcern, particularly for Paly student bikers and pedestrians. EMERGENCY RESPONSE In the event of an emergency, fire trucks and ambulances have reduced access to neighborhood residences when a large volume of cars are parked on both sides ofthe streets; currently a common occurrence on weekdays. CITY SERVICES Recently, street sweepers have had difficulty cleaning streets due to the large number of cars parked on the streets. In addition, garbage and recycling trucks have experienced difficulty getting through streets due to the reduced clear traffic lanewidth with the increased parking activity. COMMERCIAL SERVICES Delivery trucks, again due to the narrow streets, have experienced challenges inaccessing Southgate when high volume parking has occurred. A recent delivery problem, and potential safety hazard, occurred when a FedEx truck could not navigate down Castilleja Avenue, with cars parked opposite each other, and was forced to back up onto Churchill Avenue. A Southgate neighbor, who was behind theFedEx truck, was also forced to back up onto Churchill. There have also been debris box delivery and pickup problems because of the many cars which arrive on weekdays and park curbside. PROXIMITY TO PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL AND PAUSD DISTRICT OFFICES Due to ongoing construction at the High School and increasing enrollment (projectedto grow to 2400 students from 1950 students (currently) by 2020) the school has lostparking and will continue to be unable, under the current parking configuration, to meet the demand for student parking or student parking for the adult school . The neighborhood has reached out to the High School Administration repeatedly for helpin addressing theses overflow parking issues that impact our neighborhood withoutany response to work toward possible solutions. The PAUSD District Office parking generally appears to be at or near capacity mostdays of the week. If community wide meetings are held at their offices the need for parking often exceeds supply and Southgate becomes the de facto overflow parkinglot. Southgate RPP Page 3 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 3 GROWING PARKING INTRUSION FROM STANFORD Southgate residents have begun to observe a number of people parking in the neighborhood and heading to Stanford. In many cases these people, after parking, remove a bicycle from the trunk of their car and then ride onto the Stanford Campus. El Camino Real is now parked solidly from Stanford Avenue to Palm Drive all day, Monday through Friday, thus creating a spillover of parking into the Southgate neighborhood. ATTACHED EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1- Southgate map with petition results EXHIBIT 2- Southgate and Comprehensive Plan Policies EXHIBIT 3- Ongoing Parking and Traffic Issues: Resident’s comments EXHIBIT 4- Vlasic letter EXHIBIT 5- Southgate Parking/Safety Impacts-Photos Southgate RPP Page 4 of 42 SOUTHGATE RPP APPLICATION Page 4 Mariposa Southgate RPP Page 21 of 42 EXHIBIT 2 Southgate Residential Parking Permit Petition Consistent with and Supports Implementation of Existing and Draft Proposed Palo Alto Comprehensive PlanGoals and Policies Existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan goals and policies call for protecting, preserving and enhancing the residential character and qualities of the City’s Single Family Residential Neighborhoods. As this petition demonstrates, heavy daily parking from non-residential uses, including particularly Paly High students, employees and visitors and also employees of adjacent non-residential activities, has dramatically reduced and not “protected, preserved or enhanced” the residential character and qualities of the Southgate single family neighborhood. Granting this petition will go a long way towards returning our neighborhood to it’s former residential character and implementing the comprehensive plan objectives as set forth, particularly, in the draft plan. We focus on these plan visions and policies as they are more reflective of the current challenges facing the city and the more current view of the City decision makers as to how these should be addressed. (Emphasis added with italics.) LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Proposed Vision: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities and focus on sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance the quality of life in our community. Southgate comment: The current parking situation is not residential neighborhood in character. As detailed elsewhere in this petition, Southgate has become a Paly parking lot. Our very narrow streets cannot support our own neighborhood use and a public parking lot use. We have lost part of our property rights pertaining to safety, emergency access and our own use of our street frontages for street sweeping and garbage collection that are rights enjoyed in other city neighborhoods not impacted like Southgate. We pay taxes for things like street sweeping and safe emergency and other access to our property and we are not receiving value equal to our costs. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Proposed Vision: Maintain and promote a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods including alternative and innovative transportation practices and supporting regional transit facilities and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Southgate comment: The same comment as above, but with emphasis on safety and accessibility. Southgate RPP Page 26 of 42 Transportation Vision Element Statement (excerpt). Palo Alto . . . Streets will be safe and attractive, and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Emphasis will be placed on alternatives to the automobile, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and car and van pooling. The adverse impacts of automobile traffic on the environment in general, and residential streets in particular, will be reduced. Solutions that reduce the growth in the number of automobiles on City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be supported. PROGRAM T-7: Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to use parking fees, regulations, and education to discourage students from driving to school. POLICY T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. POLICY T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections. POLICY T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. The safety of children traveling to and from school has always been a high priority. Because more parents now regularly drive their children to school, safety concerns from school traffic congestion have increased. POLICY T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods Southgate comment: It is clear that the current Southgate non-residential parking situation is fully inconsistent with the intent of these transportation objectives/policies. Safety for use of the City designated Castilleja bike boulevard is at high risk. Pedestrian safety is compromised throughout the neighborhood and residents have difficulty safely exiting their properties in their own vehicles, including bikes. There are many small children in the neighborhood and their safety is significantly compromised due to the limited sight distance with cars park continuously along curbs up to and crossing residential driveways. No matter what, the school district must be involved in the discussions to ensure that they appreciate the concerns and city objectives, as set forth above, and in the existing bike plan for the city. Moving ahead with this parking petition will be essential in helping the city work toward achieving the community land use and transportation objectives that have existed for some time in the comprehensive plan and that are currently being articulated more carefully as we look ahead to the protecting the future character of the community. Southgate RPP Page 27 of 42 EXHIBIT 3 ONGOING PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES-SOUTHGATE NEIGHBOR’S COMMENTS Southgate neighbors share some of the current difficulties with the increasing congestion and traffic: GENERAL SAFETY “…Garbage service and emergency access is being impacted and more importantly general traffic flow is awful with safety to pedestrians, drivers and vehicles all at high risk. Cars have been scraped and rear view mirrors are now routinely hit. The streets are all way too narrow to accommodate the current scope of non Residential parking…” “…having so many non-residential cars in the neighborhood makes for heavier traffic and decreased safety for kids on bikes and scooters or just playing in their front yards. “I am concerned about access for first responders. I recently spoke with a Palo Alto Fire Captain who recalled an emergency medical call several years ago when, arriving in Southgate, his team could not get to the site of the emergency. They had to stop, due to congestion on the street, and walk a block to the site on Castilleja.” Note: drawings are drawn to scale. “Two instances in the past 90 days of cars parking too close to a fire hydrant. In once instance, the hydrant was blocked completely. These incidents occurred on the southwest corner of Manzanita and Escobita.” “I worry that public safety vehicles may need to come during the day on a moment's notice AND could easily find the streets connecting to Churchill unpassable or difficult to navigate.” “Students speeding in neighborhood as they try to find parking and opening their car doors without looking. Students also park on corners which blocks all visibility.” “Every single day, whether I am walking or driving during the morning and mid afternoon hours I either experience this myself or see cars having to back up to let others come into Mariposa or Castilleja. Many times this involves a car having to back up onto Southgate RPP Page 28 of 42 Churchill to let a car coming out of one of these two streets navigate on to Churchill. Cars are lined up along the curbs on the first part of each of these streets so there is no way for cars coming out of the street to pull over making it necessary for cars coming in to stop traffic on Churchill as they back out. On these two streets there are also cars that shoot down the street at higher than safe speeds trying to make it to the end of the street before another car turns onto the street so they don’t have to pull over. It’s a crazy mess for