Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-11 City Council Agenda PacketCity 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. Monday, September 11, 2017 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 11 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 6:00-6:10 PM Boys Scout Flag Ceremony and Moment of Silence Special Orders of the Day 6:10-6:25 PM 1.Appointment of Three Candidates to the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC) for Terms Ending May 31, 2019 and Four Candidates to the SWMOC for Terms Ending May 31, 2021 2.Proclamation Honoring Santa Clara County Public Health Department for Their Commitment to the Healthy Cities Initiative 3.Proclamation Honoring Suicide Prevention Awareness Week, September 10 Through September 16, 2017 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:25-6:35 PM REVISED 2 September 11, 2017 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 6:35-6:50 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 6:50-6:55 PM 4.Approval of Action Minutes for the August 28, 2017 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 6:55-7:00 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 5.Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number S12145610 to add $75,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $379,000 for Continuation of Employee Benefit Broker Services Pending WFIS Sale to USI Insurance Services 6.Approval of a Budget Amendment to Increase the Transfer from the Child Care Trust Fund by $75,000 to the General Fund to Hire a Consultant to Conduct an Assessment of the Assets, Resources, and Challenges of Families and Their Young Children in Palo Alto 7.Approval for Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to Withdraw$280,418 From the Sheridan Apartments Affordability Reserve Account to Reimburse PAHC for the Costs Associated With the Purchase of the Property Located at 360 Sheridan Avenue From the Sheridan Partnership 8.Approval of a Budget Amendment to Increase the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Fund by Transferring $400,000 From the Parkland Dedication Fund for the Byxbee Park Completion-Capital Improvement Project (PE-18006) to Secure the Baylands ITT Site 8A. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to add Cost-sharing Pursuant to Government Code Section 20516 (FIRST READING: August 14, 2017 PASSED: 9-0) 8B. Amend the Condition for Implementing the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Memorandum of Understanding Between the County of Santa Clara, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, and the City of Palo Alto 3 September 11, 2017 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. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:00-8:30 PM 9.Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Including the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, and Adoptionof the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan 8:30-9:30 PM 10.Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Approve the Release of a Request for Proposals for a Consulting Firm to Assist the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District With Master Planning of the Cubberley Community Center and Discussion of the Cubberley Master Planning Process 9:30-10:30 PM 11.Adoption of the Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives (Continued from September 5, 2017) 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 September 11, 2017 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 Additional Council Meetings Sp. City Council Meeting-Closed Session September 12, 2017 Policy and Services Committee Cancellation September 12, 2017 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 September 11, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of Three Candidates to the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC) for Terms Ending May 31, 2019 and Four Candidates to the (SWMOC) for Terms Ending May 31, 2021 On September 11, 2017, the Council is scheduled to appoint four (4) candidates to the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC) for terms ending May 31, 2021 and three (3) candidates with terms ending May 31, 2019. Voting will be by paper ballot. Background On August 24, 2017, the Council interviewed 9 applicants for the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC). Keith Bennett, Jolanta Goslawska-Uchman, and Bob Wenzlau were unable to participate in the interview process but remain eligible for appointment to the SMWOC. On August 19, 2017, Chris Graham withdrew his application for the SWMOC. Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Council will first vote to appoint four (4) four-year terms ending May 31, 2021. The first four candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. Following these appointments, Council will vote to appoint three (3) terms ending May 31, 2019. The first three candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. The 12 SMWOC Candidates are as follows: 1. Ayla Agarwal 2. Keith Bennett 3. David Bower 4. Peter Drekmeier 5. Jolanta Goslawska-Uchman 6. Marilyn Keller 7. Hal Mickelson 8. Dena Mossar 9. Cedric Pitot de La Beaujardiere 10. Bob Wenzlau 11. Richard Whaley Copies of SWMOC applications are can be viewed in Staff Report ID# 8298. Page 2 Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8488) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Healthy Cities Proclamation Title: Proclamation Honoring Santa Clara County Public Health Department for Their Commitment to the Healthy Cities Initiative From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring the Healthy Cities Initiative AGENDA ITEM #2 Proclamation Honoring the Healthy Cities Initiative WHEREAS, the Healthy Cities Initiative created by the Santa Clara County Public Health Department helps cities like Palo Alto adopt evidence-based best practices to become even healthier places for residents, employees and visitors to live, work, and play; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto City Council adopted the Healthy Cities, Healthy Community Initiative in 2016 to create social, cultural, and physical environments that promote and support health, well-being, and creative expression for ourselves, our families, and our communities; and WHEREAS, promoting active, healthy lifestyles in Palo Alto will reduce residents’ risk for obesity and chronic diseases including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto wants to continue being a leader in helping residents, employees, and visitors get around town in a safe and healthy manner; and WHEREAS, improving access to affordable and healthy food and beverages, and reducing access to unhealthy beverages, helps our residents have healthier diets; and WHEREAS, reducing tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke in Palo Alto, particularly among youth and in multi-unit housing facilities, worksites, and public spaces, are essential for the health of our residents. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby commend the Healthy Cities Initiative and our dedicated partners within the Santa Clara County Public Health Department for helping to ensure that Palo Alto is a place that is safe and conducive for physical activity, reduces exposure to tobacco products and tobacco use, and promotes access to healthy food and beverages for all of our residents, employees, and visitors. Presented: September 11, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 8436) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Suicide Prevention Awareness Week Proclamation Title: Proclamation Honoring Suicide Prevention Awareness Week, September 10 through September 16, 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments:  Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Suicide Prevention Awareness Week Proclamation Suicide Prevention Awareness Week September 10-16, 2017 WHEREAS, the Palo Alto City Council recognizes suicide as a public health problem and suicide prevention as a community responsibility; and WHEREAS, suicide prevention efforts should be developed and encouraged to the maximum extent possible; and WHEREAS, suicide has proven to be preventable, is the 10th leading cause of all deaths in the United States and the 2nd leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 15 and 24; and WHEREAS, in the United States, one person commits suicide every 12.3 minutes and it is estimated that 4.73 million people in the United States are survivors of suicide; and WHEREAS, Project Safety Net coalition partners are collectively dedicated to reducing the frequency of suicide attempts and the pain of survivors affected by suicides of loved ones through promoting and providing mental health services, outreach and education, policy advocacy, and program evaluation; and WHEREAS, according to a 2016 Project Safety Net community survey, participants cited young people, awareness, and a caring community as factors currently present in Palo Alto that offer the greatest hope and protections against youth suicide; and WHEREAS, World Suicide Prevention Day, September 10, 2017, is recognized internationally and supported by the World Health Organization; and 2017 National Suicide Prevention Week is September 10 through September 16, 2017 as observed by the American Association of Suicideology. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of September 10-16, 2017 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Week. Presented: September 11, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 11, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the August 28, 2017 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: 08-28-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting August 28, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:10 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Fine Historic Resources Board: Present: Bernstein, Bower, Bunnenberg, Corey, Kohler, Makinen, Wimmer Absent: Study Session 1. Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Historic Resources Board. Council took a break from 5:56 P.M. to 6:01 P.M. 2. 3709 El Camino Real [17PLN-00189]: Request by Palo Alto Housing Corporation for a Prescreening to Construct a Four-story Building With 61 Affordable Housing Units Including a Building Manager Unit; 2,412 Square Feet of Commercial Space; and Additional Amenity Space for use by the Tenants. The Proposal Would Require at Least one of the Following: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and/or Zoning Text Amendment. Environmental Assessment: Prescreening is not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Council took a break from 8:47 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Council will hear Agenda Item Number 18- Colleagues’ Memo … an Anti- idling Ordinance (AIO)… after Agenda Item Number 15- Ordinance 5416 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of… DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to hear public comment on Agenda Item Number 17- PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]… and then continue the Item to September 18, 2017. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Wolbach not participating, Fine absent Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 14, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve the Action Minutes for the August 14, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent Consent Calendar Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 13- Approval of a Contract With York Risk Services Group Inc… MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-15. 4. Resolution 9706 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of a Financial Assistance Application to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the WaterSMART: Title XVI Water Recycling Projects Under the WIIN Act and to Enter Into a Financing Agreement Under the Program.” 5. Approval of a Multi-year Contract With Abbe and Associates in the Amount of $499,016 for Technical Support for the Zero Waste Program That Includes: a Waste Characterization Study, an Update to the Zero Waste Operational Plan, and Refuse Management Contracting Assistance. 6. Acceptance of the Hewlett Foundation Grant, National Endowment for the Arts Grant, and Code:ART Private Contributions; and Approval a of Budget Amendment in the General Fund and Public Art Fund. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 7. Adoption of Three Resolutions Approving the Submission and Management of Three Grants: Resolution 9707 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Submission of an Application for Outdoor Environmental Education Facilities Grant Funds;” Resolution 9708 Entitled, “Resolution Approving the Submission of an Application for Habitat Conservations Grant Funds;” and Resolution 9709 Entitled, “Resolution Approving the Submission of an Application for California Cultural and Historical Endowment’s Museum Grant Funds.” 8. Resolution 9710 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-1 (Residential Gas Service), G-2 (Residential Master-metered and Commercial Gas Service), G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service), and G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service) to Reflect the Carbon Offset Charge, as Adopted by City Council in the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan, and Terminate PaloAltoGreen Gas Schedules G-1-G, G-2-G, G-3-G, and G-10-G.” 9. Approval of an Agreement With the County of Santa Clara Providing $3.2 Million in Transportation Impact Fees for the Design, Review, and Construction of Improvements at the Intersections of Page Mill Road/ Hanover Street and Page Mill Road/El Camino Real; and Approval of an Associated Budget Amendment in the Stanford Research Park/ El Camino CS Zone Traffic Impact Fund. 10. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C15156501 With SP Plus in the Amount of $16,335 for Additional Services for Parking Permits and On-site Customer Service; Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C15156763 With Serco, Inc. in the Amount of $115,140 for Enforcement of Southgate Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District; and Approval of Amendment Number 5 to Contract Number C15157271 With McGuire Pacific Constructors in the Amount of $142,155 for Construction Services for Southgate Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District. 11. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding With the Santa Clara Valley Water District to Assess the Feasibility of Developing Water Reuse Alternatives, and an Amendment to the Recycled Water Supply Agreement With the City of Mountain View. 12. Approval of Contract Number C18167808C With DeSilva Gates Construction LP in the Amount of $9,243,797, Amendment Number 2 With Mead & Hunt, Inc. Contract Number C15155208B, and Amendment Number 4 With C&S Engineers, Inc. Contract Number DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 C15155208A for the Airport Apron Reconstruction Capital Improvements Program Project AP-16000; Resolution 9711 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Future Grant Agreements Offered by the California Department of Transportation for Airport Improvement Program Matching Grant Funds for Apron Reconstruction at the Palo Alto Airport, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Supporting Documents Associated With the Application and Acceptance of Said Grant Funds;” Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General and Airport Enterprise Funds; and Approval of Findings That the Proposed Project is Exempt From Environmental Review Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 15301 and 15302 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F11. 13. Approval of a Contract With York Risk Services Group Inc. for up to Five Years in a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,206,015 for Workers’ Compensation Claims Administration Services. 14. Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Executive Committee for 2017-18 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Seth Miller, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City of Palo Alto. 15. Ordinance 5416 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to add Cost-sharing Pursuant to Government Code Section 20516 (FIRST READING: August 14, 2017 PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent).” MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-12, 14-15 PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13 PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Fine absent Action Items At this time Council heard Agenda Item Number 18. 18. Colleagues’ Memo From Council Members Dubois, Filseth, Holman, and Vice Mayor Kniss Regarding an Anti-Idling Ordinance (AIO). DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to return with an Ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan and to support the Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Council Priority by requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary idling if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The Ordinance would be patterned after city ordinances adopted in Minneapolis, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Ann Arbor, MI. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to the Policy and Services Committee” after “Staff to return.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to return to the Policy and Services Committee with an Ordinance to implement Programs N5.2.1 and N5.2.2 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan and to support the Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Council Priority by requiring drivers to shut off their engines after two or three minutes of stationary idling if not in an active traffic path, noting exceptions. The Ordinance would be patterned after city ordinances adopted in Minneapolis, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; and Ann Arbor, MI. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Finding That the Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Project (CIP PE-15003) is "Substantially Complex" Under Public Contract Code Section 7201 and Direction to Increase the Retention Schedule From 5 Percent to 10 Percent. Public Hearing opened at 10:05 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 10:06 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Find the proposed Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Project “substantially complex” under Public Contract Code Section 7201 based on the reasons set forth in the Staff Report; and B. Allow the Project to be advertised for bid with a retention amount of ten percent. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent 17. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 Plan and Approval of a Site and Design Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square-foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated Between March 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. Both the Planning & Transportation Commission (March 8, 2017) and Architectural Review Board (May 18, 2017) Have Recommended Approval of the Project. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. (Continued From August 21, 2017). Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 19. Support for SB 797 (Hill), a Senate Bill Allowing Regional Entities and Residents of Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties to Vote to Increase the Sales Tax by 1/8 Cent for Caltrain Operations and Capital Purposes. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to declare its support for SB 797 (Hill), a bill allowing the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) to petition regional entities and the voters of Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties, to increase the sales tax by 1/8 cent to fund Caltrain operations and capital expenditures, and direct the City Manager to advocate for its adoption, including submitting letters of support to the legislature, contacting the author to offer support, and directing the City’s State lobbyist to testify on behalf of the Bill in committee hearings and meet with the legislative offices to advocate for the bill on behalf of the City. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to continue this Item to September 5, 2017. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 6-2 DuBois, Kou no, Fine absent Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Wolbach requested Council return to Sense Minutes for City Council and Standing Committee meetings. He shared his appreciation of the community, Council, and media discussion of Code Enforcement issues relating to church tenants and he looks forward to a Council policy discussion of these issues. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 Council Member Holman supported bringing the discussion of church tenants and related Code Enforcement issues to the Council or the Policy and Services Committee. She requested the Council receive the Animal Services Facility Study and a letter from the Director of Pets In Need. Vice Mayor Kniss reported that the California Supreme Court ruled earlier today, on a case pertaining to the 2/3 requirement for passage of taxes in California elections. Molly Stump, City Attorney reported that the case decided by the Court is narrowly focused and requested time to analyze the decision before advising the Council regarding the potential ramifications of the decision. Vice Mayor Kniss looked forward to hearing from the City Attorney on this topic. Ms. Stump reported that the case pertains more closely to the municipality driven initiative timelines specified in the California Elections Code and whether these timelines apply to citizen driven initiatives. Vice Mayor Kniss requested Staff reach out to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding the status of Measure B funding, which may be on hold due to litigation. James Keene, City Manager reported that Staff is talking with First Baptist Church regarding its tenants and will continue these talks in parallel with any broader discussion of church tenants. Vice Mayor Kniss requested Council Members keep a copy of Agenda Item Number 17- PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]… which was continued to September 18, 2017 to save paper. Mayor Scharff announced that he will draft a letter in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Weiner), which would reduce the City’s ability to control parking requirements, particularly near transit. Council Member Holman requested Council Members have an opportunity to weigh in on the drafting of this letter. Ms. Stump advised that this could be challenging due to public noticing requirements. Mayor Scharff hopes Council Members are supportive of this letter as it aligns with the City’s value of local control. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/28/17 Council Member Holman shared her support of the letter. Council Member Kou requested the City opposes SB 649 (Hueso) which would reduce local control regarding cellular antennas. Mr. Keene reported the City has opposed SB 649, will likely send letter requesting veto if the Bill makes it to the Governor. Council Member Wolbach reported the League of California Cities, Peninsula Division’s Legislative Action Committee met with numerous local officials and their staff and confirmed the officials are aware of the League’s opposition to SB 35 and SB 649. Council Member Tanaka reported that a tenant of the First Baptist Church received contradictory information from the City regarding Code Enforcement issues and has expended significant personal funds in support of their community serving business. He looks forward to future discussions of this topic. Mr. Keene reported Staff is working with iSing to find a way forward regarding iSing’s tenancy at the First Baptist Church. Council Member Tanaka hopes the City can similarly work with other tenants. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8129) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Employee Benefit Broker Services Contract Amendment Title: Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number S12145610 to add $75,000 for a Total Not-to Exceed Amount of $379,000 for Continuation of Employee Benefit Broker Services Pending WFIS Sale to USI Insurance Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommended Motion Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to Contract S12145610 with Wells Fargo Insurance Services to increase contract authority by $75,000 for a total not to exceed $379,000 through June 30, 2018. Background The City of Palo Alto partners with Wells Fargo Insurance Services for their expertise and as a broker and advisor for employee benefits services. Human Resources was recently notified that USI Insurance is acquiring Wells Fargo Insurance Services. Wells Fargo Bank has entered into an agreement with USI Insurance Services (USI) to sell Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA (WFIS) and expect to close the transaction by November 2017 after securing all necessary regulatory approvals. USI is currently the leading national insurance brokerage and consulting firm, delivering employee benefits, property and casualty, personal risk and retirement solutions throughout the United States. USI is one of the largest privately held insurance brokerage firms in the country. WFIS provides the City with annual strategy setting, compliance review, renewal and negotiation services, vendor analysis and market review, enrollment and communication assistance and year-end analysis. WFIS also serves as a valuable resource by keeping Human Resources informed of significant changes regarding employee benefits and/or trends in the marketplace. The City’s relationship with WFIS began in 2005 when the City conducted a competitive solicitation for employee benefits brokerage and consultation services. In 2009 and 2012 the City also conducted competitive solicitation processes. In each case, WFIS was selected as the firm which best matched the City’s requirements. Contract S1214561, established in 2012, was originally established for $68,500 per year for the duration of three years with a total not to City of Palo Alto Page 2 exceed of $205,500. In year two of the contract a $15,000 annual amendment was added for the remaining two years. Discussion By approving this staff report, Council will increase the contract authority by $75,000 for a total not to exceed of $379,000 through June 30, 2018. This action is being requested as the current contract ended on June 30, 2017. While WFIS is meeting current service needs, staff intends to conduct a competitive solicitation process within FY 2018 to ensure due diligence. Furthermore, the City is working with WFIS on critical assignments to secure a new vendor for Retiree Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA). WFIS began a solicitation on behalf of the City in February 2017. Vendor selection was completed in June 2017 and HR department initiated the process to transition our 950+ retiree HRA accounts to a new service provider. In addition, WFIS is coordinating the RFP process for the following benefit contracts due to expire 1/1/2018: Life and Long-Term Disability Insurance, Dental, and Vision Insurance and the Employee Assistance Program. Any disruptions to the services with WFIS would impact the City’s ability to complete these critical RFP cycles. WFIS has expertise and knowledge to assist Palo Alto in securing competitive quotes from reputable vendors in the employee benefits marketplace. Additionally, WFIS has maintained a successful partnership with Palo Alto by effectively providing their expertise and quality support to address insurance contract issues, complex benefits questions and cost analysis as needed. The City’s account is serviced by Account Executives with over 25 years of experience in employee benefit plan management and compliance knowledge. Resource Impact Sufficient funding for these services are available within the FY 2018 General Benefits Fund and no impact to the General Benefits Fund is anticipated. As staff conducts the competitive solicitation process within FY 2018 to ensure due diligence, anticipated costs for future years of employee benefits brokerage and consulting will be factored into the development of the annual operating budget. Attachments:  Attachment A 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. S12145610 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES USA, INC. This Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. S12145610 (“Contract”) is entered into the 1st day of July, 2017 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES USA, INC., a North Carolina corporation authorized to do business in the state of California, located at 959 skyway Road, 2nd Floor, San Carlos, California, 94070, (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of Employee Benefit Broker Service for CITY benefit program; and B. WHEREAS, CITY intends to extend the contract term to June 30, 2016 and increase the compensation by $68,500.00 from $235,500.00 to $304,000.00 for continuation of services as per EXHIBIT “A” Scope of Services; and C. WHERAS, CITY intends to create an option to extend the contract term to June 30, 2017 and increase the compensation by an additional $75,000 from $304,000.00 to $379,000.00 for continuation of services as per EXHIBT “A” Scope of Services; and D. WHERAS, CITY intends to create an option to extend the contract term to June 30, 2018 and increase the compensation by an additional $75,000 from $379,000.00 to $454,000.00 for continuation of services as per EXHIBT “A” Scope of Services; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2018, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4 COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: “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 Three Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Dollars ($379,000.00). 1st Year (07/01/2012 through 06/29/2013) $68,500.00 2nd Year (07/01/2013 through 06/29/2014) $83,500.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3383A089-04EE-4FD2-B2CE-C0914CE108EB 2 Revision April 28, 2014 3rd Year (07/01/2014 through 06/29/2015) $83,500.00 4th Year (07/01/2015 through 06/29/2016) $68,500.00 5th Year (07/01/2016 through 06/29/2017) $75,000.00 6th Year (07/01/2017 through 06/29/2018) $75,000.00 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 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES USA, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 3383A089-04EE-4FD2-B2CE-C0914CE108EB Senior Vice President Gary L. Delaney 3 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide Employee Benefit Broker Services for CITY benefit program per the following: A. Representation in all negotiations with benefit providers on issues related to premiums, service, benefit levels, plan design, special terms and conditions, etc. B. Annual review and reports of employee benefits programs for quality and adequacy of benefits provided, strengths, shortcomings, cost-effectiveness, competitiveness, plan administration, and recommendations concerning any changes in terms, conditions and limits, and future cost reduction strategies and goals. C. When coordinating or assisting with request for proposal (RFP) process, CONSULTANT shall work directly with City's Human Resource and Purchasing Divisions to ensure that RFP's meet all City requirements and shall issue RFP's only upon receipt of written direction from City. D. Prepare action plan on calendar year basis to manage City’s account including renewal, plan implementation, new program/services identification, assessment of needs and problems, long-mid- short range planning of tasks and activities. E. Annual evaluation of self-funded dental and vision plan costs and revenues with recommendation for future premium based on current plan design, and estimated premium based on changes to plan design (i.e. higher annual maximum benefit). F. Website technologies (“Website”) that may be edited and updated by City to support an employee educational module to assist employees in self-management of benefits, that are accessible via the internet as well as the City’s intranet. G. Review and resolution of issues concerning insurance policies, certificates of insurance and other documents related to employee benefits programs. H. Claims experience reports and special studies as requested by City. I. Assistance in the development of long-range goals and strategies for the City’s employee benefits programs such as union partnerships and employee education programs. J. Monitoring of ongoing contracts, including provider plan administration, tracking of performance standards, provider compliance with contracts and incurred claims. K. Estimates of renewal rates and cost trends and assistance to City staff in preparation of budget figures. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3383A089-04EE-4FD2-B2CE-C0914CE108EB 4 Revision April 28, 2014 L. Information, consultation, and recommendations on employee benefit issues, trends and existing, proposed, or new legislation including but not limited to Healthcare Reform, COBRA, HIPAA, Medicare, FMLA, CFRA, ADA, and IRS rules. M. Identification and analysis of cost containment and efficiency measures such as employer partnerships, electronic benefits administrations, etc. N. Attendance, upon request, at meetings with City and bargaining units; develop models to incentivize employees to seek lower cost plans. O. Assistance with employee communications, including design and delivery of employee health benefits brochures and information and web page. P. Upon request of City, and potentially upon short notice, produce probable cost of actual or hypothetical changes in the insurance programs. Q. Provide bi-weekly calls with Human Resources to track ongoing employee benefit action items. R. Assist City in coordinating City required contract requirements; document with vendors. S. Review of and assistance with resolving disputes regarding coverage, billing questions and service delivery. T. Provide educational support of Human Resource staff members to enhance knowledge of benefit issues, legislation, and compliance requirements. U. Assist Human Resources staff members with coordination of annual Benefits Fair and Open Enrollment period. V. Keep City informed of new and emerging trends in health care with regular (i.e. personal site meetings by account management team to discuss City benefit program issues and concerns). W. Consultant shall provide prompt services and accurate information as required, and shall designate a backup individual to the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager who will be available at all times. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3383A089-04EE-4FD2-B2CE-C0914CE108EB 5 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services, additional services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services and Additional Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY. 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 expenses, 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: 3383A089-04EE-4FD2-B2CE-C0914CE108EB Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 3383A08904EE4FD2B2CEC0914CE108EB Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: S12145610 Amendment No 4. doc.doc Source Envelope: Document Pages: 5 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Supplemental Document Pages: 0 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole Certificate Pages: 2 AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Payments: 0 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/3/2017 1:35:23 PM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Gary L. Delaney Gary.Delaney@wellsfargo.com Senior Vice President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 159.45.186.46 Sent: 5/3/2017 1:55:22 PM Viewed: 5/3/2017 2:23:04 PM Signed: 5/8/2017 9:55:21 AM 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 Frank Lee Frank.Lee@CityofPaloAlto.org Senior Human Resources Administrator City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/8/2017 9:55:22 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/8/2017 9:55:22 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/8/2017 9:55:22 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/8/2017 9:55:22 AM Completed Security Checked 5/8/2017 9:55:22 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 8382) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of $75,000 for an Assessment of the Needs of Families & Young Children Title: Approval of Budget Amendments in the General Fund and the Child Care Trust Fund to Hire a Consultant to Conduct an Assessment of the Assets, Resources and Challenges of Families and Their Young Children in Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for: a. The Child Care Trust Fund by: i. Increasing the transfer to the General Fund by $75,000; and ii. Decreasing the ending fund balance by $75,000; b. The General Fund by: i. Increasing the transfer from the Child Care Trust Fund by $75,000; and ii. Increasing the Community Services Department expenditure appropriation by $75,000 in order to hire a Consultant to conduct an assessment of the assets, resources, and challenges of families and their young children in Palo Alto. Executive Summary Palo Alto prides itself on being a community rich in assets, services and opportunities for families with young children. This stems from a long history of considering and prioritizing the needs of families and young children in the community and is demonstrated through our programs, services, amenities and events. Also key among what makes a community a great place for families is affordable, available and quality child care. From the first task force and report on child care needs in 1973 (Attachment A) and again in 1989 (Attachment B), to playing a key role in establishing Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC), to ongoing support for child care subsidies for low income families and oversite and support of onsite afterschool child care on all Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 2 Unified School District (PAUSD) elementary school campuses, the City has demonstrated a longtime commitment to the child care needs of families. However, the needs of families have changed over the ensuing years including more women in the workforce, an exponential increase in non-traditional work schedules and modes, technological advances, coupled with the high cost of living. As a community we need to ask ourselves the following: How are families and their young children doing? What programs, supports and services is our community offering them and does it meet their needs? What are the child care needs of families? What challenges do our child care providers face? Human Services staff, along with the Palo Alto Advisory Commission on Early Care & Education (PAACECE), proposes an assessment of the assets, resources and challenges of families and their young children in Palo Alto to better understand and improve our support for families with young children. Staff is recommending an allocation from the Child Care Trust Fund to conduct the proposed assessment. Background The Palo Alto Advisory Commission on Early Care & Education (PAACECE) is an advisory committee to the City Manager on issues related to child care (ages 0 -12) and early learning. Their mission is to advocate for high quality, accessible early childhood educational environments on behalf of families and children in Palo Alto. Committee members include representatives from Palo Alto Community Child Care, Palo Alto Unified School District Young Fives/PreSchool Family, Stanford WorkLife Office, Children’s Health Council, local child care providers, parenting/education specialists, and other child care/children’s organizations. Minka van der Zwaag, the City’s Human Services Manager, is the liaison to the committee. PAACECE is the “successor” to a series of task forces/advisory bodies on child care related issues that the City has instituted since 1973. Each of these committees has worked with the City to identify and implement, through a series of reports and master plans, child care priorities for the community. In 1987, a Child Care Trust Fund (CCTF) was created to house money raised by the Child Care Task Force for the purpose of implementing the goals of the (then) upcoming Child Care Master Plan to be released in 1989. A $150,000 contribution was made to the trust fund in 1991 by a local developer as part of a density bonus agreement for a proposed downtown development project. Expenses to the CCTF were incurred to implement some of the goals of the 1989 master plan but the funds were not expended. The fund has increased over the years via interest income and the current total is $353,196. Staff would like to utilize funding from the CCTF to pay for the currently proposed assessment and has consulted with the Attorney’s office in regards to the possibility of doing so given the original stipulations of the contribution. The City Attorney’s office reviewed the history of the fund and the developer’s City of Palo Alto Page 3 contribution and has advised us that since the goals of the original master plan have largely been achieved or rendered inapt due to the significant passage of time, the funds do not have to be used for any specific item anymore, although the current request for funding is in keeping with the original purpose of the contribution. Discussion The last thorough analysis of early childhood and child care needs in Palo Alto was in 1989. Much change and growth has come since that time. Many families are composed of parents who are working and with the changing work environments, more energy and talent is spent in the workplace and away from home, making an adequate supply of high quality child care services essential to support the changing family. There are also new economic challenges such as the cost of housing, the increased difficulties of work-life integration, the fast paced technological advances and the evolving flexible work environments have all brought about much change in the way we live in this community. All these factors affect how we live, work and raise children. The ability to establish an increased supply of child care that is accessible and affordable for parents and is attractive to talented early childhood educators, has become even more challenging as the cost of land for establishing new child care sites, local housing, and the cost of living have risen greatly. Staff and PAACECE recommend a thoughtful and reflective inquiry into how these changes, including current growth and changing demographics, impact family life and the quality of our children’s lives is vital to the long term sustainability and vitality of our community. We have an opportunity to gather information and apply creative and progressive thinking to meeting these challenges. Staff and PAACECE are excited to lead in this community planning effort and take a fresh look at how families and their young children are doing, what supports and services our community is offering them, and how we can come together to update and improve our support for families with young children. To that end, we propose carrying out an assessment of the assets, resources and challenges for families and their young children in our community. This assessment compliments the city’s commitment to children in their early years contained in the Comprehensive Plan and will strengthen Palo Alto’s Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities Initiative focus for FY18 on supporting a healthy culture, which addresses elements of health that support the social, emotional, and mental wellbeing of the community. Major draft elements of the assessment may include: City of Palo Alto Page 4  Demographic analysis of Palo Alto and how our current growth and changing demographics impact the quality of current and future children’s experiences in Palo Alto  Accessibility, Availability and Quality of local Child Care  Child Care and children’s services as part of a new multi-generational plan for Cubberley Community Center  Strengths, needs and challenges of our parents and extended family members caring for children  Strengths, needs and challenges of Early Education professionals and Child Care facilities  Future trends There are many individuals and agencies and other stakeholders who would bring enthusiasm, knowledge, and skill to the effort of assessing how well Palo Alto is supporting the quality of life for families and their young children, and will take part in addressing the findings of this assessment as it is beyond the reach, scope and responsibility of the City alone. The Children’s Health Council, Parents Place, Palo Alto Community Child Care, and the Stanford WorkLife Office have all expressed an interest in cooperating in this project and helping to implement its findings, and staff and PAACECE will reach out to many more community agencies while completing the assessment. To complete this assessment staff is requesting an allocation of $75,000 from the Child Care Trust Fund to hire a consultant. The consultant will work staff and PAACECE, in collaboration with community, to conduct research, hold focus groups, develop surveys and provide analysis for a final report that will provide the City with a comprehensive assessment of the assets, resources, and challenges of families and their young children in Palo Alto. This assessment will serve as a guide to help mobilize the community to maintain and strengthen Palo Alto as a great place for families and for children and to guide potential investment choices to help meet identified gaps and challenges. Timeline If approved, staff plans to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) in early fall of 2017 for a consultant to conduct the assessment in calendar year 2018. Resource Impact Requested funding of $75,000 is in the Child Care Trust Fund (CCTF). The overall CCTF’s fund balance of $353,196 will be reduced to $278,196 with this action, and CSD’s budget will be increased by $75,000 to conduct an assessment of the assets, resources, and challenges of families and their young children in Palo Alto. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 5 The following Goals and Policies from the Comprehensive Plan are directly related to this discussion: GOAL C-1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services. POLICY C-7: Actively work with private, nonprofit, and public community service organizations to avoid duplication and to coordinate POLICY C-11 Support and promote the provision of comprehensive child care services in Palo Alto by public and private providers, including employers. Attachments:  ATTACHMENT A - A Plan for Child Care in Palo Alto_Apr1973  ATTACHMENT B - ChildCareMasterPlan1989 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8363) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sheridan Apartments Affordability Reserve Account Withdrawal Title: Approval for Palo Alto Housing Corporation to Withdraw Funds from the Sheridan Apartments Affordability Reserve Account for the Costs Associated with the Purchase of the Property from the Sheridan Partnership From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve a withdrawal by Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) in the amount of $280,418.75 from the Sheridan Apartments Affordability Reserve Account to reimburse PAHC for the costs of the purchase of the a limited partner’s portion of the property located at 360 Sheridan Avenue. Background The Sheridan Apartments is an existing 57-unit affordable housing project that serves income- eligible seniors. The project, located at 360 Sheridan Avenue, is owned and operated by an affiliate of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), a non-profit housing provider and long- time partner of the City’s, as part of limited partnership with Transamerica Life Insurance Company. PAHC recently initiated a transfer of the limited partner’s interest in the Sheridan Apartments to another PAHC affiliate for the amount of $250,000. The City and PAHC entered into a Loan Agreement (Attachment A) in the amount of $2,450,000 on December 8, 1998 to fund the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments by PAHC for their use and operation as rental housing for low-income and very-low income households.1 One of the provisions of both the loan agreement and the promissory note is that PAHC was to 1 Low income households are those earning 51-80% of the area median income or around $59K-$85K for a family of four; very-low income households are those earning less than that. City of Palo Alto Page 2 establish an Affordability Reserve Account (ARA) to protect against the reduction or termination of affordability housing funds through the federal Section 8 assistance program. Section 5.3 of the loan agreement specifies that funds from the ARA may also be used to assist in the costs of the purchase of the property from the Partnership by PAHC or by PAHC Sheridan Apartments subject to City Council action and approval. Discussion In December 2016, PAHC entered into an Agreement for Assignment of Limited Partner Interest (Attachment B). A PAHC affiliate, PAHC Apartments Inc., acquired the interests of the Limited Partner (Transamerica Life Insurance Company, which was a successor to Stonebridge Life Insurance Company) for the purchase price of $250,000. To achieve this transfer, PAHC incurred $25,231.25 in legal fees and $5,187.50 for financial consulting fees for a total cost of $280,418.75. The ARA has a current balance of $2,601,781 and will have a balance of $2,321,362.25 if the reimbursement is approved. With the remaining balance, the project will have significant remaining funds in the case that there is a reduction or termination of affordability housing funds through the federal Section 8 assistance program. The purpose of the transfer of limited partner interest was to preserve the affordability of the housing units and to prevent a for-profit entity from acquiring an interest in the project. Because of the short time frame to complete the transfer, PAHC provided the funds upfront in order to ensure the continued affordability of the project. Staff requests that Council approve the reimbursement from the ARA. The recommended action recognizes the mutual interests of the City and PAHC to maintain the property as an affordable housing project. Policy Implications The actions recommended in this report implement the City’s Housing Element policies and programs supporting the development of low income housing, including: 1. H1.2 Policy – Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods; and 2. H3.1.4 Program – Preserve affordable housing stock by monitoring compliance, providing tenant education, and seeking other sources of funds for affordable housing developments at risk of market rate conversions. The City will continue to renew existing funding sources supporting rehabilitation and maintenance activities. Resource Impact With the requested action, the Sheridan Apartments ARA will have a remaining balance of $2,321,362.25. With the remaining balance, the project will still have significant funds in the case that there is a reduction or termination of affordability housing funds through the federal Section 8 assistance program. PAHC currently holds and maintains the ARA and there are no City of Palo Alto Page 3 City funds involved. This action will have no impact on the City’s General Fund. Environmental Review The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there will be no significant effect on the environment. There are no plans for rehabilitating or redeveloping the site. Any future proposal to reuse the site for another purpose or to redevelop the site would need to be reviewed pursuant to CEQA prior to any City decision to provide funding or approvals. Attachments: Attachment A: Sheridan Apartments Loan Agreement (PDF) Attachment B: Agreement for Assignment (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 8347) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Budget Amends to Inc. $400K in FY18 Budget for Byxbee Park CIP PE-18006 Title: Approve of Budget Amendment to increase FY2018 Capital Improvement Fund by transferring $400,000 from Parkland Dedication Fund for the Byxbee Park Completion Capital Improvement Project (PE-18006) to secure the Baylands ITT Site From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for: a. the Parkland Dedication Fund by: i. Increasing the Transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund in the amount of $400,000, and ii. Decreasing the ending fund balance in the amount of $400,000. b. the Capital Improvement Fund by: i. Increasing the Transfer from the Parkland Dedication Fund in the amount of $400,000, and ii. Increasing the Byxbee Park Completion Capital Improvement Project (PE-18006) in the amount of $400,000. Executive Summary In 2016 the City purchased the easement held by Globe Wireless for the 36-acre property within the John F. Byxbee Recreational Area commonly referred to as the Baylands International Telephone & Telegraph Transmitter site (ITT site) and on June 5, 2017 (SR# 7030), Council dedicated this area parkland. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Although a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to complete Byxbee Park (PE-18006) was established and $3.0 million budgeted as part of the FY 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program, the first appropriation of funding wasn’t scheduled until Fiscal Year 2019. A portion of the funding for this project is anticipated to come from the Parkland Dedication Fund. The ITT site remains fenced off limiting public access due to considerable damage and unsafe site conditions resulting from vandalism, water and age. Staff is recommending urgent improvements and restoration work be performed on the newly created 36-acre recreational open space to secure the site and correct safety issues so that the currently fenced area can be made accessible to the public by an existing trail. Therefore, staff further recommends increasing the Fiscal Year 2018 budget appropriation for PE-18006 by $400,000 and increasing the transfer from the Parkland Dedication Fund to construct essential improvements and perform immediate restoration to ensure the safety, security, access to the site and prevent further deterioration of the buildings, theft and vandalism, without assumptions on the site’s ultimate use. Overall the total budget for PE-18006 CIP will remain at $3.0 million. Background In 1921 the Federal Telegraph Company leased 200 acres of marshland and built a radiotelegraph transmitting station to serve as the hub of a coastal network of stations and perform ship-to shore communications. In 1928 the property was sold to Mackay Cable & Wireless and in 1930 to ITT. The station transmitted overseas cables, telephone calls and other communications until the advent of satellite transmission. The site served as a “bounce” station for ships lacking satellite equipment. The high water table and moist soil aid transmission bounce and thus made this a good location for this function. On December 12, 1977, ITT World Communication, Inc., donated approximately 69 acres and sold approximately 83 acres for a total of 152 acres in the Baylands to the City of Palo Alto. In the grant deed (SR# 8078), ITT reserved an exclusive easement to use and occupy 36.55 acres of the property for a “Public Coast Station” (radio antenna operation). The purchase price for the 83 acres was $1,300,000 of which the City of Palo Alto paid $1,000,000 and the Santa Clara Valley Water District paid $300,000. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Over the years, the buildings and equipment at the site were vandalized and power was shut off in mid-2014. In 2016 Globe Wireless offered to sell easement rights to the City for the previously negotiated price of $250,000.The City purchased Globe Wireless’s easements rights and all other interest to the Property through a purchase and sale agreement, thereby gaining full control, possession and use of this property in the Baylands (SR# 7030). Break-ins, theft and vandalism prior to the City’s take-over left the ITT site with many safety issues and the most recent winter storms have caused an urgent need to protect it from further deterioration and damage from winter rains. The site was fenced to prevent public access many years ago, but break-ins and vandalism have been common. Discussion When preparing the Fiscal Year 2018-2022 5-year CIP, the intent was to defer the Byxbee Park Completion project until after the completion of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (PG-17000) in FY 2018 to inform plans for the larger Byxbee Park project. However, following staff finalization of the FY 2018 Budget, and while preparing for the dedication of the 36-acre area as recreational open space, staff identified security, safety, access and site protection issues which require more immediate improvements and rehabilitation, and which, when remediated, would allow the City to open the area to recreational use. The recommended appropriation to the Fiscal Year 2018 CIP PE-18006 will be used to address these issues. Description of work to be performed:  The existing road to the facility buildings will be improved so that the public can walk or bike into the 36 acre site. The badly deteriorated asphalt will be replaced with compacted base rock and graded to smooth out deep depressions and match the existing trails in other areas of Byxbee Park. The existing road, which terminates at the ITT buildings, could potentially be extended to connect to other existing roadways allowing pedestrian or bike access through the site, depending on future planning efforts and decisions.  Old concrete pads, unwanted equipment, pipes, electric wire and rock strewn next to the buildings will be removed in order to rehabilitate the site and make it safe for hikers and bikers to access. New soil and compacted base rock will be used to create space for walking and gathering City of Palo Alto Page 4 adjacent to the buildings.  To make the area safer for the public, abandoned utility poles and associated signal and power lines will be removed. The transformers and utility cabinets will also be removed for the same reason.  Security of the two buildings will be improved by covering windows and most doors. A new, higher fence will be placed immediately adjacent to each building to deter unauthorized access and further vandalism.  Partial rehabilitation and preservation of the main building will be achieved with a roof liner to prevent further rain damage. Water proofing of the crawl space will be provided to prevent further water damage from ponded surface water. Soil will be placed next to the building and graded away from the building to improve site drainage. Resource Impact Traditionally, budget for Capital Improvement Program projects are appropriated during the annual budget cycle. However, following staff finalization of the FY 2018 Budget, and while preparing for the dedication of the 36-acre area as recreational open space, staff identified security, safety, access and site protection issues which require more immediate improvements and rehabilitation and which, when remediated, would allow the City to open the area to recreational use. To perform this work quickly, as required, an appropriation of $400,000 is required for CIP Project PE-18006, Byxbee Park Completion in Fiscal Year 2018. Staff requests Council approval of a budget amendment, transferring $400,000 from the Parkland Dedication Fund to the to Capital Improvement Fund for PE-18006. The total funding for PE-18006 of $3.0 million over the FY 2018- 2022 CIP will not increase; however, the appropriation of funding will be updated accordingly as part of the development of the FY 2019-2023 CIP. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with existing City policy and the Baylands Master Plan. Environmental Review The work to be conducted is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements under Section 15301 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines as it is restoration and rehabilitation of existing facilities and does not impact adjacent wetlands. Further environmental review will be conducted in connection with any future use of the ITT site. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachments:  Attachment A: Former ITT Property_Area Map This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc City Boundary Former ITT Property 0'1200' Fo r m e r I T T P r o p e r t y Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2016-05-25 17:52:19Baylands Former ITT Property (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 8462) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: SECOND READING: Amend the Contract with CalPERS Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to add Cost-sharing Pursuant to Government Code Section 20516 (FIRST READING: August 14, 2017 PASSED: 9-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources This ordinance was first brought to the Council on August 14, 2017 and passed 9-0 without any changes. It was brought back on August 28, 2017 for second reading. However, CalPERS regulations state the second reading of the ordinance cannot be done any earlier than 21 days after the resolution was passed. The resolution also passed on August 14, 2017. The August 14, 2017 agenda item was, “Adoption of (1) Resolution of Intent and (2) Ordinance to Amend the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Implement the Share of Employer Contribution in Accordance With Section 20516 of the California Government Code and the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Palo Alto Fire Chief's Association (FCA), Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association (PAPOA) and Palo Alto Police Management Association (PAPMA)”. Attachments: Attachment A: CalPERS Ordinance ITEM # 8A Not Yet Approved AY/HR/2017-07-26 Ord Amending CalPERS Contract 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to Add Cost-Sharing Pursuant to Government Code Section 20516 The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration, California Employees’ System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment hereto, marked Exhibit A, and such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. SECTION 2. The City Manager, or his designee is authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Human Resources ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 11, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Amend the Conditions for the City Manager to Implement the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Funding for the Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s Acquisition of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Recommendation Approve amendment to the June 27, 2016 funding conditions authorizing the City Manager to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto, regarding the Housing Authority’s acquisition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, to modify the requirement that any proceeds from a future sale be reinvested to create affordable housing in the City of Palo Alto so that the restriction will apply only to the share of the proceeds (plus appreciation/equity) corresponding to the amount contributed by the County and the City of Palo Alto, and not the amount contributed by the Housing Authority. Background On June 27, 2016 the Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA), the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto relating to funds for the acquisition of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (attachment A). The MOU approved the use of up to $14. 5 million dollars ($14,500,000) from the City’s affordable housing funds for the purpose of the purchase of Buena Vista by the Housing Authority. The Council authorized the City Manager to implement the MOU, subject to six conditions on provision of the funds, including that any proceeds from a future sale of Buena Vista be reinvested in affordable housing in the City of Palo Alto. Discussion The recommended amendment is needed to modify the Council’s direction on reinvestment of the proceeds from any future sale of Buena Vista. While the Housing Authority is committed to honoring the condition as it applies to the portion of funding from the City ($14.5 million) and Santa Clara County ($14.5 million), the Housing Authority is not able to promise that it will reinvest the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) portion of the funds back into the City of Palo Alto. When the Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding, it was not clear what funding the Housing Authority would use to fund its portion of the acquisition costs. As a Moving to Work (MTW) agency, the Housing Authority has Page 2 flexible HUD funds that can be used for acquisition costs but these funds have limitations on how the funds are used after they are repaid and how they are reinvested in the future. These limitations include, but are not limited to, the Housing Authority reporting the repayment as program income and reinvestment into MTW activities throughout the County and not limited to the City of Palo Alto. Accordingly, it is necessary for the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors to modify the conditions placed on implemented the Memorandum of Understanding to provide that any proceeds from a future sale of Buena Vista corresponding to the County and City’s contributions to the acquisition (including appreciation/equity) be reinvested in the City of Palo Alto to create additional affordable housing. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will be considering a similar action on September 12th. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park will be deed-restricted for affordable housing for fifty years of more (the precise length of this obligation is being finalized in negotiations between the Housing Authority, County and City). The reinvestment provision would only be implemented, if at all, at a time many decades in the future, after the expiration the affordability restriction. At that time, if the Housing Authority decided to sell the property, the proposed modification would allow the Housing Authority to use the portion of the proceeds that correspond to the Housing Authority’s portion of the initial acquisition cost (plus appreciation/equity) to create affordable housing anywhere in Santa Clara County. The portion of proceeds corresponding to the initial contributions from the City and the County would continue to be committed for reinvestment in affordable housing in the City of Palo Alto. Environmental Review Amendment of the conditions for implementing the MOU is not a project subject to environmental review. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Staff Report 7125 Buena Vista MOU (PDF) Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7125) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/27/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of MOU re Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Title: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto to Provide up to $14.5 Million in City Affordable Housing Funds in Support of the Housing Authority’s Potential Acquisition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park for Deed Restricted Affordable Housing, From June 28, 2016 Through June 28, 2018; Authorize the City Manager to Implement MOU Subject to Council Conditions and Reporting From: City Manager Lead Department: City Attorney Recommendation Staff recommends that Council consider the following Motion: 1.Approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Clara relating to providing funding for the Housing Authority's potential acquisition of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in an amount not to exceed $14,500,000 for period June 28, 2016 through June 28, 2018, for the purpose of affordable housing. 