sure and a dangerous situation to say the least.” BICYCLE SAFETY “The car congestion on Castilleja raises similar concerns that it becomes a less-safe bike boulevard. It is hard to see bikes because so many cars are along the street, you can't see down the street (Castilleja) until you have almost pulled into it from Manzanita.” “I had a situation where I tried to turn on Castilleja to be confronted by a oncoming truck who had no where to go as there were cars on each side. So I reversed back on Churchill Avenue and into the path of a cyclist.” “I dread going through the intersection of Miramonte and Castilleja. Twice I have been startled by racing bicyclists heading towards Churchill and Paly. There is no way to see them easily as they are blocked by the parked cars on both sides of Castilleja. I have inched out and inched out and am almost in the center of the intersection before I can actually see them.” “In the mornings after 9am Castilleja and Mariposa are now filled bumper to bumper with cars and there is no where for a car to move out of the way for either a cyclist or an oncoming car from the opposite direction.” “I also encounter bikers using the Castilleja Bike Boulevard swerving around cars going up or down the street. It’s almost impossible for bikes and cars to use the street at the same time when each side of the street is filled with parked cars. “ Southgate RPP Page 29 of 42 RESTRICTED DRIVEWAY ACCESS “It is extremely difficult to back out of our driveway with cars parked on either side of driveway and directly opposite the driveway. Very frustrating as we make an effort to keep our cars off the street by parking in driveway/garage.” “Reduced maneuverability backing out of the driveway because cars park across from driveways on narrow streets.” “Cars parking so closely behind other cars that residents are virtually pinned into their parking spots. “ CAR ATTEMPTING TO BACK OUT OF A DRIVEWAY STREET CONGESTION “Streets are already narrow so when cars are parked on either side the streets do not permit two-way traffic flow which often leads to somewhat dangerous procedures where one party has to either reverse, find a driveway, etc. so that the other party can proceed.” “While trying to exit the neighborhood (from Castilleja & Madrono) onto Churchill, we have had to reverse back to the Miramonte intersection when encountering cars entering the neighborhood as there isn't enough room for 2 cars to pass each other and there is nowhere to pull over. Also have to stop if bicyclist is coming opposite direction as unsafe to pass while moving.” “I have seen the Street Sweepers skip our street due to the non-resident parking.” “We also have staff from Stanford and the Medical offices park on the 1600 Portola block and use the Paseo pathway to either go to Stanford University or the Bay Area fertility or Dentist offices on El Camino. “ Southgate RPP Page 30 of 42 _____________________________________________________________________ EXHIBIT 4 Tom & Linda Vlasic 1540 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 November 22, 2015 To: City of Palo Alto Transportation Staff, City Manager and City Council Membersc/o Christine Shambora From: Tom & Linda Vlasic Subject: Comments on Southgate Parking Issues and Problemsfor December 3, 2015 Neighborhood Meeting Unfortunately we will be out of town at the time of the subject December 3rd meeting. We do, however, want to share the following comments and information for consideration at the meeting and also ask that it be considered by city staff and officials in follow-up to the meeting. The attached photo exhibits underscore our concerns over vehicle, driver, pedestrian and bicycle safety in the neighborhood, particularly in the blocks immediately east of Churchill Avenue. Paly students, staff, general commuter and other non-residential parking is destroying the residential character and, more importantly safety, of our neighborhood. During weekdays the intensity of non-neighborhood parking along the very narrow streets is so great that all street users are at risk and Castellija is no longer a safe bicycle boulevard; many bikers use Mariposa instead. Garbage pick up is jeopardized and emergency vehicle access is impossible. Getting in and out of driveways is extremely hazardous, and parking in front of one’s own property is either not possible or places your car and you at risk of being hit by vehicles. UPS and other deliveries to residents is also seriously impacted. Parking on both sides of the street, now typical during most of the weekday, renders the narrow streets to only one travel lane. Simply put, it is a parking and access mess and certainly an accident waiting to happen. Last week I called the fire department administrative offices to express concern over emergency access and bicycle boulevard safety. I was promised a check and call back, and the return call never occurred. For too long, the school district and City have ignored the situation and the neighbors have tolerated it. We cannot now just wait until an accident of some kind occurs. Someone in the public sector must take responsibility for these narrow public streets that are being used more and more for