2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to implement and administer the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to conditions described in this report and as determined by Council. Background The Buena Vista Mobilehome Park is a privately-held property containing 104 mobile homes, 12 studio apartments, and one single family residence on approximately 4.5 acres. The site is within the Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto and is home to about 400 people, including many families with children who attend local public schools. In 2012, the Buena Vista Park owner filed an application with the City to close the Mobilehome Park. State and local law gives mobilehome park owners the right to close those businesses, Attachment A City of Palo Alto Page 2 provided they mitigate the impact on displaced residents. In May 2015, the Council approved the Park owner’s closure plan with mitigation measures and conditions. The Residents’ Association filed a writ petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court seeking to reverse the closure approval on the grounds that the mitigations are inadequate and fail to comply with state mobilehome park residency law and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Subsequently, the owner filed a suit in U.S. District Court contending that the mitigations are excessive and violate the federal Constitution. Both suits are pending. Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian has initiated an effort to find ways to preserve affordable housing at Buena Vista. In 2015, the County Board of Supervisors and the Palo Alto City Council each voted to set aside $14.5 million in restricted affordable housing funds, to fund acquisition of the Buena Vista site and preservation of the site as affordable housing. Working with the County, a non-profit housing provider stepped forward to put together a market-rate offer to acquire the Park, plan for needed improvements, and maintain it as a source of deed- restricted affordable housing. Negotiations between the non-profit and the Park owner ended when litigation over the closure began. Discussion The Santa Clara Valley Housing Authority is a public agency with a mission to “provide and inspire affordable housing solutions to enable low-income people in Santa Clara County to achieve financial stability and self-reliance.” The Housing Authority administers the federal Section 8 rental assistance program, and develops, controls and manages affordable rental housing properties throughout the County, assisting approximately 17,000 households to find and maintain housing. The Authority has expressed an interest in acquiring and owning the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park for the purpose of providing affordable housing. In support of this effort, the City and the County are asked to confirm that each will provide the same level of funding ($14.5 million) previously set aside for acquisition of the Park. The Housing Authority would provide pre-development funding to assess feasibility and acquisition cost. If the Housing Authority determined to move forward with acquisition, it would contribute additional funds, if needed, and retain a non-profit with expertise in operating mobilehome housing to improve, manage and operate Buena Vista as a mobilehome park with spaces deed restricted for use by households qualifying for affordable housing. The attached MOU documents the responsibilities of the County, City and Housing Authority. The MOU is a preliminary step, to be followed by the Housing Authority completing the feasibility analysis and other pre-development activities, and determining whether to move forward with acquisition. The Housing Authority states that the feasibility analysis will be completed later in the summer or early fall. Staff recommends that Council delegate to the City Manager, or designee, authority to review and evaluate the analysis and take subsequent actions to proceed with making funding City of Palo Alto Page 3 available to the Housing Authority for the proposed acquisition, provided Council’s conditions and directions are met, and with appropriate reporting as directed by Council. The County approved the attached MOU on June 20, 2016. The Housing Authority Board is scheduled to vote on the MOU on June 28, 2016. Buena Vista Funding Conditions Staff recommends that Council delegate authority to implement the MOU to the City Manager provided that the following conditions are satisfied: 1.The Buena Vista Mobile Home Park shall be maintained as an affordable mobilehome park or equivalent housing resource for up to 50 years. The Housing Authority or a qualified non-profit entity shall maintain and operate the affordable housing. 2.The Housing Authority and the nonprofit operator shall avoid displacing current residents to the maximum extent allowed by law. 3.The Housing Authority shall invest or cause to be invested at least $10 million in upgrades to the Park to ensure appropriate site improvements are made. 4.City funds committed shall be affordable housing funds, and the Housing Authority shall comply with the restrictions imposed on the use of those funds. Prior to the transfer of City funds, the Housing Authority or its agents shall enter into a regulatory agreement in a form acceptable to the City and the Authority that documents the affordability restrictions and other requirements. 5.In order to protect the City’s general funds, the Housing Authority shall fully indemnify the City for any liability exposure in connection with the Housing Authority’s acquisition, site improvements, or tenant displacement. 6.In the event that the Park is sold or transferred at any time in the future, the Housing Authority shall reinvest all proceeds in the City of Palo Alto to create additional affordable housing. Environmental Review Approval of the MOU would provide funding to perpetuate an existing mobile home park and is not a project subject to environmental review. Policy Implications The City’s adopted Housing Element (Program H3.1.8) recognizes the Buena Vista mobilehome park as providing low-and moderate-income housing opportunities and states that to the City of Palo Alto Page 4 extent feasible, the City will seek appropriate local, State and federal funding to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the existing units. The City’s Housing Element contains policies both supporting the preservation and rehabilitation of existing units (Policy H1.1 and H1.2), and policies supporting actions to increase the supply of affordable housing (Policy H2.1 and H2.2). The Housing Element also documents at length some of the housing challenges facing Palo Alto and the region, and articulates quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 planning period for rehabilitation (600 below market rate units), preservation (334 below market rate units), and new development (1,401 below market rate units), indicating the need for investments in all of these activities. Attachments: Attachment A: BV MOU Signature Final (HACSC June 14 2016) (PDF) 6/14/16 1   MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into as of June 28, 2016 by and among the County of Santa Clara (County), the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”). R E C I T A L S WHEREAS, County and City and HACSC each acknowledge that there has been and there continues to be an acute shortage of affordable housing for the residents of the County and the City; and WHEREAS, one of the few existing sites of moderate cost housing in the City is a certain mobile home park known as Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (Park), which consists of 104 mobile homes, 12 studio units and one single family home and provides housing for approximately 400 people; and WHEREAS, the owner of the Park has sought to terminate the tenancy of the Park residents and close the Park for the development of market-rate housing; and WHEREAS, it is HACSC’s mission to provide and inspire affordable housing solutions to enable low-income people in Santa Clara County to achieve financial stability and self-reliance; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the ongoing operation of the Park (or an equivalent housing resource for the Park community) for a period of up to 50 years and the continuing use of the property for affordable housing will benefit the residents of the County and the City because it will create a long term affordable housing resource. NOW, THEREFORE, County, City and HACSC agree as follows: 1.PURPOSE It is the goal of this MOU to preserve the Park as an affordable housing resource, by operating the Park as a mobile home park, or equivalent, for up to 50 years and using the property continuously as an affordable housing resource, and to avoid displacement of the current Park tenants. The parties intend to accomplish this goal by jointly funding HACSC’s acquisition and improvement of the Park, as needed to preserve the Park as an affordable housing resource while avoiding permanent displacement of the current Park tenants. 6/14/16 2   2.TERM This MOU shall be in effect from the date of its execution by all parties until the date of Acquisition Determination and thereafter until terminated in accordance with Section 6 below. 3.PRE-DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES HACSC hereby commits an amount not to exceed $250,000 for Pre-development Activities, which may include securing an appraisal, and retaining consultants and vendors to assist in due diligence and determining feasibility of various preservation and improvement alternatives. 4.ACQUISITION AND FUNDING OBLIGATIONS After concluding its due diligence and feasibility analysis, HACSC will make a determination about whether to proceed with the acquisition of the Park (Acquisition Determination), subject to the Affordability Restrictions referenced in Section 5. If HACSC decides to acquire the property subject to the Affordability Restrictions, the County and City shall each contribute such amounts as the parties determine are necessary for the acquisition of the Park, but not to exceed $14.5 million each (Maximum Financial Commitment). The parties will deposit the funds with the HACSC. HACSC will establish its Maximum Financial Commitment after consideration of the appraisal amount, and completion of its due diligence and feasibility activities. In approving this MOU the City Council and County Board of Supervisors shall designate their respective Authorized Representatives who shall be authorized to take all actions necessary and reasonable for the City and the County to accomplish the purposes of this MOU, up to their respective Maximum Financial Commitments, and within the authority granted by their respective legislative bodies. 5.IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT In the event HACSC acquires the Park, HACSC will own, operate and maintain the Park, subject to reasonable County and City recorded restrictions on use of the land (Affordability Restrictions), including, but not limited to, a restriction to operate the Park for up to 50 years and to use the property continuously for affordable housing. The Parties agree that they have a common interest in establishing the potential financial viability of the Park as a housing resource. Prior to the final Acquisition 6/14/16 3   Determination the Parties will confer in accordance with their common interest and define the Affordability Restrictions to be recorded immediately after HACSC takes title to the Park. To the maximum extent allowed by law, HACSC will give housing priority to the tenants of the Park as of the date of the approval of this MOU, subject to compliance with reasonable and necessary rental rules, and income eligibility under applicable affordable housing financing. 6.TERMINATION This MOU will automatically terminate on June 28, 2018 unless one of the termination events specified herein occurs first. Prior to June 28, 2018, this MOU may be terminated by any of the parties by written notice to each of the other parties following the occurrence of any of the following events: 6.1 Decision by HACSC not to acquire the Park; 6.2 Decision by any party not to agree to the Affordability Restrictions; 6.3 The Recording of Affordability Restrictions approved by each of the parties to the MOU. Within 90 days of termination of this MOU for any reason, the HACSC will return any contribution amounts, as determined by Section 4, not used for the acquisition of the Park to the parties. 7.NOTICES All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served, mailed (or electronic mail), postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed to the respective parties as follows: To County: Megan Doyle Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Santa Clara 70 W. Hedding Street East Wing, 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Email: megan.doyle@ceo.sccgov.org Phone: 408-299-5060 6/14/16 4   Jeff Smith County Executive County of Santa Clara 70 W. Hedding Street East Wing, 11th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Email: jeff.smith@ceo.sccgov.org Phone: 408-299-5102 To City: James Keene City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org Phone: 650-329-2105 To HACSC: Katherine Harasz Executive Director Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara 505 W. Julian St. San Jose, CA 95110 Email: katherine.harasz@hacsc.org Phone: (408) 993-2903 8.PRIOR AGREEMENTS This Agreement, including all Attachments, represents the entire understanding of the parties. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment duly executed by the parties to this Agreement. 9. INDEMNIFICATION In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a Party shall not be 6/14/16 5   shared pro rata but, instead, HACSC, County and City agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other Parties, their officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this Agreement. No party, nor any officer, board member or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other Parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other Parties under this MOU. Notwithstanding the foregoing, HACSC shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County and City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, the acquisition of the Park and/or the relocation of Park tenants, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the County and City. HACSC shall reimburse the County and City for all costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses and liabilities incurred with respect to any litigation in which HACSC is obligated to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County and City under this MOU. Each Party agrees that all obligations under this Section 9, Indemnification, shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall remain binding on all Parties notwithstanding the Agreement’s termination. 10. AMENDMENT This MOU may not be amended except in a writing signed by all Parties. This MOU shall be binding on all successors and assigns of the Parties. 11. EXECUTION This MOU may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same document. Signatures may be transmitted electronically. 6/14/16 6   WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year indicated below. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA __________________________ Kathy Espinoza-Howard, Chair Board of Commissioners Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM Brian Doyle General Counsel COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Dave Cortese, President Board of Supervisors Date: ATTEST: Megan Doyle Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Elizabeth G. Pianca Lead Deputy County Counsel 6/14/16 7   City of Palo Alto By:_________________________________ James Keene City Manager Date:_______________ ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 8376) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of Parks Master Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration Title: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Including the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, and Adoption of the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, and 2. Adopt the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Executive Summary This report presents the Final Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration, and responds to Council’s comments. Access to parks, open space and recreation opportunities are invaluable to a healthy city; improving a community’s health, social connections, environmental stewardship, and providing economic benefits, among other things. A city that invests in its parks, recreation facilities and related programs ensures its assets keep pace with changing populations and community needs, and also invests in the quality of life of its residents. The existing network of Palo Alto’s parks, recreation facilities and programs provide an array of opportunities for Palo Alto residents, workers and visitors to connect with nature, improve their physical and mental health, make social connections and advance their personal growth. As we look to the future Palo Alto will need to respond to a growing population, shifting demographics, changing best practices, and aging facilities and infrastructure. To respond to these needs, the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) was developed to provide guidance, direction and a prioritization process for future renovations and capital improvements, as well as City of Palo Alto Page 2 recreation programming, environmental enhancements and efficient and sustainable maintenance. The Master Plan presents a vision for Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation system (both facilities and programs) for the next 20 years. Through a framework of goals, policies and programs, the Master Plan identifies the needs and opportunities for maintaining, enhancing and expanding the system, as identified through a rigorous data collection and community engagement effort. Implementation of the Master Plan will provide benefits to the Palo Alto community in many ways - from building social connections to strengthening the overall well-being of the community; the needs and opportunities identified in the Master Plan will contribute to improving the physical, social, emotional and mental health of both residents and visitors and will provide a forum for fostering a culture of connectedness. The Master Plan was developed using a three phase process. The first phase included a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs. This phase also included an analysis of current and forecasted community demographic and recreation trends. A proactive and extensive community engagement process, that included a broad range of activities, was used to identify community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. The second phase built upon data and information gathered in Phase One, and with oversight by the Parks and Recreation Commission, six goals were developed each with its own series of policies and programs. It is not expected that all of the programs in the Master Plan will be completed within a twenty year horizon, instead the Master Plan offers an aspirational suite of programs and projects that will help achieve the goals. This phase concluded with the development of the final Master Plan chapter titled Implementation. This chapter includes a process for prioritization, a summary of high priority projects and programs, potential funding options and a system for evaluating future projects. The third and final phase included drafting the Master Plan document itself and conducting stakeholder reviews. The Draft Master Plan has been reviewed by the Palo Alto community at large, a defined stakeholder group, Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council at several stages throughout the process. To comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment. The draft Master Plan was presented to Council on May 22, 2017 with the goal of obtaining feedback for inclusion in the final Master Plan. The Council meeting resulted in one motion; to direct staff to strengthen the language of Policy 6.C in the Master Plan, which focuses on restricting private and exclusive use of parks. The revised policy language can be found in the discussion section of this report. Additionally Council City of Palo Alto Page 3 recommended that the rationale for selecting the list of high priority projects and programs be included in the Master Plan and that discussion is also in this report. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) has been instrumental in preparing the Master Plan document from reviewing multiple revisions of the plan to crafting specific policy and program language. On July 25, 2017 the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously voted in favor of recommending that Council adopt the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The PRC drafted a letter of support and community “call for action”, which is included at the end of Chapter 5. Included in the Master Plan is a transmittal of the Final Master Plan to City Council from City Manager Jim Keene. The transmittal provides perspective on the role of the community as a partner in not only developing, but also implementing the Master Plan to realize our shared vision for a strong and healthy community. Upon adoption of the Final Master Plan, the transmittal will be addressed to the community from the City Council. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Background The City of Palo Alto has 32 parks and four open space preserves covering approximately 4,165 acres of land, including Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, and the Baylands Nature Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by Council for the 2013 fiscal year. The purpose of this effort was to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a long-range (20-year) Master Plan. Though the Master Plan addresses trails and natural open space, the intent is not to provide specific guidance on how to manage and maintain the City’s trails and open space preserves. Existing plans such as the Pearson Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (2002) provide trail management guidance. There are also current and planned capital projects to develop comprehensive conservation plans for the Baylands Nature Preserve (fiscal year 2017); and for Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park (fiscal year 2019), which will provide specific guidance on vegetation and habitat management, wildlife management, and wildlife-appropriate public access. This Master Plan focuses on the developed areas within the City’s natural open space areas, such as parking lots, picnic areas and facilities, and provides recommendations on how these spaces can best be enhanced using sustainable best practices. When adopted, the Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future capital improvement projects and program enhancements aimed at meeting current and future demands on the City’s parks and recreation facilities, recreation programming, the natural environment and facility maintenance. The Master Plan includes an implementation guide for the near, mid, and long-term as well as possible funding strategies. The Master Plan process consisted of three phases: Phase One: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement The “project team” comprised of City staff and the consultant firm MIG, along with significant review and input from the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), gathered and analyzed data collected from Palo Alto’s current parks and recreation system and the community. The Phase One analysis included a physical inventory of parks and recreation assets, extensive community outreach to identify community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements, and a review of projected community demographics and recreation trends. This culminated in a list of potential needs and opportunities for the overall parks and recreation system and is compiled in a “Data and Needs Summary Matrix”, which can be found on the project website at www.paloaltoparksplan.org. To develop a vision for the City’s parks, trails, open space and recreation system, the following eight principles were developed and provide the foundation for the Master Plan. The Principles reflect the outcome of the analysis and feedback received during City of Palo Alto Page 5 the community engagement process. The Principles, which are defined in Chapter 4 of the Draft Master Plan, are: Playful, Healthy, Sustainable, Inclusive, Accessible, Flexible, Balanced and Nature. Phase Two: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities At the beginning of Phase Two, the results of the data analysis and community input were compiled into 12 areas of focus that identify the major themes and key components that will guide policy and program recommendations. These areas of focus were developed as part of the on-line community survey, community meetings and stakeholder focus group meetings as a means of allowing the community to provide input on the types of projects and programs that should be prioritized. The areas of focus, presented as “key findings” in the Draft Master Plan are: • Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city • Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities • Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities • Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community • Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields • Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks • Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming • Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs • Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks • Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs • Expanding the system • Offering more of the existing programs, classes and events The project team, working with the PRC, consolidated these areas of focus into five master plan goals. One additional goal was added to represent the standards for operating existing and future parks, recreation, and open space systems. The goals will provide overall direction for long-term improvements to the parks and recreation system, while balancing the broad range of interests of Palo Alto’s diverse community with the natural environment. The goals provide an organizational structure for the policies and programs of the Master Plan, and are introduced in Chapter 4. Following the goals are policies and programs. The policies, like the goals, were developed from the analysis in phase one and draws on community input, park and program analysis, staff input and PRC feedback. The programs provide specific actions toward achieving the goals and policies and represent potential enhancements and expansions for the parks and recreation system including recreation programming. Programs include specific capital improvements, programs and services, as well as City of Palo Alto Page 6 studies to gather needed data to give direction on capital improvements, programs and services where there is insufficient data. Phase two concluded with development of a prioritization process that involves applying a set of criteria that will guide future implementation. A list of high priority projects and programs was also developed and is presented in Chapter 5 of the Master Plan. This list was developed with feedback from the PRC, community, stakeholders and City staff and represents what we know today are high priority needs and/or opportunities. More detail on the process used to develop this list is provided in the Discussion section of this report. Phase Three: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review, CEQA and Adoption The final phase included a review of the Draft Master Plan by the community, the PRC, and City Council. Council has provided input on the Master Plan throughout the process and most recently reviewed the draft Master Plan on May 22, 2017. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Master Plan to assess whether the recommended policies and programs identified in the plan will have a signficant impact on the environment has been completed. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review from May 8, 2017 to June 6, 2017. Additionally, a public hearing to receive comments was held on May 23, 2017. The final step is for Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Final Master Plan. Discussion Final Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Staff presented the Draft Master Plan to Council on May 22, 2017 with the goal of receiving comments and feedback for incorporation into a Final Master Plan document. All comments received provided guidance in preparing this version of the Final Master Plan. The Final Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan is included in Attachment A, and is available online at www.paloaltorparksplan.org. There were two comments received during the May 22nd Council meeting that require further discussion and follow up. The first comment is related to Master Plan Policy 6.C and resulted in the following motion: “Direct Staff to strengthen the language of Programs 6.C.1, 6.C.2, and 6.C.3 to minimize private, exclusive use and when such uses are allowed, charge significant fees and include specific outreach language.” In response to that motion staff drafted alternate language for Programs 6.C.1, 6.C.2, and 6.C.3 that was subsequently reviewed and further edited by the PRC during the July 25, 2017 PRC meeting. The PRC unanimously approved by motion the following revised language for Policy 6.C and its related programs. The previous policy and program language follows the revised language. City of Palo Alto Page 7 REVISED LANGUAGE IN FINAL MASTER PLAN: Policy 6.C: Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking a park site or recreation facility or significant portion thereof) for events by private organizations that are closed to the general public. PROGRAMS 6.C.1 Exclusive use of parks or athletic fields by a private party or corporation for events that are closed to the general public will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be assessed using the following criteria:  No exclusive use by private parties is permitted on peak days (e.g., weekends, holidays) or peak times (e.g., evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends) as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in advance by the Director of Community Services;  Private uses will be limited to a maximum of five consecutive days, including event setup and break-down;  For any multi-day private event including set up and break-down, notice of the private event will be made to the neighboring community and facility users, a minimum of 14 days in advance allowing for public input prior to the permit being issued;  Cost recovery, including wear and tear on facility should be no less than 100%;  Explore establishing incremental deposits and fees for such use. 6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks or athletic fields for locally focused events that allow registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. 6.C.3 Exclusive use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as reservable picnic areas, is permitted in accordance with the City’s Park and Open Space Regulations. 6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted in accordance with Special Event Permit procedures. PREVIOUS LANGUAGE IN DRAFT MASTER PLAN: Policy 6.C: Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site or recreation facility) for events by outside organizations that are closed to the general public. PROGRAMS 6.C.1 No exclusive use of parks by private parties is permitted on peak days (e.g., weekends, holidays) or peak times (e.g., evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends) as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in advance by the Director of Community Services. Exclusive use of City of Palo Alto Page 8 certain sites and facilities within parks, such as reservable spaces like picnic areas, is generally permitted during peak days and times. 6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks for locally focused events that allow registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. 6.C.3 Private events that are closed to the general public (e.g., corporate events, private weddings) and are intended to use an entire park (rather than a reservable space in excess of capacities as defined in the Special Event Permit procedures) may only be considered outside of peak days and times as defined by Community Services staff. These events should recover 100% of all associated costs, including wear and tear on public parks and facilities. 6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted, in accordance with Special Event Permit procedures. Significant changes to Policy 6.C and associated programs to further define private use of parks include:  Limiting private events to five consecutive days, including event set-up and break-down. The five-day timeframe was deliberately chosen to limit the event to only one weekend.  Adding a 14 day pubic noticing requirement to ensure that public input be received prior to issuance of an event permit.  Adding text to program 6.C.1 - “Explore establishing incremental deposits and fees for such use”. The PRC added this language to recognize the need for a separate and defined fee structure for private or commercial use of park space. The second comment is related to the projects and programs identified as high-priority in Chapter 5 of the Master Plan, and the thought process by which those projects and programs were selected, and how to interpret the use of the “urgency” category. The list of high priority projects and programs was developed with feedback from the PRC, community, stakeholders and City staff. Through significant and diversified community outreach and staff interviews, these projects and programs represent what we know today are high priority needs and/or opportunities. All of these projects and programs were emphasized in the community engagement input as the most important enhancements to the system. There is a funding gap, however; that prohibits all of these high priorities from being implemented immediately. To address this, a prioritization process will be used to create and update an annual action plan concurrent with the City’s annual budget process. The prioritization process involves evaluating the benefit to the community of proposed projects and programs by applying the following set of criteria: fill existing gaps; respond to growth; address community preferences; maximize public resources; and realize multiple benefits. City of Palo Alto Page 9 The Implementation Chapter of the Master Plan evaluates each of the priority projects and programs using five factors. Each year, as the annual action plan is developed, staff will utilize these five factors, along with the prioritization criteria above to identify the projects and programs that will be reviewed during the annual budget process. The five factors are: 1. Planning Effort 2. Capital Cost 3. Annual Operating Cost 4. Time Frame 5. Urgency Urgency is defined in the Master Plan several ways: 1. Availability versus demand – The capacity of indoor and outdoor facilities is not enough to satisfy the demand for use of those facilities. Likewise, if programs that are in high demand are limited in their offerings. 2. Time sensitivity – There is a need to implement a project because it influences or guides future operations. 3. Missed opportunities – When failing to act results in a missed opportunity that may not be available again. A project may also be considered high urgency when there is a new legal or regulatory requirement or when it is in response to a safety issue. Typically projects that fit into these two categories of high urgency are not planned, but must be implemented when a regulation changes or a safety issue comes to light. Urgency is used to distinguish a project or program that was identified as an important enhancement to the system from those that, if not implemented would result in a more significant and noticeable impact. For the purpose of the Master Plan, priority differs from urgency in that a high priority project or program is one that staff has identified through customer service, experience or observation as an existing gap and the community has consistently expressed as a desired enhancement or addition to the system. Urgency includes an additional element in anticipating the impact or outcome of not implementing a project or program. Using the three Master Plan definitions of urgency, implementing a high priority/high urgent project would result in one or more of the following: 1) community access to a high demand program or facility otherwise not available; 2) information or action needed to further operations or subsequent actions; and 3) staff, the PRC and Council are prepared to make informed decisions that if not acted upon, would result in a missed opportunity. City of Palo Alto Page 10 An example of a high priority and low urgency project is “enhanced seating areas in parks.” While there was substantial community support for enhanced seating, implementation of this would most likely follow the existing schedule for park renovation so that seating areas or benches would be added when a park is undergoing other renovations. Likewise, an example of a high priority and high urgency project is “develop conservation plans for open space preserves.” Development of these plans will directly influence future operations by providing guiding principles and a clear action plan for managing the preserves to achieve both conservation and recreation goals. Next Steps As described in the Implementation Chapter, an Action Plan will be the primary tool by which projects and programs are forecasted and planned. The first Action Plan will be completed to coincide with development of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget. Several capital projects identified in the Master Plan are included in the Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Capital Budget. These projects are:  Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, PG-17000 (Master Plan Policy 4.A)  Dog Park Installation at Peers Park, PG-18001 (Master Plan Policy 2.D)  Turf Management Plan, PG-18002 (Master Plan Policy 2.C) Resource Impact Funding for this study and planning process is in Capital Improvement Program project PE-13003: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, which was adopted by Council in Fiscal Year 2013. The recommended projects and programs that are included in the Master Plan should be considered potential future projects, and the level and extent of improvements and expansion will be dependent on the availability of resources and the ongoing evaluation of the City’s needs and interests across all departments. These potential future projects will further impact the current five year capital improvement plan (CIP) that reflects insufficient available funding for planned projects. The intent of this planning is to utilize limited Capital Improvement Funds and other resources wisely and effectively, and to leverage these resources with grants or private funding whenever possible. The Master Plan makes recommendations that call for new investments in the future including the development of a strategic funding plan to successfully implement the recommendations. Possible funding sources identified include both expanding the options of existing funding and exploring new sources such as taxes and bonds, special districts and establishing an endowment fund for maintenance costs. All of these potential funding sources will need to be evaluated more closely and weighed against other significant funding needs currently being faced by the City as there is currently a funding gap in the five year general CIP fund. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Policy Implications The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Environmental Review A California Environmental Qualtiy Act (CEQA) review of the Master Plan was conducted by the consultant firm MIG with assistance from City staff. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines to determine if the recommended policies and programs identified in the Master Plan have the potential to result in a signficant impact on the environment. For any significant effects, appropriate mitigation measures have been applied to the project to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which describes the roles and responsibilities in monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The Draft IS/MND was made available for public comment from May 8, 2017 through June 6, 2017. A public hearing was held on May 23, 2017 to receive public comment on the IS/MND. The Final IS/MND is included as Attachment B, followed by the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (Attachment C). Comments received during the public review period can be found in Attachment D. All comments were considered when preparing the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and MMRP and responses were prepared as part of the administrative record. Several comments received during the IS/MND public review period resulted in edits to the Master Plan. These comments and the resulting edits are provided in the table below. Comment Number Comment Response B.2 Policies within the Countywide Trails Plan are intended to provide a coordinated vision for linking trail plans and implementation efforts of individual jurisdictions and agencies within the County. The County Parks Department recommends that the Countywide Trails Plan be acknowledged within the City’s Parks, Trail, Natural Open Space & Recreation Plan. A reference to the Countywide Trails Plan was added to Page 40 of the Master Plan. E.1 Please describe and cite the Palo Alto City’s Charter, Article IIIV “Parks” in the Plan and in the IS/MND Project Text has been added to the Park Master Plan on page 11 recognizing the Palo Alto City City of Palo Alto Page 12 description / Regulatory Setting (MND, page 42). Charter, Article VIII “Parks”. The text of Article VIII Parks directs that all lands owned or controlled by the City which are or will be used for park, play‐ground, recreation, or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance. No land dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. E.5 Increased Access to Nature: Please provide more discussion and mitigation of impacts of new access to natural areas, especially in Open Space Preserves and along wetlands and creeks as increased access can have negative impacts. A sentence has been added to Master Plan Program 4.A.1 Develop Comprehensive Conservation Plans for the Open Space Preserves, to provide clear direction on the protection of natural resources from visitor use impacts (not just impacts from dogs). Program 4.A.1 now states: 4.A.1 Develop comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park and Pearson‐Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation and environmental education. The protection of biological resources from visitor use impacts shall be the priority in these open space preserves. Many of the comments received did not result in edits to the Master Plan. These comments either resulted in revisions to the IS/MND or were noted for future reference. The California Department of Transportation provided comments related to future projects that may result in ground-disturbing activity. Staff’s response to these comments is that specific development or improvement projects recommended by the City of Palo Alto Page 13 Master Plan would require further evaluation under CEQA once design and implementation information becomes available. Additional language was added to the IS/MND related to traffic restrictions and maintaining pedestrian access in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act if a future project impacts state roads. The County’s Roads and Airports Department also provided comments related to future projects. Projects included in the Master Plan that may impact County roads will comply with CEQA Guidelines prior to implementation. The County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health provided comments related to underground storage tanks and the presence of metals and pesticides. In response to the County’s concerns, text was added that the City would conduct an analysis prior to disturbing soils that may potentially be contaminated by past activities. The Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society provided comments that resulted in direct changes to the Master Plan, as described in the table above. The Audubon Society also provided comments emphasizing the need for nature in urban/suburban parks as well as natural open space and requested additional language be added to the Master Plan in response to this. This comment did not result in changes to the Master Plan because the Master Plan recognizes the public’s desire for access to nature and natural areas. This is captured in the Principles, Goals and Policies (3.B, 4.C and 4.D) of the Master Plan. Several of the Audubon Society’s comments resulted in edits to the IS/MND. These comments were related to riparian setbacks, the definition of an active bird nest and impacts to open space areas from visitors and dogs. The Master Plan contains policies that are implemented through specific recommended programs. While the Master Plan identifies specific types of park improvements it does not present project level design plans for any specific improvement or project. In the absence of project level information, the Initial Study (IS) identifies general areas of potential environmental impacts that could occur from the implementation of the Master Plan, and identifies how existing City policies, programs, and procedures, as well as regulatory standards and programmatic procedures, would reduce or avoid environmental impacts. The impact analysis presents mitigation measures that would be applied to future projects to reduce or prevent environmental impacts. Adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize any specific development or the construction of improvements identified in the Master Plan. Specific development or improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan would require further evaluation under CEQA once design and implementation information becomes available. However, certain types of improvements or modifications proposed under the Master Plan could be implemented if they are found not to be a project under CEQA, or the City can document that these improvements do not have potentially significant environmental impacts. If the City can document that these improvements do not have potentially significant impacts, they can be Categorically Exempt under CEQA. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Once project-level information is developed for broader activities that are proposed pursuant to the goals and policies of the Master Plan, the City would review the project under CEQA and determine the appropriate level of environmental impact analysis. In the absence of even conceptual-level design and implementation information, this Initial Study cannot evaluate the potential environmental impacts of many of the activities contemplated in the Master Plan. Future review of these projects (for example, Cubberley Community Center Master Plan, acquiring new parkland, etc.) would focus on those site-specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of this IS/MND. Attachments A: Final Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan B: Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C: Mitigation, Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) D: Public comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and responses to comments E: Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration for Parks Master Plan Attachments:  Attachment A: Palo Alto_Parks_Master Plan_DRAFT_083017  Attachment B: Initial Study_MND sheet  Attachment C: Final MMRP_Palo Alto Parks Master Plan_20170814  Attachment D: Public Comment Letters  Attachment E: Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration for Parks Master Plan PB PALOALTO MASTER PLAN AUGUST 2017 DRAFT PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members: Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer The Parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process: Stacy Ashlund Jim Cowie Anne Warner Cribbs Dierdre Crommie Jeff Greenfield Jennifer Hetterly Abbie Knopper CONSULTANT TEAM MIG, INC. PALO ALTO COMMUNITY Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group. Jeff Lamere Ed Lauing Pat Markevitch Ryan McCauley Don McDougall David Moss Keith Reckdahl ii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN iiiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN CONTENTS MASTER PLAN Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................v Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Elements of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation System ...........9 Chapter 3. Analysis & Assessment ....... ............................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 4. Our Future: Principles, Goals, Policies, Programs & Projects ................................................49 Chapter 5. Implementation .....................................................................................................................................79 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................................117 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................... 119 Photo Credits ............................................................................................................................................................. 123 APPENDICES A. Parks & Recreation Facilities Inventory .......................................................................................................A-1 B. Geographic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................B-1 C. Community Engagement...................................................................................................................................C-1 D. Existing Capital & Operations Funding Sources .......................................................................................D-1 E. Mitigation Documentation................................................................................................................................ E-1 FIGURES Figure 1: Planning Process .........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space Map ....................................................................14 Figure 3: Program Areas by Number of Participants .....................................................................................20 Figure 4: Projected Growth in Palo Alto’s Senior Population ......................................................................28 Figure 5: Palo Alto Race and Ethnicity..................................................................................................................29 Figure 6: Park Walksheds Map ...............................................................................................................................32 Figure 7: Prioritization Challenge Results ..........................................................................................................39 Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map ..........................................................................................................................42 Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map .............................................................................................44 Figure 10: Natural Systems Map ...........................................................................................................................46 iv Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation MASTER PLAN TABLES Table 1: Palo Alto Parks and Natural Open Spaces Inventory ....................................................................13 Table 2: Palo Alto Facility Inventory ......................................................................................................................16 Table 3: City of Palo Alto Projected Population.................................................................................................26 Table 4: City of Palo Alto Key Age Groups...........................................................................................................27 Table 5: Funding Applicability ................................................................................................................................105 Table 6: Existing Indicators ....................................................................................................................................113 Table 7: Recommended Indicators .....................................................................................................................115 v Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To build on and continue the legacy of its strong parks system, the City of Palo Alto developed the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing investment in one of the community’s most treasured assets. The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community engagement process. It builds on this framework with a set of policies, projects and programs and recommendations for future renovations and capital improvements. It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation, programming, environmental and maintenance investments to meet our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the next 20 years. Planning Process The Master Plan process consisted of three phases: • Phase I: Community Engagement, Specific Site Analysis and Program Analysis. This phase included development of a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs; analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends; and analysis of community recreation needs. It also included identification of community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements using a proactive community engagement process with a broad range of activities. • Phase II: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities. During this phase, Palo Alto developed goals, policies and programs; identified capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritized actions into short, medium and long-term implementation timelines using what was learned in Phase 1. The Palo Alto community provided feedback on priorities and programs through several activities. • Phase III: Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption. In Phase 3, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), City Council and Palo Alto community reviewed and refined the draft Master Plan, and Council adopted it. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viv Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community engagement opportunities were infused throughout the planning process. Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them. Opportunities The input from the community, combined with analysis of the many aspects of the park system, generated a wide range of opportunities. In the overall context of limited land, three properties in Palo Alto represent unique opportunities, as they are already owned by the City and are not yet designated for a specific use : •Cubberley Community Center: The City owns 8 of the 35 acres of this former high school campus and has managed leases within the buildings with a number of community organizations and businesses while also scheduling the gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) have agreed to jointly master plan the redevelopment of the site by 2020. •Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated it as an expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the developed portion of the park by the existing maintenance facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the results of the Buckeye Creek hydrology study, which will be completed in summer 2017. •Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.5 acres of land was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site for future recreation opportunities. In addition, three concept maps illustrate high-value opportunities to further create a multi-layered system of parklands and connections that serves both people and natural systems. The maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and projects. MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODS •A project webpage •Public information updates through a variety of online and print communication channels •A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular locations and community events •A variety of interactive community workshops •A series of online surveys •Interviews with City staff and community experts to better inform topics that emerged from community engagement •Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and other appointed commissions •City Council updates and study sessions vii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Park Search Areas Expand the System This map identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A through E for planning purposes, will help Palo Alto focus future park additions in neighborhoods with the greatest need: for example, those with the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, this map shows the importance of public access to school grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple), which have the potential to be maintained and expanded. e San Francisquito Creek Matadero C ree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Cree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charles t o n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School e S an Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charlesto n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School viiivii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Connect the System A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park and recreation access. This map illustrates this potential network of trails and enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces. These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan and related work on Safe Routes to School. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring communities. Regional trails like the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete the network by linking the remaining park sites. Palo Alto Airport Date: July 2017Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional and Countywide Trails (Adobe Creek Connector,San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matadero C ree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: July 2017Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional and Countywide Trails (Adobe Creek Connector,San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charles t o n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: July 2017Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional and Countywide Trails (Adobe Creek Connector,San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarder o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charlesto n R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Park Connections ix Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Connect Natural Systems This map illustrates how the same corridors recommended for bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings and stormwater bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan. Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water -3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria cloverValley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e San Francisquito Creek Matadero C ree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water -3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria cloverValley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Cree k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Orego n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water -3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo AltoParks, Trails, Natural Open Spaceand Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria cloverValley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:Western LeatherwoodValley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e S an Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo AltoAtherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Orego n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charlest o n R d El Camino R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Natural Systems xix Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Principles, Goals and Policies Through the Master Plan process, the Palo Alto community defined a future for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process led to the principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system. Principles The eight principles represent the collective direction provided by hundreds of participants from across the city as well as many local stakeholder groups. Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles: • Playful: Inspires imagination and joy. • Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well- being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community. • Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long term. • Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community: all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income. • Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and access by all modes of travel. • Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses. • Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place and includes both historic elements and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self- directed and programmed activities. • Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature. PLAYFUL HEALTHY SUSTAINABLE INCLUSIVE ACCESSIBLE FLEXIBLE BALANCED NATURE xi Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Goals Six goals state the community’s desired outcomes and provide an organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that form the recommendations of the Master Plan. • Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. • Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. • Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. • Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. • Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. • Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Policies The principles and goals will be realized through the policies described in Chapter 4 of the Master Plan. These policies and programs are organized within the framework of the six goals, with implementing policies and programs following each goal. Implementation Over the next twenty years, the implementation of the projects and programs recommended in the Master Plan will include an annual process initiated by City staff with guidance and leadership from the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. Palo Alto’s dedicated community advocates and partner organizations will also play an important role in ensuring the proposed programs and projects align with the needs of the community. Projects and programs were prioritized and will continue to be evaluated by five criteria: • Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the City and to users where gaps were identified. The goals reflect the community’s desired outcomes, examples of these outcomes are shown above. xiixi Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Respond to growth: Add features or programs and/or modify or expand components of the system to prepare for and address increasing demand. • Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach. • Maximize public resources: Create the most benefit for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. • Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. High-Priority Projects and Programs There are thirty-four projects and programs that we know today are high priorities, based on feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, stakeholders, the broader community and City staff. These priorities are organized by projects and programs in order of urgency. Urgency was determined by the availability compared to the need, the time sensitivity or potential for missed opportunities and is discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this plan. Major projects needing further study and strategic funding • Enhance existing sports fields • Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses • Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center • Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium • Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility • Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park • Acquire new parkland in high-need areas • Improve golf course facility Examples of the types of programs and projects that can be implemented by the dedicated community of Palo Alto. xiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Projects ready in the short term • Develop conservation plans for open space preserves • Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas • Construct new restrooms in parks • Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and recreation facilities • Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks • Improve trail connections and access • Develop adult fitness areas in parks • Integrate nature into urban parks • Develop new community gardens in underserved areas • Enhance seating areas in parks • Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks Programs • Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potenial park and recreation donors • Collaborate with school district to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities • Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors • Expand aquatics programs • Expand programs for seniors • Expand non-academic programs for teens Some projects need further study and funding, wheras others are ready in the short-term based on feedback from the community. xivxiii Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students • Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development • Increase the variety of activities available in parks • Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers • Connect youth, teens and families with nature • Expand programs related to health and wellness • Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks • Expand community-focused special events • Offer cultural enrichment programs Master Plan Progress Tracking Existing measures, from the Citizen Centric Report and the annual citizen satisfaction survey, provide a large selection of indicators for any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Additional recommended indicators include new measures of satisfaction, performance and funding. Further progress tracking will include reports on specific actions or projects that have been initiated or completed that contribute to the achievement of the programs, policies and goals. This annual progress report will also update funding status. Examples of desired programs based on feedback from the community. CHAPTER1 PURPOSE AND INTENT It has been fifty years since Palo Alto has taken a comprehensive look at the community’s needs for parklands, natural open space, trails and recreation. Past planning shaped our community’s present day parks and recreation offerings and led to the creation of the Baylands Athletic Center, expansion of athletic fields throughout the City and an expansion of Greer Park. Our predecessors established standards for parks within one-half mile of every residential development, and for neighborhood and district park acreage to be added as the community grew. Today Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open INTRODUCTION 2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION EVOLVE THE SYSTEM TO SERVE A LARGER AND MORE DIVERSE SET OF COMMUNITY NEEDS 32 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION space. To build on and continue the legacy of a strong parks system, the City developed this Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide ongoing investment in one of the community’s most treasured assets. Over the last five decades, the City has completed a series of planning efforts that affect parks and recreation; implemented capital improvement projects to maintain and renovate City facilities; and applied development impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries. In recent years, several major projects have been completed, including the all-new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the Magical Bridge Playground, both of which opened in 2015 to community acclaim. Today, Palo Alto has the opportunity to evolve the system to serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and tackle challenges to maintain the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. A particular focus will be finding and creating additional spaces for parks and recreation to achieve the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and bring parks and recreation activities within walking distance of all residents. The park system of the 21st century calls for holistic guidance for managing, improving and expanding park and recreation facilities to keep programs, services and facilities relevant to present and future populations; appropriately balance recreation and natural open space conservation; and identify funding to meet these challenges. For this reason, Palo Alto prioritized the development of this Master Plan. The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community engagement process. It builds on this foundation with a set of policies, projects and programs. It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation, programming, environmental and maintenance investment to meet our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the next 20 years. 