non-residential purposes, purposes they were clearly not designed or designated for. We ask you to seriously consider the photos herewith, investigate the neighborhood and take actions to remedy the situation. This is a public problem and the City and School District must work together to solve it. The neighborhood is being asked to shoulder the burden for inadequate planning on the part of both the City and School District. We would be pleased to meet with city staff and officials to further outline our concerns. Sincerely, Tom and Linda Vlasic (650) 269-15553cc. Superintendent and Board of Trustees, Palo Alto School District Southgate RPP Page 32 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 33 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 34 of 42 Conditions Around the Intersection of Castilleja and Manzanita Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 35 of 42 Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue Normal Weekend Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 36 of 42 Conditions Along the 1500 Block of Mariposa Avenue Normal Weekday Conditions, November 2015 Southgate RPP Page 37 of 42 EXHIBIT 5 SOUTHGATE-PARKING/SAFETY ISSUES PHOTOS Parked Illegally October 22, 2015: Escobita Ave October 5, 2015: Manzanita Ave May 13, 2013: Castilleja Ave May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Southgate RPP Page 38 of 42 Page 1 of 5 Parked in wrong direction: both a parking and moving violation as they drive on the wrong side of the road both when parking and exiting. Bike Safety (Nowhere for bikes or cars to go. This is before streets are completely full of cars) November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave November 4, 2015: Castilleja Ave Inadequate room for bikes and cars to pass. Southgate RPP Page 39 of 42 Page 2 of 5 Public Services Interruptions May 9, 2013: Escobita Ave Feb 8, 2016: Escobita Ave Garbage trucks cannot access streets Street sweeper cannot clean curbs October 30, 2014: Escobita Ave Southgate RPP Page 40 of 42 Page 3 of 5 Parking Impacts Nov 3, 2015. Castilleja (north) 4:15pm Escobita Driveway Dec 3, 2015: Escobita (north) 11:30am Dec 3 2015: Escobita (north) 3:15pm Dec 4, 2015: Manzanita (east)12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Manzanita (east) 4:10pm Southgate RPP Page 41 of 42 Page 4 of 5 Dec 4, 2015: Madrono (north) 12:40pm Dec 3, 2015: Madrono (north) 4:10pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 12:15pm Nov 17, 2015: Escobita (north) 3:45pm Corner of Castilleja and Manzanita Paly parking lot: Oct 2 2015 8:40 am Numerous spaces available Southgate RPP Page 42 of 42 Page 5 of 5 Attachment E - Southgate Parking Occupancy Study 2015-2016 Methodology: Between the months of November 2015 and March 2016, volunteers performed counts of the cars parked in Southgate. Counts were done at three different times of day to provide a view as to the cause of the parking congestion in the neighborhood. Counts were done at 10am, 4pm and 7pm on different days of the week, in order to provide a random sample. Counts were then averaged and compared to the number of spaces available. In order to calculate the number of available spaces, city staff advised us to use a 20' space as the basis for calculating the number of spaces on each block. The following worksheets provide both summary and detailed information on these counts. The neighborhood occupancy maps show the percentage of spaces occupied at different times of the day. The summary sheets provide the information in table format. Observations The area north of Miramonte sees an increase of over 86 cars, on average, at 10 am compared to 4pm, and an increase of over 95 cars when compared to 7pm. The increase is due to non-residential parking occurring during the day. There are nearly three times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am (129.6 cars) as there are at 4pm (43.3), a 199.4% increase. There are nearly four times as many cars parked north of Miramonte at 10am(129.6 cars) as there are at 7pm (34.4), a 281% increase. Of the blocks north of Miramonte (closest to Churchill), all but two have over 68% of their parking full at 10 am. 9 of those blocks have over 75% of their parking full at 10am. At 7pm, only one of the blocks north of Miramonte is over 60% occupied, 200 block of Manzanita. This is due to a large number of multi-dwelling units on that block. Summary of Southgate Parking Occupancy # of Spaces 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM Available 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 12.0 2.0 3.0 13 92% 15% 23% 7.3 0.8 0.5 6 121% 13% 8% 200 Manzanita 6.8 5.5 6.3 10 68% 55% 63% 0-29 Churchill 12.8 4.8 1.3 14 91% 34% 9% 30-59 Churchill 7.3 3.3 3.5 6 121% 54% 58% 60--95 Churchill 4.5 2.0 2.0 5 90% 40% 40% 8.0 2.0 2 7 114% 29% 25% 23.3 5.0 3.3 28 83% 18% 12% 1500 Escobita 20.8 2.3 3.5 26 80% 9% 13% 1500 Mariposa 28.8 11.0 6.5 42 68% 26% 15% 1500 Portola 5.3 4.0 5.5 17 31% 24% 32% 1500 El Camino 10.7 5.3 1.3 9 119% 58% 14% 10.5 5.3 4.0 14 75% 38% 29% 7.0 5.5 3.8 21 33% 26% 18% Average number of cars @ Percent Occupied Block North of Miramonte Manzanita (Mad. to Esco) Manzanita (Esco to Cast.) 1500 - 1521 Castilleja 1527 - 1599 Castilleja 1500 - 1515 Madrono 1520 - 1599 Madrono Miramonte and South 1600 Castilleja 8.8 6.3 8.8 40 22% 16% 22% 1600 Escobita 13.8 8.8 5.5 24 57% 36% 23% 1600 Mariposa 7.5 5.8 4.8 44 17% 13% 11% 1600 Portola 8.5 8.3 8.0 18 47% 46% 44% 1600 Madrono 5.0 5.8 3.5 21 24% 27% 17% 1600 El Camino 6.0 2.3 0.5 10 60% 23% 5% 200 Sequoia 3.8 5.0 5.5 13 29% 38% 42% 300 Sequoia 1.5 3.5 3.0 11 14% 32% 27% 400 Sequoia 2.5 2.5 2.5 14 18% 18% 18% 100 Miramonte 3.3 2.8 3.3 10 33% 28% 33% 200 Miramonte 3.3 3.5 1.0 12 27% 29% 8% 300 Miramonte 4.3 5.0 5.3 9 47% 56% 58% 400 Miramonte 5.3 3.8 3.0 13 40% 29% 23% 500 Miramonte 4.8 4.3 3.0 13 37% 33% 23% Notes: 1) Counts were done on 4 different occassions at each time period. 