4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION Planning Process Overview The planning process to develop the Master Plan consisted of three phases, as shown in Figure 1. • Phase I: Community Engagement, Specific Site Analysis and Program Analysis: This phase included two parallel tracks that informed one another: the Community Engagement and Stakeholder Engagement track and the Technical Assessment and Analysis track. While community engagement continued through all three phases, the bulk of the proactive engagement process occurred in this phase, drawing input from the public and a broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. The Technical Assessment and Analysis track included a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, natural open space and recreational facilities and programs; an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends; and an analysis of community recreation needs. • Phase II: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities: The two tracks of Phase 1 merged in Phase 2 with the preparation of principles, goals and areas of focus, and the evaluation of project and program opportunities with prioritization into implementation timelines of short (5-year), medium (10-year) and long- term (20-year) ranges. FIGURE 1: PLANNING PROCESS 54 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION • Phase III: Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption: The Master Plan document was designed and prepared for review by the public, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and City Council. A concurrent environmental review led to adoption of the plan. The process was led by the project team, consisting of City and consultant staff. The PRC was involved throughout the process, serving as strategic advisors and participating in-depth in reviewing the assessment and analysis tasks. Community Engagement The Master Plan was designed to be community and data driven, to ensure that Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system reflects the vision and supports the needs of our residents and visitors over the next twenty years. A robust, layered outreach strategy was implemented through each step of the planning process. Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them. Master Plan community engagement methods, described in Chapter 3 and Appendix C, included: • A project webpage • Public information updates through a variety of online and print communication channels • A community stakeholder advisory group • A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular locations and community events • A variety of interactive community workshops • A series of online surveys • Interviews with City staff and community experts to better inform topics that emerged from community engagement • Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and other appointed commissions • City Council updates and study sessions COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS • Increase community awareness of the project • Inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project • Provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation • Offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences • Ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values • Get community buy-in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long- term implementation 6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION The process and findings for each of the community engagement activities are detailed in summary reports on the City website. The summary of the key findings from the community engagement are included in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this plan. Specific Site and Program Analysis The project team completed a detailed analysis of all aspects of the system to inform the Master Plan. The multi-layered approach to analysis, the interconnection between the community engagement and the analysis tasks (each feeding into the other) and the coordination with related concurrent planning efforts ensured that this Master Plan is based on sound information and the best available data. LAYERS OF ANALYSIS The layers of assessment and analysis included: • Physical inventory of parks, preserves and facilities • Recreation program inventory and analysis • Geographic analysis • Demographics and recreation trends analysis • Planning environment summary • Sustainability review TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT To assist in referencing and using the large amount of data developed during the process, tabbed binders were created for each member of the PRC and project team with all of the completed documents, numbered for quick reference. An outline of the deliverables for the Master Plan process became the table of contents for the binder. To facilitate broader distribution of the data binders (and reduce paper use), the project team developed a “digital binder,” available on the City website, which consists of a table of contents with hotlinks to each section. This working reference is the Technical Supplement, carrying forward the detail of these working documents. 76 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation INTRODUCTION Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities As major elements of the the Community and Stakeholder Engagement processes and the Technical Assessment and Analysis were completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review of the accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for the critical step of developing and prioritizing projects. The process for review, designed by the project team with the input of the PRC, resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities. This matrix served as the basis for developing, evaluating and refining the projects and programs contained in this Master Plan. The matrix process allowed the PRC to review the large number of possibilities against the extensive data available in a streamlined, more accessible way. The matrix served as a key reference point to assess and validate elements of the Master Plan as they were developed. The complete matrix can be downloaded from the City website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/parksmasterplan. Through this process, the principles and goals were derived. Master Plan Drafting, Review and Adoption The final phase in the Master Plan process involved the drafting of this plan document and formal review by the staff, PRC, stakeholders, the public and City Council. The project team worked to draft the policy and program and project recommendations. These were refined with the input of the staff who manage construction, operations and maintenance of the system, as well as the input of the PRC and Council. This work formed the basis for the final chapters of this plan and set a recommended path forward. The draft plan was presented for review at the PRC as well as a community workshop with an online comment tool to collect specific feedback. To pave the way for implementation, the project team initiated an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) process to advance the necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. Following the public comment period, the plan was presented for adoption by Palo Alto’s City Council. CHAPTER2 ELEMENTS OF PALO ALTO’S PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE & RECREATION SYSTEM FROM ITS EARLIEST YEARS, THE COMMUNITY OF PALO ALTO HAS INVESTED IN THE SYSTEM OF PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION, LEAVING A LEGACY OF UNIQUE AND HIGHLY VALUED LANDS AND FACILITIES. Philanthropic donations, unique partnerships and forward-thinking acquisitions have positioned the system at the forefront of community identity. The level of investment has created a complex system that provides many different recreation opportunities, as well as important natural functions and habitat for wildlife. To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s resources, the project team defined three elements that make up the citywide system of parks, natural open space, trails and recreation facilities and programs. 10 THE LANDSCAPE OF PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS PROVIDE THE SPACE WHERE RECREATION FACILITIES, NATURAL HABITAT AND PROGRAMS TAKE PLACE. 1110 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS These three elements were broken down further into constituent “components” to provide a reference framework for system analy- sis, community engagement and development of Master Plan rec- ommendations. Each of the elements is described below, providing a view of the system today and highlighting key features. Parks, Trails and Natural Open Space The landscape of parks, open spaces and trail connections provides the space where recreation facilities, natural habitat and programs take place. Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets. However, the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open space preserves. An expanding network of trails and bikeways supplements the sidewalks and streets that connect these assets. The analysis related to this element includes the proximity of parklands and recreation activities; opportunities to experience and protect natural habitats; trail connections; and the comfort and accessibility of the sites. The System Today Palo Alto maintains 174 acres of urban distributed throughout the city as well as over 4,000 acres in natural open space preserves. Table 1 lists the Palo Alto parks and natural open spaces. The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are neighborhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday activities of local residents. Several parks also feature unique facilities such as community gardens and dog parks. There are several parks that draw visitors from across the city and from neighboring communities. These parks typically have a higher concentration of facilities, including high-quality sports fields. Some of these parks are designed for a specific use and do not serve immediate neighbors (e.g., Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park and Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields), while others, like Greer, Mitchell and Rinconada Parks, also function as neighborhood parks. City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging facilities. Palo Alto parks are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage. Native species and less manicured landscapes are ELEMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO SYSTEM • Parks, Trails and Open Space • Recreation Facilities • Recreation Programs Article VIII of the Municipal Charter is the authoritative definition of “parks” in Palo Alto including the allowed uses of dedicated park land. 12 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS generally not present. Due to the era when they were built, many parks are not flexible enough to allow different uses to be layered in. Rather, they provide a collection of spaces designed for a single activity. With design interventions, many existing parks have the potential to support more use and activity. There are four natural open space preserves: Baylands Nature Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. These sites are large, are rich in native species of plants and animal habitat and have extensive internal trail systems. With the exception of Esther Clark Preserve, the preserves also have recreational and interpretive facilities. Palo Alto Open Space has 43.2 miles of trail. The Baylands Nature Preserve trail system is approximately 15 miles long and Pearson- Arastradero Preserve trail system is approximately 10.3 miles long. The existing trail system is largely within parklands, but several segments of designated or off-street trails connect parks and other community destinations. Most significant among these are the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay regional trails. The public trail system is further enhanced by privately owned trails with public access, such as the recently completed Stanford Perimeter Trail. Palo Alto’s parks, trails and natural open spaces are also home to much of the urban forest. The lands and connections that make up this element of the system are important to the goals of the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan. The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure 2) depicts all City-owned (or controlled) park sites and natural open space. Palo Alto Unified School District sites are also acknowledged on this map due to the longstanding partnership and their importance as park-like places. A complete set of park site maps can be found in the Technical Supplement at http:// www.cityofpaloalto.org/parksmasterplan. A detailed inventory of these sites can be found in Appendix A, which also includes other recreation facilities that allow public access. While not an exhaustive list, this inventory includes some of the significant facilities (such as community centers, the golf course, Gamble Garden and the Winter Lodge) that are not necessarily on dedicated park land, but add to recreation opportunities in Palo Alto. PALO ALTO PARK ACREAGE Urban Parks: 174 Natural Open Space Preserves: 4,030 NATURAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVES Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park) Esther Clark Preserve Foothills Park Pearson-Arastradero Preserve 1312 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Park or Natural Open Space Ownership Acres Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto 6 Bol Park City of Palo Alto 13.8 Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 1.5 Bowden Park City of Palo Alto 2 Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 1.9 (Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto 4.1 Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.5 El Camino Park Stanford*12.2 Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 9.6 El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto 0.5 Greer Park City of Palo Alto 22 Heritage Park City of Palo Alto 2.0 Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 4.2 Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto 12.4 Johnson Park City of Palo Alto 2.5 Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto 0.2 Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.2 Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 21.4 Monroe Park City of Palo Alto 0.6 Peers Park City of Palo Alto 4.7 Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 4.4 Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 19 Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4.7 Scott Park City of Palo Alto 0.4 Seale Park City of Palo Alto 4.3 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford*5.9 Terman Park City of Palo Alto/ PAUSD 7.7 Wallis Park City of Palo Alto 0.3 Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Werry Park City of Palo Alto 1.1 Williams Park (Museum of American Hertitage)City of Palo Alto 0.7 SUBTOTAL CITY PARKS 174 Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 1,986 Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto 22 Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 1,400 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto 622 SUBTOTAL NATURAL OPEN SPACES 4,030 * The two parks owned by Stanford are leased by the City. The El Camino lease expires in 2042 and the Stanford /Palo Alto Playing Fields lease expires in 2056. TABLE 1: PALO ALTO PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES INVENTORY 14 S a n F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C re e k B arron C reek Adobe Creek S tan fo r d M oun t a i nView Me n l o P a r k L o s Al t os L o s Al t osHills E a s tPalo A l t o A t h e rt o n S a n M a t eo Co u n ty P ort o la V a l l ey San F ranc is c o Ba y St a n f ord S a nta C l a ra C o un t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a m in o R e al E m b a r c a r d e r o R d Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle st o n R d El Camino Real S an d Hill R d Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Figure 8: Existing Public Parks & Natural Open Space Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) FIGURE 2: EXISTING PUBLIC PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES MAP 1514 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford Mo u n tai nView Menlo Park Los A lto s Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley S a n Fra n c i s c o B ay Stanford Santa Cl a r a Co u n ty Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a m in o R e al Embarcardero RdMiddlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle s t o n R d El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Figure 8: Existing Public Parks & Natural Open Space Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) 16 Recreation Facilities From community centers to sports fields to community gardens, Palo Alto’s recreation facilities add variety to the experiences pos- sible at each of Palo Alto’s parks and natural open spaces. Twelve types of recreation facilities are found throughout the system. In addition, other specialized recreation facilities such as the skate park at Greer Park, the lawn bowling green at Bowling Green Park, and El Camino Park serve specific recreation needs. The number and type of facilities at each park and preserve are summarized as part of the detailed inventory of the system found in Appendix A. Play Areas The most common, and expected, feature in a Palo Alto park is a play area. Typically play areas include a manufactured playground structure and may or may not include swings or other features. Mitchell Park has particularly unique play experiences that include both a historic Royston-designed “gopher holes” play area and the Magical Bridge Playground, a destination play area designed to be universally accessible for children of all abilities. Basketball and Tennis Courts Courts, primarily for basketball and tennis, are incorporated into many of Palo Alto’s parks. Most of the courts are provided singly or in pairs, with the exception of Mitchell and Rinconada Park, with 7 and 9 tennis courts, respectively. These concentrations of tennis courts provide a higher capacity for play and the potential to host tournaments. Rectangular and Diamond Sports Fields The City owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangular and diamond sports fields located throughout the City. Rectangular fields accommodate a variety of sports, including soccer and foot- ball. Diamond fields are designed for particular levels of baseball or softball play. Most of the higher-level sports fields are concentrated adjacent to Cubberley Community Center or in field complexes such as the Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields and the El Camino Park sports fields. The City also maintains sports fields on several School PALO ALTO RECREATION FACILITIES • Play Areas • Basketball Courts • Tennis Courts • Rectangular Sports Fields • Diamond Sports Fields • Picnic Areas • Off-Leash Dog Areas • Community Gardens • Swimming Pools • Community Centers • Special Purpose Buildings in Parks • Other Indoor Facilities • Golf Course Number of Facilities in Palo Alto Play Areas 29 Basketball Courts 14 Tennis Courts 28 Rectangular Sports Fields 22 Diamond Sports Fields 10 Picnic Areas 39 Pools*2 Dog Parks 3 Community Centers 3 Community Gardens 4 Interpretive Centers 3 *Two pools at the Rinconada Aquatic Center TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITY INVENTORY 1716 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS District sites. Some of the sports fields have lighting that allows for extended play in the evening, a feature that increases the playable time on a field but is not appropriate for all locations. In addition to the formally developed sports fields, many parks feature a large multi-purpose turf area that functions as a sports field for league and casual sports activities. Reserved use of fields and tennis courts is governed by the City’s Field Use Policy, which specifies the preference for local youth play and limits private use. Picnic Areas Most of Palo Alto’s parks also include at least one picnic area. Most of these are small clusters of tables intended for first-come-first- served use. Foothills Park, Rinconada Park and Mitchell Park have designated picnic areas that are available for reservation to accom- modate larger gatherings. Off-Leash Dog Areas Three off-leash areas are provided for park users to exercise and socialize dogs. All three sites, Mitchell Park, Hoover Park and Greer Park, are separated and fenced (per City policy) to keep off-leash dogs away from other users and areas of the parks. Community Gardens The City also provides four community gardens, two in parks (at Johnson Park and Eleanor Pardee Park), one adjacent to the Rinconada Library, and one adjacent to the Ventura Community Center. These facilities are separated into plots and assigned (based on an application and permitting process) to individuals for gardening edible and decorative plants. Swimming Pool The Rinconada Pool, located in the park of the same name, is the City’s only public pool facility. This outdoor facility includes a wading pool with spray and waterfall features, a small slide and a zero-depth “beach” area. A second pool features fourteen lanes and two diving boards. These facilities offer recreational swimming, lessons and private pool parties through the spring, summer and late summer and lap swimming year-round. TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITY INVENTORY 18 Community Centers, Special Purpose Buildings and Other Indoor Facilities Palo Alto maintains both general and specialized indoor recreation facilities. The two largest facilities are the Cubberley Communi- ty Center and the Lucie Stern Community Center, which offer a wide variety of programs. However, neither was designed or built primarily as a recreation facility or to provide the mix of programs they currently offer. The majority of the Cubberley site is owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District, with the balance owned by the City. This site is home to a wide range of programs, largely run by partner organizations. This facility is also home to the only gym- nasiums scheduled by the City. The future of this site and a future redevelopment of the facilities there for school and community use, is the subject of ongoing collaboration between the City and the School District. The Lucie Stern Center is a historic building, which opened in 1934 and shares a campus with the Junior Museum and Zoo, as well as the Children’s Theatre and is adjacent to Rinconada Park. The formal ballroom and community rooms are ideal for events and meetings of varying sizes and are used for a wide range of indoor recreation activities, such as regularly scheduled fitness and wellness classes. This building is also home to the administration of Community Services and the Recreation Services division. The brand new Mitchell Park Community Center, adjacent to the new Mitchell Park Library, is designed for flexibility with some spe- cialized spaces. The building includes a teen center that faces the park (and the middle school beyond it) and has several large spaces that can be configured into multiple class or meeting rooms. An outdoor courtyard and the large El Palo Alto room host numerous personal, business and community events. Other buildings and major facilities are more specialized, focusing on a narrower range of functions and representing a significant community investment in one area. This includes the Palo Alto Arts Center, which hosts the visual arts programming provided by the City, as well as visitor centers and other interpretive facilities at 1918 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS Palo Alto’s natural open space preserves. Recreation Programs The programming of recreation activities, ranging from sports and fitness to specialized classes, is the most flexible and dynamic element of the system. Many programs can be held in the most basic of meeting rooms or outdoor spaces, making programming the best way to utilize and activate existing facilities and spaces. Palo Alto benefits from a mix of public, non-profit and private recreation program providers, each working in specific segments of the recreation marketplace. In many cases, programming is provided by private providers (often small businesses) within a City of Palo Alto facility, or a City program may be held in a partner facility such as a School District gym. These partnerships create new opportunities to reach new participants and promote Palo Alto as a place to learn, exercise and have fun. PALO ALTO RECREATION PROGRAM AREAS • Adult Aquatics • Adult Fitness • Adult Special Interest Classes • Adult Sports • Day Camps • Middle School Athletics • Open Space/Outdoor Recreation • Youth and Teen Aquatics • Youth and Teen Sports • Youth and Teen Special Interest Classes • Youth and Teen Sports Camps • Special Events • Therapeutic Recreation • Senior Programs 20 Recreation Services The Recreation Division of the Community Services Department of- fers more than 1,300 classes, teams or camps across the fourteen program areas. These programs served over 13,000 participants in 2014-15. Over half of this number were youth-and teen-fo- cused swimming programs and day camps. The Recreation Division categorizes its recreation programs into fourteen areas, by age and topic. Sports programs, particularly middle school athletics and adult sports, are operating over capacity, with full teams and waitlists for most offerings. These programs are not easily expanded, as they rely on limited gym and field space. Middle school athletics are further constrained by a lack of coaches. Other Providers The City of Palo Alto also offers programming through other divi- sions of Community Services, including the Art Center, Children’s Theatre and Junior Museum and Zoo, and separate entities, includ- ing the Palo Alto Library. Programs offered by these other divisions serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of Day Camps Youth & Teen Sports Camps Adult Fitness Open Space/Outdoor Recreation Adult Special Interest Classes Middle School Athletics Youth & Teen Sports Youth &Teen Aquatics Adult Sports Youth & Teen Special Interest Classes Community Gardens FIGURE 3: PROGRAM AREAS BY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 2120 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. In addition to the City, the other major providers of recreation pro- gramming in Palo Alto include the Palo Alto Unified School District as well as many private businesses and non-profit organizations who operate in partnership with the City: •Avenidas •Abilities United •Ballet and Dance Studios •Golf Pro Shop •Community Sports Organizations (Little League, Soccer Club, Lacrosse, Swim Club, etc.) •Master Gardeners and Garden Shops •Martial Arts Studios •Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC) •Palo Alto Family YMCA •Private Childcare Providers •Private Gyms and Fitness Centers •Stanford University •University Club of Palo Alto •Women’s Club of Palo Alto CHAPTER3 ANALYSIS & ASSESSMENT THE MASTER PLAN WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE, DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY-FOCUSED PROCESS AND INCLUDES AN ARRAY OF ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH STRATEGIES. The results of the process provide a detailed understanding of Palo Alto’s current system of parks, trails, natural open space, recreation facilities and recreation programs and services. In addition, the process identifies current and future needs of the community it serves and opportunities for system enhancement. 24 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT RESIDENTS WANT A HIGH-QUALITY, RESILIENT PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM THAT EMBRACES AND PROTECTS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, ADAPTS TO CHANGING NEEDS AND SERVES A GROWING VARIETY OF INTERESTS. 2524 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT The identified needs and possible opportunities to enhance the parks and recreation system is based on three types of data and analyses: 1) Demographic and Recreation Trends - Quantitative forecasts of previously published data on growth trends in areas such as overall population and growth of key demographic segments. 2) System Analysis - Park, facility and program inventory data including the quantity and location of parks; field, pool and other facility usage program registration; and other similar inventory data. 3) Community Engagement Results - Qualitative data compiled from the input of citizens and stakeholders through a multitude of outreach tools. Ultimately these data sources resulted in the “findings” summarized in this chapter. The findings address the most notable population-based shifts supported by population and demographic growth forecasts that the City will need to accommodate and respond to in the next ten to twenty years. Conclusions drawn from the system analysis identified needs currently not being met or that will not be met in future years and are considered gaps in the system, or “needs” for the City. Community preferences identified in the community engagement and outreach phase identified areas that the City can evaluate and implement to address citizens’ “votes” in various forums provided during this study. These are community “wants” versus demonstrated gaps or needs. The following sections describe the analysis completed and key findings from the process. More detailed versions of the reports and work products summarized here can be found in the Technical Supplement on the City website. Demographic and Recreation Trends The project team evaluated the existing demographic profile of Palo Alto, including population, household characteristics and transportation behavior, to identify patterns and trends that influence recreation needs and preferences. In addition, this analysis evaluated regional and national trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family and urban form for their potential to affect the direction of the Master Plan. 26 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT KEY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND TRENDS Population Over the past five years, Palo Alto has grown faster than projected, with an average annual growth rate of 1.3%. The population of Palo Alto in 2015, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau, was 66,853. Additionally, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update (Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016) contemplates housing scenarios that would exceed current total population projections, indicating potential for an even greater rate of growth over the life of this Master Plan. Meeting the demands of Palo Alto’s growing population without compromising the level of service will require significant investment in park and recreation facilities, maintenance and programming. Roughly 60,000 commuters come to Palo Alto to work, along with thousands of Stanford students, resulting in a daytime population well in excess of the City’s resident population. Efforts to better understand the park and recreation use patterns of this sizable group should inform strategic planning around facilities, maintenance and programming. Housing and Income Over half (57.5%) of Palo Alto residents live in single-family detached homes, while over one third (37.9%) live in multifamily units. As Palo Alto expands its housing stock, the City anticipates that the vast majority of new housing will be multi-family units (Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR, 2016). This shift to a housing type that lacks the private open space typical of a single family home will create an increasing need for publicly accessible outdoor space and recreation opportunities. Median household income in Palo Alto grew by 73% between 1990 and 2012, to $118,936 per household. However, housing costs have also increased dramatically. The median home sales price in Palo Alto in 2013 was more than two and a half times that of the county median price, and rental prices in 2014 were more than double county-wide fair market rental prices (Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR, 2016). Palo Alto’s high median income conceals the economic challenges faced by many residents spending an increasing amount on housing. Recreation is a crucial quality of life asset, and people with less disposable income rely more heavily on public recreation facilities. Planning for parks and recreation should reflect the unique local economic conditions in Palo Alto and not rely heavily on statewide or regional data to determine income- based trends or demand. Low Projection (City of Palo Alto Scenario 1) High Projection (Association of Bay Area Governments) Population 2014 66,800 66,800 Population 2030 72,285 77,100 Percent Change 8%15% TABLE 3: CITY OF PALO ALTO PROJECTED POPULATION Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR 2726 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Transportation The city has a significant share of commuters who travel by bike (11%) and has seen a sizable increase in student ridership, with approximately 40% of high school students and many elementary and middle school students bicycling to school. Palo Alto can support and expand this popular mode choice by providing safe routes to parks and recreation facilities. In addition to providing safe bike routes, users should be encouraged to use alternative modes of transportation, such as the Palo Alto free shuttle, to parks and recreation faclities. Demographic Groups National and regional recreation trends emphasize an outdoor lifestyle, physical and mental health, diverse options for older adults at multiple stages of life, universal design and access for people of all abilities and a movement to connect children with nature. These trends point to several specific segments within the population that require special consideration in this plan. While the average age of residents is increasing, the city has a sizable population of children under 18 years of age. Seniors and children represent the largest growth segments in Palo Alto since 1980 and stand at 17% and 23%, respectively, of the City’s total population. These age groups are, anecdotally, high users of parks and recreation facilities and services in Palo Alto and are the most likely to access facilities by walking or biking. Youth and Teens Palo Alto’s under 18 population has grown steadily over the past 25 years, representing the City’s fastest growing age segment (totaling 15,019 in 2010). However, PAUSD projects a downward trend in school enrollment beginning in year 2020. Currently, PAUSD assumptions about future new housing types and volume differ from those used in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update analysis, leading to inconsistent projections regarding the future size of Palo Alto’s school-aged population. Once the updated Comprehensive Plan is completed it will be important to coordinate assumptions about housing growth and student generation rates in order to plan appropriately to serve this large segment of the population. Efforts have grown in recent years to build stronger community connections for area teens. Innovative programs such as Maker Space and Think Fund teen grants (previously Bryant Street Garage Fund) are gaining popularity. Additional programs such as The Drop TABLE 4: CITY OF PALO ALTO KEY AGE GROUPS Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey Age Percent Persons under 5 years 5.1% Persons under 18 years 23.3% Persons 65 years and over 16.9% 28 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT teen center and LEAP (Learning Enrichment After School Program) are also well attended. Additional teen programs are needed to better tailor offerings to attract broader teen participation consistent with the goals of Project Safety Net. Seniors The senior population is large and rapidly increasing. One-half of all Palo Alto residents are expected to be age 55 or above by 2030. In 2000, it was projected that the senior population for Palo Alto and surrounding cities will double between 2000 and 2020 and will continue to grow until 2040 (Source: Avenidas), as illustrated in Figure 4. As more seniors choose to “age in place,” programming and services must evolve to address new demands. Special Needs Though the majority of Palo Alto residents with disabilities are 65 or older (2,842 people), our community is also home to an unusually high number of special needs students (1,100 students in PAUSD as of September 2014). These two growing population segments call for expanded inclusion efforts related to facilities, services and programming. Ethnicity and Culture Figure 5 illustrates U.S. Census data showing Palo Alto’s cultural and ethnic diversity is steadily expanding. In the past decade, the City’s Asian population alone grew by 10 percentage points. Of all FIGURE 4: PROJECTED GROWTH IN PALO ALTO’S SENIOR POPULATION Source: Avenidas PROJECT SAFETY NET “Project Safety Net is a collaborative community network held together by a common interest of fostering youth well- being in Palo Alto. Our mission is to develop and implement a community-based mental health plan that includes education, prevention and intervention strategies that together provide a “safety net” for youth in Palo Alto, and defines our community’s teen suicide prevention efforts.” 2928 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Palo Altans, 31% are foreign-born and 38% speak a language other than English at home. PAUSD data reveals that the City’s minority population is young, with a higher rate of Hispanic/Latinos and Asians in the school system (11% Hispanic/Latino and 39% Asian) than in the general population of Palo Alto. Sensitivity and attention to the needs of this growing and significant segment of the population will require expanded outreach, partnership with PAUSD and targeted efforts at inclusion. System Analysis The analysis of the system began with a site visit to each park, facility and preserve to document and evaluate existing conditions to develop an accurate and in-depth foundation of baseline information. The observations recorded during these visits are compiled within a set of existing conditions maps. These maps include the history, a summary of features and a description of opportunities and constraints for each site. Each map also incorporates site-specific public input gathered through the community engagement process. For the full set of existing conditions maps, see the Technical Supplement on the City website. Geographic Analysis A geographic analysis of the parks, trails and natural open space system evaluated walkability and accessibility. A Geographic FIGURE 5: PALO ALTO RACE AND ETHNICITY 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% White Black or African American American Indian and AlaskaNative Asian Native Hawaiian/ Other PacificIslander Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino 2000 2010 2014 30 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets, sidewalks, trails and pathways was constructed using ESRI Network Analyst software to identify “walksheds” or catchment areas for each park, reflecting the way people move through the city. The analysis used ¼ and ½ mile travel distances, reflecting research on the distance a typical person can walk in five and ten minutes, respectively. This analysis refined the understanding of the ½ mile distance often cited as walking distance and aligned with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The project team also factored in physical barriers that impede access, incorporating feedback from the public engagement process about specific streets and intersections people report as being difficult to cross. Figure 6, on page 32, shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all parks in Palo Alto. Many communities also analyze park systems using a function- based parks classification scheme (neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve multiple and often overlapping functions. Community feedback indicated that people in Palo Alto are looking for the park system to deliver five categories of activities on a widely accessible basis, regardless of how the park is classified functionally. The analysis assessed the community’s access to each of these activities by defining criteria for each category and applying the criteria to the geographic analysis model. The five categories of activity and their analysis criteria are summarized below. • Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans place a high value on parks that provide a quiet and calm place to relax and enjoy the outdoors. While most Palo Alto parks support this activity, some parks experience noise from highway/ road traffic or from heavy sports use. Comments made by the public on the online interactive map (and confirmed by site visits) also identified parks without quiet areas. • Play for Children. Children and youth were regularly cited as one of the most important audiences for the park system. Parks containing a playground, play area or unique play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) best support this audience. • Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses kicking, hitting and throwing balls and other objects such as Frisbees, 3130 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT including both self-directed and league-based play. Parks containing open turf areas, sports fields, or courts best support this activity. • Exercise and Fitness. Health and wellness have been shown to be important to Palo Alto residents in this and other planning processes. Parks with perimeter or looped paths support both walking and running, which are the top recreation activities both in Palo Alto and in the country. Palo Alto’s Rinconada Pool also provides an exercise option for swimmers. • Gathering. The Palo Alto park system is an important provider of space for family, friends and the larger community to gather for picnics, social events and group activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters and features such as amphitheaters facilitate this activity. GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES The spatial analysis revealed the following: • Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within a ¼ to ½ mile. Gaps exist north of the Oregon Expressway near Highway 101 and along Sand Hill Road near commercial and institutional land uses. Adding additional parks or park-like lands can improve park accessibility for residents in these areas. Fewer neighborhoods have activity access to all five identified activities within a ½ mile. • Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are more common south of the Oregon Expressway. The addition of exercise opportunities to north Palo Alto parks should be considered. • Dog parks are all located south of the Oregon Expressway. Since dog owners prefer to use dog parks near their residences, adding dog parks to north Palo Alto parks will improve residents’ dog exercise opportunities. • Community gardens are currently located entirely north of Oregon Expressway The addition of community gardens in south Palo Alto can improve garden access for those residents. 32 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k B arron Creek Adobe Creek Stan f o r d M o unt a i nView M enlo P a r k L o s Al t o s Lo s A l to s Hill s E a stPalo A lto A t her t on S a n M a t eo Co unt y Po rtol aValley S an F r a n cis co Ba y S t a n f o rd S a n ta C l a r a Co unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal Emb a r c a rd e r o Rd Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle s t o n Rd El Camino Real San d Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Walksheds 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) FIGURE 6: PARK WALKSHEDS MAP 3332 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford Mo untai nView Menlo Park Los A l to s Los Altos Hills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley Sa n F ra nc i sc o B a y Stanford Santa C l a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Walksheds 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) 34 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Palo Alto does not have a public gym, and the City’s only public pool is located north of Oregon Expressway. The addition of a public pool or improving access to other public or private pools should be explored to provide more access during peak times. Additional geographic analysis evaluated access to experiences, natural open space and recreation facilities that were identified as highly desired by the community during the intercept surveys. These include: • The experience and preservation of nature; • Improved ease of access to natural open space preserves (e.g., bike routes and shuttles); • Community gardening; • Recreation with dogs; and • Gymnasiums and swimming pools. Recreation Program Analysis To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to meet demand, the data on reservations, minimum participation, program registrations and waitlists was analyzed along with observations collected from staff and consultants. A crucial performance indicator in recreation programming is enrollment at or above minimum participation, which is the minimum number of participants needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each class. These goals are set according to the City’s cost recovery policy and the individual class budget. This, along with classes indicated as full or with waitlists, provided insight into the capacity and demand for categories and specific types of programs. RECREATION PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES • The highest participation in City programs is in sports (adult and youth), aquatics (youth and teen) and day camps. Continued demand for these program areas is anticipated, and program offerings should respond to this demand. • The current policy of “everyone plays” is widely supported for middle school athletics. Since limited gym and field space makes it difficult to expand these programs, the City and PAUSD should consider additional facilities or improved scheduling to maximize student involvement 3534 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT in these popular programs. Furthermore, a shortage of instructors and coaches exacerbates the difficulty of expanding these programs. Recruitment, training and increased pay should be considered to improve the supply of qualified instructors and coaches. • Demand for some classes and programs varies greatly by time of day. The program scheduling should attempt to provide additional classes during the most popular times. • A limited number of gymnasiums available to the public and the lack of a City-owned gym complicate the expansion of most sports programs. Increasing sports facilities, sharing of facilities and adjusting facility scheduling should be investigated. • Academic support programs offered to youth and teens are typically operating under capacity. Improved marketing and updated offerings should be considered to increase the popularity of these programs, or resources should be shifted to other types of teen programming. • Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Children’s Theatre serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. Adjusting the scheduling of current facilities and developing access to other facilities (such as PAUSD) may increase the number of people that can be served by these popular programs. Community Engagement Results A variety of community engagement efforts, conducted at several stages in the process, collected input from hundreds of residents and stakeholders. The input of community members and stakeholders guided decisions about where to focus assessment efforts. Resident and stakeholder input highlighted the need to look at walkability and park access, as well as access to highly desired experiences, such as play for children. In addition, the analysis examined equitable distribution and need for specific facilities, such as restrooms, dog parks and community gardens, as a result of the 36 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT community interest in these features. Community feedback largely confirms conclusions drawn from the demographic trends analysis. The following section describes the key topics and themes that emerged from the Master Plan community engagement process. KEY COMMUNITY TOPICS AND THEMES The following topics and themes were referenced multiple times by the community, City staff, partners and decision makers. The key themes were critical in shaping the overall analysis of the system and provided direction for the development of the Master Plan principles, goals, policies and recommended actions. • Respondents value, support and appreciate their park system. They recognize that it is a high-quality system. • Respondents believe that strategic enhancements and improvements are needed to better meet evolving needs and trends, adapt to growth and changing demographics and continue to provide world-class experiences to residents. • Limited land availability and high cost is seen as the major limiting factor to pursuing new park opportunities. • Providing accessible and safe active transportation (walking, biking, etc.) routes to natural open space, community centers and parks is a high priority. • Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical function of parks for Palo Altans. Loop trails, bicycle and pedestrian paths to parks and places to relax are top priorities, along with exercise equipment or additional classes. • Protection of nature is very important to residents. There is widespread support for the continued protection, enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife habitat. • Residents want to feel connected to nature in their urban parks. There is interest in adding nature play elements and wildlife habitats to more traditional park settings. • There is widespread interest in bringing community gardens, dog parks and aquatic facilities to new areas of the city to improve access to these amenities for all neighborhoods. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEMES • Walkability and Access to Parks and Preserves • Activity Access: ºPlay for Children ºExercise and Fitness ºThrow a Ball ºGathering ºRelax and Enjoy the Outdoors • Experience Nature • Preservation of Nature • Trail Connections • Availability of Restrooms • Site Amenities and Experience • Universal Accessibility 3736 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Residents strongly support improved and additional restrooms in parks. In addition, there is a clear preference for features and amenities that support comfort, convenience and longer stays at parks, including water fountains and places to sit. • The Palo Alto community strongly supports universal design and access, and there is interest in adding inclusive play elements to more parks. • Current policies that prioritize the availability of facilities for Palo Alto residents are widely supported and stakeholders generally agree that providing services to local residents is a higher priority than providing regional attractions. • Residents would like to see enhancements to parks throughout the City, including more types of play experiences and environments. There is also support for smaller, more locally focused events and programs (e.g., movies in the park) that are held in different parks throughout the City. • The community strongly supports the kinds of local and regional partnerships (particularly with the School District) that expand recreation opportunities and services for youth, teens and residents of all ages and abilities. Needs and Opportunities Summary Review of the data from the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tied these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for Developing and Prioritizing Projects. As described in Chapter 1, this process produced a detailed reference matrix (with supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities across the system. The Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix included in the technical supplement synthesizes findings from both the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tracks across nine topics: • Current service/inventory • Level of control 38 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Geographic analysis • Capacity/bookings • Perception of quality • Expressed need • Demographic trends • Barriers to participation • Projected demand The final step of the process was to summarize opportunities to enhance Palo Alto’s system through the addition, distribution or modification of a particular element and component. These actions were prioritized to develop the Master Plan’s final recommendations, based on the constraints posed by limited land, staff, funding and other resources in the community. Key Findings The review of the matrix identified groupings of opportunities that had emerged from the many analysis and community input activities. The opportunities were crafted into a set of twelve Areas of Focus, which represent a major development step toward goals for the master plan. The Areas of Focus are: • Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city • Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities • Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities • Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community • Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields • Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks • Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming • Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs 3938 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT • Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks • Improving spaces and increasing options for off-leash dogs • Expanding the system • Offering more of the existing programs, classes and events The community prioritization challenge, a combination of online survey and in-person workshop, reviewed the community’s opinions of these areas. Participants were asked to allocate a $10 budget across each of the areas of focus, with the amounts allocated indicating the priority they place on a particular area. The analysis of the results reflects the strong interest heard throughout the process for community center space improvements, integrating nature more thoroughly in the park system and making parks more welcoming. A relatively smaller number of participants placed a very high priority (and resulting larger budget allocation) on improving options for off-leash dogs. These results of the community prioritization challenge provided additional insight into the community’s opinions about the future of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation. The full summary is available in the technical supplement. Figure 7 shows a sample survey question result. Full results are available in the technical supplement. FIGURE 7: PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE RESULTS 40 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Opportunities for the System Three concept maps (Figures 8-10) illustrate opportunities to further create a multi-layered system of parklands and connections that serves both people and natural systems. The maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and projects. EXPAND THE SYSTEM Figure 8 identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A through E for planning purposes, will help the City focus future park additions in neighborhoods with the greatest need: for example, those with the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, public access to school grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple) should be maintained and expanded to better support neighborhood park uses and enhance their natural open space value. Other City- owned properties (noted in brown) may represent future park opportunities, but nearly all of these lands fall outside of the park search areas. CONNECT THE SYSTEM A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park and recreation access. Figure 9 illustrates this potential network of trails and enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks, recreation facilities and natural open spaces. These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring communities. Regional and countywide trails like the Adobe Creek Connector and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Nature Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete the network by linking the remaining park sites. 4140 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT CONNECT NATURAL SYSTEMS Figure 10 illustrates how the same corridors recommended for bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings and stormwater bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan. UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY SITES In the overall context of limited land, three properties in Palo Alto represent unique opportunities, as they are already owned by the City and are not yet designated for a specific use. These three sites each have unique opportunities for park development, but also constraints. The status of each is summarized below: • Cubberley Community Center: The City owns 8 of the 35 acres of this former high school campus and has managed leases within the buildings with a number of community organizations and businesses while also scheduling the gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified School District have agreed to jointly master plan the redevelopment of the site by 2020. • Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated it as an expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the developed portion of the park by the existing maintenance facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the results of the Buckeye Creek hydrology study, which will be completed in summer 2017. • Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.5 acres of land was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site for future recreation opportunities. Considerations for developing this site include its relative isolation from residences (and access through a complicated and heavily impacted roadway exchange), its proximity to adjacent park sites, site limitations due to wetlands and its location below the mean projected high water line after 3 feet of sea level rise, which could influence the type of recreation opportunities at the site. 42 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT e S a n Francisquito Creek Matad e r o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School FIGURE 8: PARK SEARCH AREAS MAP 4342 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School 44 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Palo Alto Airport Date: July 2017Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional and Countywide Trails (Adobe Creek Connector, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e S a n F rancisquito Creek Matader o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e FIGURE 9: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES MAP 4544 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Palo Alto Airport Date: July 2017Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional and Countywide Trails (Adobe Creek Connector, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charle s t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e 46 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e S a n F rancisquito Creek Matader o C r e e k Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e FIGURE 10: NATURAL SYSTEMS MAP 4746 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT Pollinator Pathways Community Gardens Wetland Habitat Riparian Connected Parks Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA) Creeks and Channels Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) Natural System Features City Park City Natural Open Spaces Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Water Bodies Urban Canopy Target Areas Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve: Western burrowing owlCalifornia seabliteNorthern coastal salt marsh Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek: SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtleShowy rancheria clover Valley oak woodland Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:Western pond turtle Serpentine bunchgrass Indian Valley bush-mallow Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park: Western Leatherwood Valley oak woodland Regional Habitat Connection Concept e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford Mountain View Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcard e r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charles t o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d San t a C r u z A v e CHAPTER 4 THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE PALO ALTO COMMUNITY HAS DEFINED A FUTURE FOR PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process result in principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system. The principles and goals will be realized through the recommended programs described in this chapter. The recommendations were developed through an assessment of community input and an analysis of needs and opportunities. These recommendations reflect both changing needs and evolving demands for parks, trails, natural open space and recreation. They are organized within the framework of the eight principles and six goals, with policies and programs following each goal. OUR FUTURE: PRINCIPLES, GOALS,POLICIES, PROGRAMS & PROJECTS 50 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS A MULTI-LAYERED SYSTEM OF PARKLANDS AND CONNECTIONS THAT SERVE BOTH PEOPLE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS. 5150 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Principles Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles: • Playful: Inspires imagination and joy. • Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community. • Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long term. • Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community: all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income. • Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year- round and to get to by all modes of travel. • Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses. • Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place and includes both historic elements and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces and self-directed and programmed activities. • Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature. Together, these principles provide the foundation for the Master Plan. Master Plan Goals The input from the community, including all twelve areas of focus, form the long-term direction for the City’s park and recreation system. The following six goals state the outcomes and provide an organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that form the recommendations of this plan: 1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. 52 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. 3. Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. 4. Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. 5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. 6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Recommended Programs The goals, policies and programs are intended to be a guide for decision making. Choices will need to be made annually through the City budget process, recognizing that the City has limited resources, multiple priorities and competing resource needs. The goals, polices and programs that follow represent a path to a preferred future. It is aspirational, while also tangible, providing a specific menu of potential investment and resource allocation opportunities for the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Chapter 5 provides tools and recommendations on how the community and City can effectively evaluate options and make sound and reliable choices to improve the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Each goal is numbered, and under each goal a list of related policies is provided. The policies are numbered according to goal and ordered by letter for easy reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 2.A, 2.B, etc.). Most policies are followed by a list of programs, which have complementary numbering (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.A.1, etc.). The numbering is for reference only. Prioritization is covered in Chapter 5. 5352 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. Policy 1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that: • Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth, teens and seniors; and • Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations that are well distributed throughout the City. PROGRAMS 1.A.1 Periodically evaluate the use and effectiveness of the Fee Reduction Program for low-income and disabled residents. 1.A.2 Develop free or low-cost teen programs that develop life skills and developmental assets, such as leadership, community service and health. 1.A.3 Develop a teen advisory committee to provide feedback on newly proposed parks, recreation and open space projects and programs. 1.A.4 Partner with local recreation providers to relocate existing programs or offer new programs in Palo Alto parks. 1.A.5 Recruit or develop programs for additional and alternative sports that can take place in existing parks and make use of existing outdoor recreation facilities. Examples include cross country running, track and field, rugby and pickleball. 1.A.6 Expand offerings of preserves’ interpretive facilities to area schools through curriculum packages (backpacks, crates, etc.) that can be brought into the field or the classroom. 1.A.7 Evaluate the geographic distribution of program offerings and make adjustments to equally offer programs throughout the City. e San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcardero R d Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Alm a S t Charlesto n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features Park Search Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Search Areas Priority School Sites A Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density Park Search Area D: Highest population Park Search Area E: Highest population density A B C D E AddisonElementary School AddisonElementary School DuveneckElementary School DuveneckElementary School El Carmelo Elementary School El Carmelo Elementary School Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary Jordan Middle School Jordan Middle School Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School Map showing geographic distribution of program offerings 54 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard as a guide (see sidebar) for park development in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with population, be well distributed across the community and be of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of neighborhoods and the broader community. Maximum service area should be 1/2 mile. PROGRAMS 1.B.1 Develop design standards for privately owned public open spaces that clearly set the expectation for public access, recreation activities and natural elements. . 1.B.2 Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential, prioritizing review of land within park search areas. (See Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map). 