2) Spaces available based on 20' spaces per advice of city staff. Daily Parking Counts Day Friday Friday Wednesday Thursday Friday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Tuesday Monday Thurs Mon Date 11/20/2015 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 12/11/2015 2/17/2016 2/18/2016 3/7/2016 3/1/2016 3/6/2016 2/18/2016 2/29/2016 Time 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM North of Miramonte Mariposa 29 27 28 31 10 13 10 11 7 7 6 6 Castilleja 37 28 31 29 11 7 6 4 4 4 6 6 Escobita 21 22 22 18 2 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 Madrono 18 12 20 20 7 11 12 13 3 3 5 4 Portola 6 8 2 5 3 2 7 4 5 5 6 6 Manzanita 25 23 28 28 5 9 11 8 10 10 9 10 Total 136 120 131 131 38 45 47 43 33 33 35 35 Miramonte and South Miramonte 14 18 26 25 13 25 21 18 15 15 15 17 Mariposa 10 6 6 8 5 7 7 4 5 5 4 5 Castilleja 10 7 6 12 7 9 6 3 9 9 8 9 Escobita 11 16 14 14 13 7 8 7 6 6 5 5 Madrono 6 3 6 5 9 4 4 6 3 3 4 4 Portola 6 6 10 12 7 9 10 7 9 9 7 7 Sequoia 2 12 9 8 9 10 13 12 11 11 10 12 Total 59 68 77 84 63 71 69 57 58 58 53 59 Exterior Block Churchill 20 22 28 28 8 12 14 6 7 7 6 7 El Camino Real 15 15 20 0 12 9 1 8 1 1 1 4 Total 35 37 48 28 20 21 15 14 8 8 7 11 Grand Total 230 225 256 243 121 137 131 114 99 99 95 105 Note: 2/18 10am count of El Camino Real not factored in to average. No Parking on Thursdays due to garbage pick up. Parking Comparison by Time of Day Avg # of Cars by Time Increase/(Decrease) in # of cars Percent increase/(decrease) in avg. # of cars % of spaces full 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm 10am vs 4pm 10am vs 7 pm 4pm vs 7 pm # of 20' spaces 10 00 AM 4 00 PM 7 00 PM # of counts 4 4 4 North of Miramonte Mariposa 28 8 11 0 6.5 17.8 22.3 4.5 161.36% 342.31% 69.23% 42 68 5% 26 2% 15 5% Castilleja 31 3 7 0 5 0 24.3 26.3 2.0 346.43% 525.00% 40.00% 35 89 3% 20 0% 14 3% Escobita 20 8 2 3 3 5 18.5 17.3 (1.3) 822.22% 492.86% -35.71% 26 79 8% 8.7% 13 5% Madrono 17 5 10 8 3 8 6.8 13.8 7.0 62.79% 366.67% 186.67% 35 50 0% 30.7% 10.7% Portola 5 3 4 0 5 5 1.3 (0.3) (1.5) 31.25% -4.55% -27.27% 17 30 9% 23 5% 32.4% Manzanita 26 0 8 3 9 8 17.8 16.3 (1.5) 215.15% 166.67% -15.38% 29 89.7% 28.4% 33 6% Total 129.5 43.3 34.0 Total 86.3 95.5 9.3 Total 199.42% 280.88% 27.21% 184 70.4% 23.5% 18.5% Miramonte and South Miramonte 20 8 19 3 15 5 1.5 5.3 3.8 7.79% 33.87% 24.19% 57 36.4% 33 8% 27 2% Mariposa 7 5 5 8 4 8 1.8 2.8 1.0 30.43% 57.89% 21.05% 39 19 2% 14.7% 12 2% Castilleja 8 8 6 3 8 8 2.5 0.0 (2.5) 40.00% 0.00% -28.57% 40 21 9% 15 6% 21 9% Escobita 13 8 8 8 5.5 5.0 8.3 3.3 57.14% 150.00% 59.09% 24 57 3% 36 5% 22 9% Madrono 5 0 5 8 3 5 (0.8) 1.5 2.3 -13.04% 42.86% 64.29% 21 23 8% 27.4% 16.7% Portola 8 5 8 3 8 0 0.3 0.5 0.3 3.03% 6.25% 3.13% 18 47 2% 45 8% 44.4% Sequoia 7 8 11 0 11 0 (3.3) (3.3) 0.0 -29.55% -29.55% 0.00% 43 18 0% 25 6% 25 6% Total 72.0 65.0 57.0 Total 7.0 15.0 8.0 Total 10.77% 26.32% 14.04% 242 29.8% 26.9% 23.6% Exterior Blocks Churchill 24 5 10 0 6.8 14.5 17.8 3.3 145.00% 262.96% 48.15% 25 98 0% 40 0% 27 0% El Camino Real 16.7 7 5 1 8 9.2 14.9 5.8 122.22% 852.38% 328.57% 19 87.7% 39 5% 9 2% Total 41.2 17.5 8.5 Total 23.7 32.7 9.0 Total 135.24% 384.31% 105.88% 44 93.6% 39.8% 19.3% Grand Total 242.7 125.8 99.5 Grand Total 116.9 143.2 26.3 Grand Total 92.98% 143.89% 26.38% 470 51.6% 26.8% 21.2% March 7, 2016 Page 2 Members’ conclusion in the Memo that the City Council should take the “quickest, most efficient way to achieve success” in alleviating the parking problems in the Evergreen Park non-commercial core. The best way to do this is to annex Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district. Evergreen Park meets all the criteria for being designated a RPP district. The Municipal Code allows the City to designate a RPP district if non-resident vehicles substantially interfere with the use of street parking by residents; if that interference is regular; if the interference creates traffic, noise, parking shortages, or other disruptions; and if other parking strategies are not feasible or practical. Municipal Code § 10.50.030. As documented in the EPPP Committee’s parking occupancy surveys and neighbors’ photographs attached to the Neighborhood Petition Form, by mid-morning every weekday, Evergreen Park’s streets are packed bumper-to-bumper with cars, nearly all of which are from outside of the neighborhood. This high parking saturation leaves neighborhood residents unable to park near their homes, prevents them from putting out their trash and recycling bins, impedes street sweeping, and creates traffic and safety problems. No other parking options exist for neighborhood residents. Parking conditions have been like this for years, and neighbors have documented that the situation continues to worsen, especially as more and more office space is developed in the area. The fastest, simplest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to remedy these adverse impacts of non-resident parking in the Evergreen Park non-commercial core is for the City to annex the Evergreen Park residential streets, as described in the Neighborhood Petition Form, into the College Terrace RPP district. The Municipal Code expressly provides that a street’s residents “may petition the [planning] director for annexation into a contiguous RPP district.” Municipal Code § 10.50.080. This provision allows small areas to be joined to existing RPP districts, thereby saving the City from creating whole new programs for areas adjacent to established RPP districts. Evergreen Park is a perfect example of where annexation to an existing district makes the most sense. Annexing Evergreen Park’s residential streets into the College Terrace RPP district is far more reasonable than going through the extensive procedures for designating a new RPP, as outlined in Municipal Code section 10.50.050. The Evergreen Park non-commercial core is small—just three blocks by five blocks—and it would be a waste of the City’s resources to devote dozens of hours of staff time over a year or more to study and develop a separate RPP program just for this small neighborhood, when another viable option exists. Parking occupancy studies have already established that there are severe parking shortages in the neighborhood. And the parking-related problems in Evergreen Park are nearly identical to those suffered by College Terrace March 7, 2016 Page 3 before its RPP went into effect. Indeed, the City recognized the likelihood that Evergreen Park would suffer similar parking issues as College Terrace in the 2000 Stanford University General Use Permit, which recommended that parking in Evergreen Park be studied. See Excerpt from Stanford University General Use Permit, at p. 19-20 (attached as Exhibit 2). Because the City has already developed and implemented the College Terrace RPP program—and knows that the program works—it should not reinvent the wheel for Evergreen Park. Instead, the City should expand the successful College Terrace RPP district to include Evergreen Park and provide these near neighbors with the same kind of parking relief. Annexing the Evergreen Park non-commercial core into the College Terrace RPP district is—as was recognized in the Colleagues’ Memo—“the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution” to Evergreen Park’s burgeoning parking problem. The parking situation in residential Evergreen Park is critical, and this is the best option to quickly alleviate the problem. However, regardless of the path the City takes forward, the EPPP Committee emphasizes that it is essential that any RPP instituted in residential Evergreen Park allows permits only for residents, lest the program risk conflicting with state law’s requirement that residents’ parking needs take precedence over businesses’ parking demands in RPPs. See Veh. Code § 22507. Residents-only is the system that has worked so well in adjacent College Terrace, and that is the system that will work for Evergreen Park. On behalf of the EPPP Committee, thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Laura D. Beaton 761293 2 EXHIBIT 1 City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2016 SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH HOLMAN, AND SCHMID REGARDING CREATION OF AN EVERGREEN PARK RESIDENTAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM Goal: Provide immediate parking relief to the non-commercial area of Evergreen Park. Background and Discussion: Serious parking problems have been acknowledged in Evergreen Park for 16 years. In the 2000 Stanford General Use Permit, Stanford committed $100,000 for parking impacts starting with College Terrace but also considering impacts on Evergreen Park and Southgate. At that time, it was acknowledged that Evergreen Park may need to be annexed into the Parking Permit program for the same reason that the College Terrace program was started – impacts from Stanford University and California Avenue. In July 2007 a Colleagues memo directed staff to use the $100,000 to initiate an assessment of a permit program in College Terrace. In December 2009, the College Terrace Permit Parking ordinance was approved and started in January 2010. The program has significantly reduced parking problems. The City has no system to measure commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods so residential leaders have conducted a series of parking surveys over more than 2 years documenting the problem and have provided data to City council and staff. Survey data for 2015 shows that the parking saturation rate on Evergreen Park residential streets is consistently over 70% on weekdays. Major new construction projects such as 2865 Park Blvd, 2650 Birch Street, 2100 El Camino, 1501 California Ave, and 