1.B.3 Review all City-owned land and easements (starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development or connection locations. (See Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map and Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map). 1.B.4 Examine City-owned rights-of-way (for example, streets, which make up the biggest portion of publicly owned land) to identify temporary or permanent areas for improvements that connect or add recreation activity space. (Examples: California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail, parklets). 1.B.5 Identify and approach community organizations and institutions that own land in park search areas to create long-term agreements and improvements for public park space. (Examples: Friendship Sportsplex in Charlotte, N.C., New Riverside Park in Boston.) 1.B.6 Create usable park space, or other recreational opportunities, on top of utilities, parking or other infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage.) Privately-Owned Public Open Spaces are built and managed by private entities and are required to allow public access. PARKLAND STANDARDS The Palo Alto Comprehensive plan references (Policy C-28) National Recreation and Park Association standards: • Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people; and • Two acres of district parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people. 5554 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 1.B.7 Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition to expand existing parks. 1.B.8 Increase collections through revised or alternative park impact fee structures that are sufficient to expand inventory. Develop a system to reserve funds for parkland acquisition and proactively pursue strategic opportunities for expansion. 1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park search area, starting with the most underserved areas and targeting a central and well-connected location to maximize access. 1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links parks and creates open space and a habitat corridor. 1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor spaces for park and recreational programming. 1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses, where appropriate (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island). Policy 1.C Ensure the maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest public park or preserve is 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile preferred, that is evaluated using a walkshed methodology based on how people travel. PROGRAMS 1.C.1 Maintain the City’s digital map developed during this Master Plan process, updating for new activities and access points. 1.C.2 Establish a review step in the Planning and Community Environment Department for any major redevelopment or the purchase/sale of any City land in the park search areas. Palo Alto Airport Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Enhanced Bikeway Features Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail) Recommended Park Connectors 1 Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property Trails Trails Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access) Private Recreation ?»E %&j( ?»E IÆ IÆ °0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet 2 2 1 1 3 3 e San Francisquito Creek Matade ro Cr eek Barron C r e e k Adob e C r e e k Stanford MountainView Menlo Park Los Altos Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San Francisco Bay Stanford Santa Clara County Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Pag e M i l l R d Oreg o n E x p y El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcarde r o R d Mi d d l e fi e l d R d Al m a S t Aras t r a d e r o R d Al m a S t Charlest o n R d El C a m i n o R e a l Sand H i l l R d Sant a C r u z A v e Inventory of well-distributed parkland 56 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.D Adopt standard wayfinding signage for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes. PROGRAMS 1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program that conveys the park system identity, incorporates art, connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience of park visitors. 1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking time to the next nearest park or parks. Policy 1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. PROGRAMS 1.E.1 Create a process to address adaptive program requests for individuals with cognitive, sensory and physical disabilities (to be coordinated with upcoming ADA Transition Plan). 1.E.2 Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility and/or upgrade play areas and picnic facilities to meet or exceed the standard. 1.E.3 Upgrade open space trails to be more universally accessible where environmentally appropriate. Policy 1.F Maintain a Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto residents. PROGRAMS 1.F.1 Periodically review the existing Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy and Gymnasium Policy and update as needed. 1.F.2 Develop an annual field usage statistics report, including Magical Bridge Playground: Universally accessible children’s park facilities 5756 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS the number of prime timeslots that were unused due to field condition/resting and the number of requests for field space that were unfilled due to lack of capacity. Policy 1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. PROGRAMS 1.G.1 Select parks as destinations along routes for “Ciclovia” or “Sunday Streets” type events where streets are closed to traffic and opened up for citizens of all ages to interact with each other through exercise, entertainment and fun. 1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers. 1.G.3 Provide, identify and mark “Safe Routes to Parks” from locations such as schools, shopping centers, libraries, after-school programs, community centers and residential neighborhoods. 1.G.4 Educate residents about the city’s Bike Boulevards – streets prioritized for bicycles – to promote greater use, and plan new Bike Boulevard projects that connect parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. 1.G.5 Identify gaps in the walking and cycling network to improve access to parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers, including sidewalk repairs, easements, trail improvements/repair and improved pedestrian visibility. 1.G.6 Collaborate with school communities to enhance routes to schools, especially where they pass through parks. 1.G.7 Develop a regular bicycle and walking tour of Palo Alto parks and preserves as a new recreation program. Develop online materials for self-guided tours. 1.G.8 Improve trail connections to neighboring communities (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Stanford University, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, etc.) 58 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 1.H Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and programs to encourage and enhance citizen participation. PROGRAMS 1.H.1 Conduct a survey at least every two years of cultural groups to identify gaps, barriers to access, preferred design and awareness in recreation programming. 1.H.2 Provide multi-cultural and multi-lingual recreation programs, signage and educational information. 1.H.3 Encourage and provide opportunities for civic engagement by directly connecting with cultural groups. Policy 1.I Increase stewardship and volunteerism by creating and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks, recreation, open space events, projects and programs. PROGRAMS 1.I.1 Create a robust volunteer recruitment and management program. 1.I.2 Continue to offer volunteer habitat and landscape improvement projects and support partnership organizations that offer volunteer programs in Parks and Open Space areas. Volunteers assisting with maintenance of a natural area 5958 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. Policy 2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and recreation facilities. PROGRAMS 2.A.1 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to develop and implement a vision and master plan for the future of the Cubberley Community Center. 2.A.2 Continue to program and prioritize projects for existing facilities as identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission report, and plan the upkeep of new facilities as they come on line, recognizing their expected lifespan and revising based on real-world experience. 2.A.3 Research best practices to design park and recreational facilities that can be maintained with existing or lower budgets. 2.A.4 Encourage residents to organize and participate in park maintenance and cleanup events to foster a sense of ownership, establish social connections and reduce maintenance costs. 2.A.5 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program to maintain existing park and recreation infrastructure. 2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and expand park use to dusk while minimizing impacts to wildlife. 2.A.7 Find ways to mitigate conflicts between different trail user groups, particularly in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Bol Park where mulitple types of users share pathways. 60 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park and recreation facilities and programs. PROGRAMS 2.B.1 Incorporate artists and art into youth recreation programming, particularly day camps, utilizing the expertise of the Arts and Sciences Division. 2.B.2 Create outdoor studios and program spaces for creating art in parks (coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan). 2.B.3 Encourage the community to participate in more expressive projects led by the department, such as community mural projects in facilities, pop-up open mics or chalk art programs in parks. 2.B.4 Continue to provide “maker” space to Palo Alto teens to encourage creative thinking and expression. Policy 2.C Design and maintain high-quality natural and synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks by multiple local organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. PROGRAMS 2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field condition and maintenance assessment of the City’s natural turf fields, and upgrade fields at select parks to high-quality natural turf standards including irrigation system upgrades, drainage improvements, etc. The field assessment report should include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage, field-use demand and maintenance. 2.C.2 Actively monitor and track industry developments and the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic turf to understand the environmental and human safety impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields. 2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or natural turf) that should be used when replacing an existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement. Natural and sythetic turf fields 6160 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 2.C.4 Stripe synthetic turf fields for multiple sports to maximize use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the field. 2.C.5 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to develop and implement a design and maintenance plan for high-quality natural and synthetic turf fields. Policy 2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the dog parks will vary but should strive to be at least 1/4 acres. Dog parks should not be placed in open space preserves. PROGRAMS 2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six* dedicated, fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential locations: • Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres) • Bowden Park (North, .37 Acres) • Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres) • Peers Park (North, .73 Acres) • Hoover Park (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre) • Robles Park (South, .47 Acres) • Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres) • Kingsley Island Park (North, .27 Acres) • Werry Park (North, .31 Acres) • Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres) • Heritage Park (North, .27 Acres) 2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks focusing on safety and limits of use. *It is acknowledged that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are inadequate in terms of size, and they should not be counted in their current configuration toward the minimum of six dog parks recommended in this program. Dedicated dog park spaces 62 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in parks that are approximately 2 acres or larger, have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park, have a high level of use and have no nearby restrooms. PROGRAMS 2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks. 2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the following potential locations: • Bol Park • Bowden Park • Eleanor Pardee Park • Johnson Park • Ramos Park • Robles Park • Terman Park Policy 2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing on underrepresented areas of the City and provide community engagement opportunities around gardens. Policy 2.G At least every five years, quantitatively evaluate demand and capacity of major recreation facilities including pools, gyms, tennis courts and teen centers with appropriate attention to geographical distribution in the city. Adjust plans as appropriate to accommodate significant demographic or demand changes. Community gardens 6362 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. Policy 3.A Implement the Healthy City/Healthy Community resolution with the community’s involvement. PROGRAMS 3.A.1 Convene and lead a Healthy City/Healthy Community stakeholder work group consisting of other agencies, nonprofit organizations and citizens that supports building a healthy community. 3.A.2 Develop an annual plan that supports implementation of the resolution. 3.A.3 Achieve designation as an Age-Friendly Community. 3.A.4 Add drop-in programs (free or BOOST!) focused on physical and mental health in settings that are near home/work and maximize the health benefits of being outside and surrounded by nature. 3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create loop options of varying length that encourage walking and jogging. 3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces or to create opportunities for social interaction. 3.A.7 Promote and enforce the ban on smoking in Palo Alto’s parks through a marketing campaign and signage program. 3.A.8 Upgrade or add drinking fountains with water bottle filling and water for dogs. 3.A.9 Develop adult fitness areas in parks including exercise areas for the exclusive use of older adults (seniors). Policy 3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Public Art Master Plan). HEALTHY CITY / HEALTHY COMMUNITY In 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution recognizing its role and responsibility to promote and support a Healthy City/ Healthy Community. Four areas of action are identified in this resolution: • Healthy Culture • Healthy Environment • Healthy Food Access • Healthy Workplace Bicycling and walking path promoting outdoor fitness 64 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS PROGRAMS 3.B.1 Promote temporary public art installations in local parks. 3.B.2 Promote interactive public art features that also serve as play features (i.e. climbable sculptural elements integrated into the natural environment that invite touch and exploration). 3.B.3 Update park design policies to incorporate artistic elements consistent with the Public Art Master Plan. 3.B.4 Commission artwork that interprets local history, events and significant individuals or represents City core values of sustainability, youth well-being, health and innovation. 3.B.5 Bring in performance-based work, social practice, temporary art and community art. 3.B.6 Explore suitable art for preserves and natural areas. 3.B.7 Incorporate public art in the earliest stages of the design of parks and facilities that may utilize wind direction, sunlight and ambient sound (coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan). 3.B.8 Install permanent and temporary installations and exhibits in well-trafficked parks and plazas, following the guidance of the Public Art Master Plan. 3.B.9 Integrate functional public art into play areas, seatwalls and other built features in parks across the system. 3.B.10 Integrate art and nature into bike lanes, routes and paths as appropriate. Policy 3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided through the Parkland Dedication Ordinance meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks, allow public access, and be designed to support recreation, incorporate natural ecosystem elements and comply with the policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan. PROGRAMS 3.C.1 Develop and apply clear expectations and definitions of public access (hours, rules) for privately owned public spaces. Public art in Palo Alto 6564 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. Policy 4.A In natural open space, ensure activities, projects and programs are compatible with the protection of nature. PROGRAMS 4.A.1 Develop comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park and Pearson- Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation and environmental education. The protection of biological resources from visitor use impacts shall be the priority in the Open Space Preserves. 4.A.2 Continue to work with partner organizations to remove invasive weeds and plant native plants and trees in riparian and natural open space areas. 4.A.3 Update the Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (March 2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (January 2002), and incorporate into in the Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Esther Clark Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan Project. Policy 4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through education and recreation programming. PROGRAMS 4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and interpretive features that explore ecological processes, historical context, adjacent waterways and specific plant/ animal species that can be encountered onsite and have elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as multiple ages, cultures and abilities. 4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern interactive exhibits. Natural open space 66 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and stewardship experiences by designing access points that minimize impact on the waterway. 4.B.4 Expand programs such as Foothills camps to connect youth with parks year-round. 4.B.5 Partner with boys/girls scouting organizations for outdoor education programs and/or the Junior Rangers program. 4.B.6 Expand and increase events that educate and promote native plants, species and wildlife. 4.B.7 Provide shade for play areas, using shade trees as the preferred solution. 4.B.8 Update and improve the Toyon Trail Interpretive Guide to make it more engaging and educational. 4.B.9 Develop a Trail Interpretive Guide for Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and the Baylands Nature Preserve. Policy 4.C Connect natural areas, open space, creeks and vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with native oaks and other species that support pollinators or provide high habitat values. PROGRAMS 4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat corridors, including the appropriate plant palette for each corridor. 4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant species and utilize their network of volunteers to install and maintain planted areas. 4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant species along creeks to enhance habitat value. Nature education programming 6766 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open space. PROGRAMS 4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand native trees and planting areas in urban parks. 4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan Policies and Programs as applicable to parkland in Palo Alto. 4.D.3 Update the preferred plant palette and approved tree species list. 4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as Save the Bay, Canopy and Grassroots Ecology (Acterra). 4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and grasses, incorporating educational elements about native habitats. 4.D.6 Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and protecting significant natural resources. 4.D.7 Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive species and to plant native vegetation in open space, parks and creek corridors. 4.D.8 Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of invasive species and plant pathogens. 4.D.9 Contact partner entity (such as Stanford University) conservation program manager before planning projects that disturb the ground on properties they own (including the Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields and El Camino Park) to allow review of their habitat conservation requirements. 68 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the park and recreation system. Policy 5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused parks and recreation facilities PROGRAMS 5.A.1 Implement short-term placemaking improvements (flexible, small scale interventions such as seating, art, programming or planters that have minimal capital cost) to attract users and experiment with potential longer-term options. 5.A.2 Emphasize flexibility and layering uses (allowing for different uses at different times of day, week, etc.) in parks over installing fixed-use equipment and single-use facilities. 5.A.3 Expand day camp program opportunities, utilizing all preserves and more local park sites and additional topic areas, to meet excess demand. 5.A.4 Leverage social media and develop marketing materials to encourage “pop-up” recreational activities in rotating parks. 5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25 people) group picnic areas that can be used for both picnics and programming. 5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that can be added or relocated to low-use parks. Policy 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and amenities. PROGRAMS 5.B.1 Review program data based on clearly communicated objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial performance. 5.B.2 Retire, end or refresh programs that require staff, facility and financial resources but do not achieve program objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs. Examples of placemaking improvements 6968 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 5.B.3 Actively develop a small number of pilot programs each year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences. 5.B.4 Build on partnership with Avenidas to expand intergenerational programming as well as additional older adult programming. 5.B.5 Expand BOOST!, the pay-per-use exercise class system to cover fees for any drop-in classes or facility use (lap swim, drop-in gym time, new programs in parks). 5.B.6 Set a goal of 10% new program offerings each season; new programs should be offered based on needs assessment, industry trends and/or class evaluation data. 5.B.7 Create a robust marketing and outreach program to highlight new and innovative programs to community. 5.B.8 Develop short-term recreation access strategies (such as temporary use agreements for vacant or park-like property) and seek long-term or permanent park and recreation space in each park search area. Actively recruit property and facility owners to participate in the development of the short- and long-term strategies. 5.B.9 Explore addition of intramural sports for middle and high school students through a partnership with Palo Alto Unified School District. 5.B.10 Provide opportunities for “pickup” or non-league sports activities at City parks and recreation facilities. Policy 5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops, if appropriate and using other creative means to help address shortages of available land. PROGRAMS 5.C.1 Explore a process to utilize and reserve select public and private lands for “park-like” functions that allows for more flexibility than formal park dedication. Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley includes a full size soccer field built over a 1,000 space, four-level parking facility 70 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland to optimize for long-term community benefit. PROGRAMS 5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park’s 7.7 acres of parkland. 5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5- acre land bank created by golf course reconstruction in the Baylands. 5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park. Policy 5.E Explore and experiment with parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long- and short-term uses. Policy 5.F Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities, where appropriate, for effective delivery of services and programs. PROGRAMS 5.F.1 Partner with PAUSD to open middle and high school recreation facilities for community use (basketball, badminton, indoor soccer, swimming pools, tennis courts) during the evening, weekend and summer hours. 5.F.2 Develop a steering committee that consists of key officials from the City, PAUSD and Stanford to explore partnership agreements and connect facility managers and programmers. 5.F.3 Increase access to PAUSD public schools (outside of school hours) to increase the availability of recreation activity spaces. Target school sites that are within or adjacent to “park search areas.” PARKLET: An inexpensive infrastructure investment that creates a public gathering space or small park from on-street parking spaces. Parklet on Noriega Street in San Francisco 7170 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 5.F.4 Explore partnerships with Stanford to create or increase access to athletic facilities and other recreational facilities for Palo Alto residents. 5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community access to shared facilities. Policy 5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation programming, capital improvement projects and facility maintenance. PROGRAMS 5.G.1 Encourage foundations to assist with soliciting sponsorships and grants. 5.G.2 Create a more formalized annual or one-time sponsorship program that provides the donor with marketing and promotional opportunities. 5.G.3 Contract or add job responsibilities for managing fundraising and developing donors for the park system to pursue funding opportunities and sponsorships. 5.G.4 Engage non-profit friends groups to seek donor funding, including foundation grants, corporate giving and small and major philanthropic gifts by individuals, for priority projects and programs. Policy 5.H Partner with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and other land conservation groups to expand access to open space through new acquisitions and improved connections. Fitness program 72 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Policy 6.A At least every five years actively review demographic trends and interests of the City population by segment for critical drivers of facility usage including schoolchildren, teens, seniors and ethnic groups, and adjust programs and plans accordingly. PROGRAMS 6.A.1 Create pilot recreation programs to test the public’s interest in new types of classes, events and activities utilizing an evaluation process. 6.A.2 Initiate a community-wide focus group on an annual basis to provide feedback on programs, facilities and long-term roadmaps. 6.A.3 Create a streamlined and effective quarterly survey system that solicits feedback from customers, including program participants, facility renters and the general community. Policy 6.B Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the cost and fees using the most current information available. PROGRAMS 6.B.1 Periodically benchmark the City’s Cost Recovery Policy against other cities’ cost recovery models. 6.B.2 Invest in and market city facilities to increase revenue for cost recovery. Policy 6.C Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking a park site or recreation facility or significant portion thereof) for events by private organizations that are closed to the general public. PROGRAMS 6.C.1 Exclusive use of parks or athletic fields by a private party 7372 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS or corporation for events that are closed to the general public will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be assessed using the following criteria: • No exclusive use by private parties is permitted on peak days (e.g., weekends, holidays) or peak times (e.g., evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends) as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in advance by the Director of Community Services; • Private uses will be limited to a maximum of five consecutive days, including event set-up and break- down; • For any multi-day private event including set up and break-down, notice of the private event will be made to the neighboring community and facility users, a minimum of 14 days in advance allowing for public input prior to the permit being issued; • Cost recovery, including wear and tear on facility should be 100%. • Explore establishing incremental deposits and fees for such use. 6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks or athletic fields for locally focused events that allow registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this Master Plan. 6.C.3 Exclusive use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as reservable picnic areas, is permitted in accordance with the City’s Park and Open Space Regulations. 6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted in accordance with Special Event Permit procedures. Policy 6.D Periodically review and update existing guidance for development, operations and maintenance of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master Plan, including: • Park Rules and Regulations; • Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook; • City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; • City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and • Tree Technical Manual. Solar installation 74 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management and development of open space, parks and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices. PROGRAMS 6.E.1 Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window glass where applicable. 6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance against comparable facilities and implement energy tracking and management systems for all park facilities and operations. 6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient products for park equipment purchases. 6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots, roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and facilities (e.g. pools). 6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in recreation facilities and at special events. 6.E.6 Ensure that trash, recycling and compost receptacles have covers to prevent wildlife access to human food sources. 6.E.7 Review purchasing policies and improve employee education to reduce overall consumption of materials throughout the system. 6.E.8 Procure environmentally preferable products (as required by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy) as the “default” purchasing option. 6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system. 6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with electric vehicles whenever practical. 6.E.11 Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park facilities with parking lots. 6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas- powered equipment. Palo Alto park maintenance 7574 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS 6.E.13 Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities and park operations. 6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in all facilities. 6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites. 6.E.16 Explore stormwater runoff capture opportunities in parks for recycling in irrigation. 6.E.17 Ensure irrigation systems on public landscapes (including those expanding the use of recycled water) are run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are trained in programming them. 6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation management system to maximize water use efficiency. 6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing interpretive information about park contributions to city water quality. 6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards and expectations in maintenance contracts for the care of low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play environments and other new types of features in the system. 6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits will be consistent with sustainable design principles and practices. This includes evaluating all projects for opportunities to implement green stormwater infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and asphalt. 6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water. Example of urban greening/green infrastructure 76 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS Policy 6.F Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy as written. While some parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the best available science on pest prevention and management. PROGRAMS 6.F.1 Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on best available data and technology. Policy 6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards. PROGRAMS 6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single location that is easily accessible by maintenance staff and vehicles. 6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and recycling receptacles that can reduce the frequency of regular collection. 