385 Sherman will be coming on line soon and potentially will add increased demand and exacerbate the already existing parking problem. In the summer of 2015 concerned residents gathered over 225 signatures (from 300 units surveyed) in Evergreen Park requesting an RPP for Evergreen Park identical to the College Terrace program, selling permits only to residents. Evergreen Park non-commercial residential area is small, just 5 blocks by 3 blocks. Evergreen Park is contiguous to College Terrace and has a community of interest with College Terrace because commuter parking comes from many of the same sources. Yet unlike College Terrace, Evergreen Park has not been granted relief from commuter parking, which now floods the neighborhood. January 31, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Annexing Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP is the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution since the College Terrace RPP has been in place for over 5 years and efficient procedures and policies have already been established that could easily expand to Evergreen Park. This Council has also taken steps to support and strengthen the position of the California Avenue merchants, and we do not want to jeopardize their ability to survive and thrive in that protective environment. Currently, a merchant cannot share permits among its employees, thus putting more strain on limited parking supply and adding cost to merchants who must otherwise purchase additional permits. Given the small area of consideration and the proximity to CalTrain and El Camino Real bus lines, this also seems an appropriate area to test the efficacy of Palo !lto’s TDM program, and assumptions of potential results before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. A number of projects have been approved in the area with TDM programs but coincident with those buildings being occupied the parking situation in Evergreen Park has been exacerbated. This proposal intends to find the quickest, most efficient way to achieve success by addressing ways to remove a large majority of commuter cars from the neighborhood. Recommendation: We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council after community outreach and not later than the end of May with a proposal for providing the most expeditious relief to Evergreen Park through a resident parking program which restores and enhances the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by drastically reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. Two potential actions could be: 1. Create a College Terrace-like RPP with resident only parking, either under the new RPP ordinance or by amending the College Terrace RPP to annex the non-commercial core of Evergreen Park, bounded by El Camino Real, Park Blvd and College Avenue. Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Staff should recommend what type of parking can be modified most easily in the commercial district to enable permit sharing by these users – parking lots, garages, street parking or some combination. 2. Create an RPP initiated by Council under Section 10.50.040 on an accelerated timeline for the same non-commercial core area of Evergreen Park. The RPP should provide either zero non- resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. Employees of these businesses should be enabled to share such parking permits among their own employees, tracked by January 31, 2016 Page 3 of 3 employer. (This is as opposed to the proposed unlimited daily permits in the Downtown RPPP area). Non-resident permits in this area should decrease over time, potentially replaced by retail employee permits in the California Ave commercial area (South of College Ave). Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Furthermore, the City should ensure that: 1. Signage Poles required for the implementation of the program be installed expeditiously. 2. Merchants and offices in the California Avenue Business District and along El Camino Real are notified of pending changes. 3. Ideally, if annexed into the College Terrace RPP complete the creation of the RPP in time to allow Evergreen Park residents to enroll during the next scheduled yearly College Terrace renewal period which occurs 8/1/16 TO 8/31/16. In any case, treat this issue with urgency to implement a solution for the neighborhood. Acknowledging the critical timeliness of this proposal, we request that the City Manager's Comments include short updates on this project. Staff Impact: The City Manager and Director of Planning have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following comments: EXHIBIT 2 Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential Preferential Parking area or the initiation of a Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo !lto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: The City of Palo Alto Transportation Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: Paul L. Machado for the Evergreen Park Parking Permit Committee Address: 363 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone Number: 650-323-8554 Email: plmachado@gmail.com !s explained in our attorneys’ letter, submitted with this form, we request that the Evergreen Park Non- Commercial Core be annexed to the existing successful College Terrace Residential Parking Permit (“RPP”) district. The Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core is adjacent to the College Terrace RPP district: it is directly across El Camino Real. Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.50.080 provides that areas may be annexed to contiguous RPP districts, and this is the most expeditious, efficient, and cost- effective way to reduce the parking problems in our neighborhood. 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? 2. How often does the overflow occur? 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? 1) The residential Evergreen Park neighborhood experiences overflow parking on the streets generally bounded by El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Cambridge Avenue (the “Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core”). The streets affected by overflow parking are: a) Park Boulevard from El Camino Real to Cambridge Avenue b) Birch Street from Park Boulevard to College Avenue c) The north half of Birch Street between College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue d) Ash Street from Park Avenue to College Avenue e) Park Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard, including the two parking spaces in front of 120 Park Avenue f) Leland Avenue from the barrier east of El Camino Real to Park Boulevard g) Stanford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard h) Oxford Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard i) College Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard 2) The parking overflow occurs every weekday, which has been documented by Parking Saturation Surveys conducted periodically since 2014. The saturation rate in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core has continually increased since then, and our residential area has been more than 70% parked by midday on weekdays, as noted in the February 10, 2016, City of Palo Alto Colleagues Memo on this topic. The results of the Parking Saturation Surveys are included in the Evergreen Park Residential Parking Permit Proposal Presentation (Nov. 4, 2015), attached hereto as Exhibit A. Photographs of the neighborhood streets early and the morning and during the day are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3) The parking saturation on weekdays is consistent year-round. 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: Parking impacts in the Evergreen Park Non-Commercial Core come from the following sources. Many of the drivers park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for parking elsewhere. 1) Employees of customer-serving businesses near the neighborhood, which do not have adequate parking for both employees and customers. The employers instruct employees to park in the residential neighborhood to leave business parking lot spaces open for customers. 2) Employees from office buildings near the neighborhood. The area surrounding the neighborhood is experiencing an increased number of office workers, including development of new office buildings with inadequate parking and use of spaces for offices that were previously not used for offices. 3) CalTrain commuters, who park in the neighborhood instead of paying to park in the CalTrain station lot. 4) Individuals going to airport, who leave their cars for extended periods instead of paying to park at the airport. 5) Stanford University faculty, staff, students, and visitors, who park in the neighborhood to avoid paying for Stanford’s on-campus parking. 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the program: Including Evergreen Park in the College Terrace RPP district would limit non-resident parking to two hours. This would virtually eliminate the parking impact from CalTrain commuters, airport travelers, Stanford University, and nearby business and office employees. Removing these all-day—and sometimes multi-day—parkers from the neighborhood’s limited parking would allow for neighborhood residents to park in their own neighborhood, near their homes. This will increase our safety, security, and freedom of movement (especially for the disabled and seniors), and improve our quality of life. It would also enhance bike safety as we have multiple bike boulevards through the neighborhood. The boundaries of the Evergreen Park zone of the College Terrace RPPP district should be El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Park Boulevard. 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? Neighborhood representatives have been working to be annexed to the existing College Terrace RPP Program for many months. We have the support of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association and strong support among neighborhood residents. In 2015, over 225 residents of Evergreen Park signed a petition requesting that a Residential Parking Permit Program be established. The signed petition is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Our proposal, as well as the petition, for the Evergreen Park RPP was submitted to the City Council on Feb 1, 2016. 761279.2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C