6.G.3 Select standardized furnishing palettes for durability, vandal-resistance and ease of repair. Policy 6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans to ensure consistency, including: • Baylands Master Plan; • Urban Forest Master Plan; • Urban Water Master Plan; • Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP); • Water Reclamation Master Plan; • Recycled Water Project; Accessible garbage and recycling receptacles 7776 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS •Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan; •Comprehensive Plan; •Public Art Master Plan; and •Others adopted in the future. Policy 6.I Continue to engage other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of: •City Manager’s Office; •The Palo Alto Art Center; •Library, including Children’s Library; •Junior Museum and Zoo; •Children’s Theatre; •Public Art; •Transportation; •Urban Forestry; •Planning; •Public Works; and •Palo Alto Youth and Teen Leadership. Policy 6.J Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space and trails, such as: •2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision; •Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan; •Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and •Land Use near Streams in Santa Clara County. CHAPTER5 IMPLEMENTATION OVER THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MASTER PLAN WILL INCLUDE AN ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS INITIATED BY CITY STAFF WITH GUIDANCE AND LEADERSHIP FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) AND CITY COUNCIL. Palo Alto’s dedicated community advocates and partner organizations will also play an important role in ensuring the proposed programs and projects align with the needs of the community. Many projects, such as large capital projects, will require long-term strategic thinking and development of funding strategies. Strategic planning for these long-term, high-capital projects will occur concurrently with the annual review process. The annual review process described in this chapter involves implementing projects and programs described in Chapter 4 through an annual cycle of reviewing, planning, implementing and reporting. These programs have undergone review by the public, staff, PRC and City Council during the development of this Master Plan. Although the tools in this chapter are designed to work with Palo Alto’s existing budget and capital improvement plan processes, there may be instances where a strategic action or proposal does not fit into the normal budget process. In these cases, it will be necessary for a separate PRC and City Council review and approval process. 80 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENCOURAGE REGULAR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ACTIVITIES 8180 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION The focus of discussion in this chapter includes: • A prioritization process to create and update the annual action plan; • An evaluation process to consider new projects or programs proposed in the future; and • A methodology for measuring the effective and efficient implementation of the Master Plan. Prioritization This plan is intentionally ambitious, to reflect the high standards of the Palo Alto community. Not all of these projects will move forward immediately, and the City needs to have a method of prioritization. This process of prioritization is designed to inform the projects that move forward first and to help guide implementation throughout the life of the Master Plan. Prioritization Process The prioritization process applies a set of criteria drawn from the extensive community input during the master planning process. These criteria are applicable to the entire range of projects and programs and reflect both the Master Plan principles and goals. When considering the priority of projects and programs and the order in which they are implemented, the following set of criteria will be used as a guide to identify the benefit to the community and parks system in relation to other projects and programs. Proposed projects and programs will be ranked using a range of low, medium and high on how well the programs meet the criteria. These criteria will not provide a numerical score but will inform staff, the PRC and the Council how a particular program could serve community needs. Projects and programs will be evaluated against criteria to identify the benefit to the overall system in relation to other programs. Staff, PRC, and ultimately the City Council will determine the final order of implementation as part of the established Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and operating budget process. The criteria are defined below: • Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the City and to users where gaps were identified. • Respond to growth: Add features or programs and/or modify or expand components of the system to prepare 82 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION for and address increasing demand. • Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach. • Maximize public resources: Create the most benefit for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. • Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS There are some programs and projects that we know today are high-priority needs and/or opportunities. The list below reflects those priorities as identified in the Master Planning process. The priorities were developed with feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, community, stakeholders and City staff and priorities include a summary of planning effort, capital cost (funding), annual operating cost, time frame and urgency for each. The programs and projects have been arranged from high to low urgency with the projects divided into two groups: 1) large-scale projects that will require more study and a long-term planning and funding strategy and 2) those projects that can be initiated immediately, usually of smaller scale and lower funding requirements. While all the projects and programs that appear on this list are considered a priority, completion of large-scale capital projects will require efforts over the life of the plan, with several steps beginning in the near term and continuing through planning, design and ultimately construction. Projects (High to Low Urgency per group) Major projects needing further study and strategic funding • Enhance existing sports fields • Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses • Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center • Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium • Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility • Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park • Acquire new parkland in high-need areas • Improve golf course facility 8382 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Projects ready in the short term • Develop conservation plans for open space preserves • Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas • Construct new restrooms in parks • Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and recreation facilities • Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks • Improve trail connections and access • Develop adult fitness areas in parks • Integrate nature into urban parks • Develop new community gardens in underserved areas • Enhance seating areas in parks • Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks Programs • Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potential park and recreation donors • Collaborate with School District to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities • Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors • Expand aquatics programs • Expand programs for seniors • Expand non-academic programs for teens • Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students • Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development • Increase the variety of activities available in parks • Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers • Connect youth, teens and families with nature • Expand programs related to health and wellness • Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks 84 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION • Expand community-focused special events • Offer cultural enrichment programs IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Each priority program or project is described and evaluated based on the following five factors: 1. PLANNING EFFORT represents the amount of time, effort and cost associated with planning the project and could include community outreach, budget and resource allocation, environmental review and PRC and Council approval. 2. CAPITAL COST provides an indication of the magnitude of capital cost to implement the project, shown by dollar signs as follows: • $ (<$250,000) • $$ ($250,000 to $1,000,000) • $$$ ($1,000,000 to $5,000,000) • $$$$ (>$5,000,000) 3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST estimates the added annual operating cost once the project is in place, also indicated by dollar signs as follows: • $ (<$5,000) • $$ ($5,000 to $25,000) • $$$ ($25,000 to $75,000) • $$$$ (>$75,000) 4. TIME FRAME indicates whether project activity will occur in the near, mid, or long term. All the following projects identified as priorities will require attention in the near term, although some are major projects and will not be completed for years. Some projects can be both planned and constructed in the same year, while others will take years longer to complete. Additionally, some projects will require different actions throughout the life of the project. This Master Plan looks at three time frames for implementation. All of the high-priority projects identified will require attention in the near term. Some projects can be initiated and completed within a single time frame. However, 8584 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION many will be ongoing or will require different actions across multiple time frames. Actions related to identified priorities will be integrated into City planning within the structure of each time frame described below. • Near-Term (0-5 years): The City’s CIP includes capital projects planned for a five-year period. As each year’s projects are completed, the annual budgeting process includes the addition of another year on the rolling five- year CIP. New projects identified in the Master Plan will be proposed through the annual CIP process. Programs can be implemented sooner, as funding is available. • Mid-Term (6-10 years): In the mid-term, more of the new ideas generated in this plan will be cycled into the CIP process, and preliminary work will advance the larger capital projects. New programs will be established enough to evaluate, and new ideas can continue to be added. • Long-Term (11-20 years): The long-term timeline includes projects that require significant up-front work and planning, represent long-term, ongoing investments or demand extraordinary funding strategies. Several projects may not be completed until this time frame; however, all will have been initiated and incorporated into the planning structure in a previous time frame. 5. URGENCY indicates the level of need. All projects within this Master Plan have a demonstrated need, but the level of urgency varies based on the availability of a particular amenity or program as compared to the demand. Urgency can also be a consideration of time sensitivity. For example, if a project will influence or guide future operations, such as development of open space conservation plans, that project would have a high level of urgency. A project could also be considered high urgency if failure to act results in a missed opportunity, such as purchase of an available open parcel that could be dedicated as parkland. PROJECT AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS The following pages provide information about proposed programs and projects and assign the appropriate criteria for prioritization to each of the programs and projects. The graphic on the left indicates the ranges of each factor that will be seen in this section. PLANNING EFFORT Low to High CAPITAL COST $ to $$$$ OPERATING COST $ to $$$$ TIME FRAME Near, Mid, or Long URGENCY Low, Medium, or High 86 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$ OPERATING COST $$$ TIME FRAME Near (Study and Planning) Near to Long (Construction) URGENCY High Enhance existing sport fields With current high demand, heavy wear and potential future growth, improving and maintaining the City’s large open play fields with limited resources (water & maintenance budget) requires a clear plan to maintain quality and longevity. The following steps are recommended for Enhancing Existing Sport Fields: • Hire a sport field turf consultant, review and analyze the existing City sport fields and make recommendations on how to improve and maintain them to increase quality and use. (Near Term) • Develop an ongoing capital fund project that focuses on enhancing the fields consistent with the field analysis study. (Near to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to sport field users and interested parties for private donations Major projects that need further study and strategic funding (Arranged from High to Low Urgency) 8786 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses The development of the 10.5-acre Baylands site will require a long- term planning and funding effort. Because Palo Alto is a built-out city with limited areas to expand the park system, the planning of the project should take into account the location of the site in the Baylands and should start in the near term to establish the site design and cost to complete this large project. The planning effort will focus on the design of the site with direct community input. Staff will strategize options for phasing and funding the project in the near term and establishing a schedule for implementation. Some of the possible concepts for the use of this site that came from the public outreach include athletic fields and native habitat. The following steps are recommended for the development of the 10.5-acre site: • Hire a consultant to study the location and provide a recommendation how to use the site for both athletic use and native habitat use. (Near Term) • Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. • Implement the recommendations of the study. FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to sport field users and interested parties for private donations • Native habitat and restoration grants PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near (Planning and Design) Near to Mid (Construction) URGENCY High 88 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$ to $$$$ OPERATING COST $$ to $$$$ TIME FRAME Near (Planning and Design) Mid to Long (Construction) URGENCY High (Planning and Design) Medium to High (Developing) Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center Cubberley Community Center currently sits on a 35-acre site, of which 8 acres are owned by the City and the remaining 27 acres are owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The City leases the PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community center on the combined 35-acre site. The City and PAUSD have committed to jointly develop a plan for the future of the entire Cubberley Community Center site that represents the administrative, educational and community needs of the School District and the City. Planning and design of the site will require an assessment of the current and projected future needs of the community with respect to education and recreation. Information and data gathered as part of this Master Planning effort and the Citizens Advisory Committee process will help to inform the needs assessment for Cubberley. Future renovations will provide increased and enhanced services to the community. The following steps are recommended to support the future implementation of this project: • Formalize an agreement between the City and School District will for future development and renovation of the site. (Near Term) • Prepare a comprehensive master planning study for the site, including a needs assessment. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy for implementation of the Master Plan. (Near Term) • Develop a long-range implementation plan. (Near to Mid Term) • Implement the master plan. (Mid to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Consider the passing of a bond • Grants 8988 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$$$ TIME FRAME Mid (Planning and Design) Long (Construction) URGENCY Medium (Planning and Design) Medium (Developing) Plan, design and construct a new gymnasium Currently the City of Palo Alto has no gymnasiums of its own. A gymnasium at the Cubberley Community Center is the main gym utilized by the City, but is owned by Palo Alto Unified School District and operated by the City through a lease agreement. The middle school gyms are used for middle school athletic programs, while the Lucie Stern Community Center and Mitchell Park Community Center are utilized for a variety of physical and social activities. As of means of responding to growth and to maintain, expand and provide future programming, at least one multi-purpose gymnasium is recognized as a community need. The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and development of this site: • Consider a gymnasium as part of the planning effort for the Cubberley Community Center and determine if it is compatible with the development direction of the site or if another separate location should be considered. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy for implementation of a new gymnasium, or multiple gyms in one building if funding allows. (Near Term) • Plan and design. (Near to Mid Term) • Construct gymnasium project. (Mid to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Consider the passing of a bond • Grants 90 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$$$ TIME FRAME Mid (Planning and Design) Long (Construction) URGENCY Medium (Planning and Design) Medium (Developing) Improve the Rinconada Park pool facility The pool facility at Rinconada Park is the only City-owned pool facility. During its operational season the pool is in high demand from the community and local swim groups. To meet growing demand, a programming policy to open the pool for a longer season and extended times is being explored. Along with increased demand comes the needs for pool facility improvements. The existing lap pool is undersized to meet demand in both overall size and swimming length, falling a few feet short of a regulation pool length. The existing locker room and restroom facilities are small and lack separate areas for children, families and adults. Appropriate pool facility improvements were identified in the Rinconada Master Plan. They include: • Expanding and reconfiguring the existing lap pool, • Fully remodeling the existing locker room and restroom building, • Adding a much-needed community room for meetings and training, and • Expanding the deck area around the pool for seating. The following steps are recommended in the future renovation and development of this site: • Develop a funding strategy for implementation of a full pool remodel. (Near Term) • Plan and design. (Near to Mid Term) • Remodel Rinconada Pool. (Mid to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations 9190 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Incorporate the 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park The development of the 7.7-acre site at Foothills Park will require a long-range planning and funding effort. The planning of the project should start in the near term to develop the site design and identify funding to complete this large project. The planning effort will focus on the design of the site with direct community input. As a precursor to the project, a hydrological study of Buckeye Creek will be completed (September 2017) to understand how the solutions to the Creek’s erosion problem frame the possible uses for the 7.7-acres. Staff will research options for funding the project in the near term and establish a schedule for implementation. Public recommendations for possible uses of the site ranged from restoring the site to developing it for some form of recreation. The following steps are recommended for the future renovation and development of this site: • Hire a consultant to recommend options and pricing for restoring the 7.7-acre site. (Near Term) • Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy. (Near Term) • Implement the recommendations of the study. (Near to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Grants PLANNING EFFORT Medium to High CAPITAL COST $$$ to $$$$ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near (Planning and Design) Near to Mid (Construction) URGENCY High (Opening Area to Public) Low (Developing) 92 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Acquire new parkland in high-need areas Expand parkland inventory in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area where gaps exist geographically as illustrated in the Park Search Areas System Concept Map (Figure 8). While this is a long-term effort, there are short-term strategies and actions needed to achieve results. Based on the goal, policy and program described in Chapter Four 1.B.1-12, some near-term actions include review of all City-owned land and easements (starting in park search areas) for potential parkland development or connection locations, and evaluation of City-owned or controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational uses for potential dedication as parkland. The following additional steps are recommended for acquiring new parkland: • Develop and implement a strategy to build up funding sufficient for future parkland acquisitions. • Review all City-owned property in the high-needs areas for parkland potential. • Develop a process to review and pursue potential properties available for acquisition or long-term lease for park purposes. • Review options to increase development fees to facilitate future acquisitions. • Identify undeveloped properties in high-needs areas and pursue purchasing or long-term lease agreements with the owner. • Develop a process to accept private donations and bequests of money for parkland. The following steps are recommended to gain community access to additional parkland through partnerships: • Collaborate with the School District to make school grounds open space available for use by the surrounding communities during non-school hours. • Contribute to planning, funding and maintaining the construction of park elements on school grounds in collaboration with the School District to ensure community access and provide needed park amenities to high-needs areas. PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$$ OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY High (Funding Strategy)Medium (Implementation) 9392 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT High CAPITAL COST $$$ OPERATING COST $$$ TIME FRAME Mid (Planning and Design) Long (Construction) URGENCY Medium (Planning and Design) Medium (Developing) Golf course facility improvements The pro shop, clubhouse and parking lot facilities were not included in the scope of work of the newly renovated golf course. Each of these facilities needs improvements to maintain the viability of the overall golf course facility. Improvements would include a full remodel of the existing clubhouse and pro shop building with an expansion of a larger multi-purpose room that could be used for community and private events. Reconfiguration of the large asphalt parking lot to create a better entry statement when arriving to the golf course facility is also necessary. The following steps are recommended for improvement of the golf course facility: • Hire a golf course consultant to review and analyze the existing facilities and make recommendations on how to improve quality and overall use, along with an operating cost study that reviews potential improvement options for generating revenue. (Near Term) • Establish a phasing plan for the project for implementation. • Implement the recommendations of the analysis and study. FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Outreach to the general community for private donations FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Consider the passing of a bond • Grants 94 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $$ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High Develop conservation plans for open space preserves Comprehensive conservation plans are necessary to develop guiding principles and best management practices for holistic management of Palo Alto’s open space preserves and to balance ecosystem protection, environmental education and passive recreational uses. Conservation plans will be completed for the Baylands, Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero, and Esther Clark Preserves and will provide City staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council with clear direction on how to manage Palo Alto’s open space preserves using an ecosystem-based model that considers both conservation and recreation goals of this master plan. Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas There are currently three dog parks in Palo Alto, all of which are located south of Oregon Expressway. The lack of dog parks on the north side of the City, together with the prevalence of people allowing dogs to run off-leash outside of designated dog parks in parks and on school property, underscores the need for more off-leash dog parks in the near term. Locations for dog parks have been strategically selected at certain parks and planning efforts are underway. Existing park features such as native trees, public art and playground equipment as well as community feedback all will be considered when planning for the construction of a dog park. The addition of dog parks will be phased and is proposed to occur in the near- and mid-term. Projects ready in the short term (Arranged from High to Low Urgency) PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $$ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High Construct new restrooms in parks Through this planning process, the community generally came to a consensus that restrooms make sense in parks with amenities that draw people, especially children and seniors, and encourage them stay at the park for a span of time. Though there have been varying opinions regarding specific sites, additional review will be conducted to site restrooms and identify security measures such as automatic locking mechanisms and lighting, addressing some of the concerns related to restrooms. 9594 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ to $$ OPERATING COST 0 to $ TIME FRAME Near (Strategic Plan) Ongoing (Implementation) URGENCY High PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ to $$$ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Medium to High Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and recreation facilities Staff responsible for the care of Palo Alto’s parks and open space will commit to staying current with sustainable practices. As part of this effort, staff will develop a strategic plan for incorporating sustainable practices for maintenance and management of parks, open space and facilities, including updating current practices. Maintenance staff will consult with the City’s Sustainability Department to discuss how they can help meet the sustainable goals of the Sustainability Master Plan (under development as of the adoption of this Master Plan), and to develop measures for tracking the adoption of sustainable maintenance practices. Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides regulations that inform and guide the amenities and design of parks and requires an ADA Transition Plan to remove barriers that may prevent people with disabilities from fully enjoying the City’s parks and recreation services. The ADA requirements represent the legal minimum that is required. Feedback from the community during the Master Plan process was supportive that Palo Alto seek, when possible, to exceed ADA minimums and strive for universal accessibility, where people of all abilities can utilize and enjoy parks. During all parks- related capital improvement projects, staff will not only update amenities and design to current ADA standards, but will also seek opportunities to achieve universal access. This will occur in the near term and will be ongoing. 96 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ to $$$ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Medium PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Medium to Low PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low to High (Depends on drought status) Improve trail connections and access Improving trail connections and access to parks and open space areas was identified as an important priority by the community. Linkages to parks also promote the “Green Necklace” vision for the City and allow regional connections to adjacent cities and open natural areas. Staff will utilize existing capital improvement projects as a platform on which to improve trail connections into parks, access and connections between parks and between multi-modal trails. They will also seek to provide linkages to regional trails and neighboring agency sites. In addition, staff will identify trail connections and improvements that will require new individual capital projects, up to and including purchasing land, and will propose those through the City’s CIP process. Develop adult fitness areas in parks Health and fitness is a priority for the Palo Alto community and an important reason for park use. Palo Alto can help support health and wellness for adults and older adults, a population segment that is growing, by providing outdoor fitness options, especially in close proximity to playgrounds, creating a multi-generational playground. These adult fitness areas can take on a variety of forms: from outdoor workout equipment areas (free weight and cardio machines) to simple open rubber surface areas for open activity (e.g., yoga, meditation, weight and cardiovascular training). These spaces will be designed for both individual use and group gathering and as a means of activating a park, and will be a high-value, simple addition during park renovation projects. Integrate nature into urban parks This project includes converting areas in parks, usually turfgrass that is not used for recreation, into native plantings (e.g. riparian, grassland or oak woodland) or a specific habitat planting (e.g., pollinator, hummingbird or butterfly). This type of project may also include bioswales designed to maintain on-site drainage and create habitat, and may even include aspects of a natural play area. 9796 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low Develop new community gardens in underserved areas Community gardens provide a place for healthy outdoor activity, social gathering and community connections. Ultimately, community gardens should be evenly distributed throughout the park system. Staff will look for opportunities to add community gardens when parks are renovated, looking for underutilized turfgrass or planting areas as potential locations for community gardens. In addition, staff will seek to expand the variety of community gardening opportunities, by considering children’s or inclusive garden plots or even entire community gardens. Enhance seating areas in parks Seating is an important part of creating a welcoming park environment and was identified as a priority by community members during the outreach process. When park renovations occur, staff will identify opportunities to enhance seating areas (making them more comfortable and functional) or provide additional seating. Enhancements may include providing more seating, providing additional seating options (e.g., movable seating, artist-designed or embellished benches), and creating enclosures to define the seating area as a low-activity area used for urban retreat. 98 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium to High CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low Create wayfinding signage showing safe routes to parks Wayfinding signage is a means of connecting and expanding the park system. Wayfinding signage designed to direct the community to designated safe routes between parks will help provide linkages between all of Palo Alto’s open spaces, which will in turn expand the system. The Community Services, Public Works and Transportation departments will work together to establish these safe routes and engage the community for wayfinding and route options. Future infrastructure development of these safe routes may also include the addition of park-like features along the length of the route to further expand the park system. The following steps are recommended for wayfinding signage showing safe routes to parks: • Hire a consultant to put together a proposed signage design, layout and phasing for the project. (Near Term) • Work with City, the community and stakeholders to develop the overall safe routes to parks plan. (Near Term) • Develop a funding strategy for implementation. (Near Term) • Implement the design. (Near to Long Term) FUNDING OPTIONS • Capital improvement funds • Park impact fees • Outreach to the general community for private donations • Grants 9998 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Establish and grow partnerships and identify and cultivate potential park and recreation donors In collaboration with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks and the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation among other partners, Palo Alto will develop a marketing campaign to engage members of the public to volunteer and contribute financially to the improvement and expansion of Palo Alto’s parks, open space and recreation programs and facilities. PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY High Programs Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors Palo Alto staff will develop a system and strategies to broaden the recruitment and training of coaches and instructors, including exploring public/private partnerships, to meet the programming demands of the City and to ensure staffing of high-quality, qualified coaches and instructors. PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY High Expand aquatics programs Community feedback has consistently shown that residents want more pool access during the day and into the spring and fall seasons. Both recreational swimming and swim lessons are in high demand, and added pool hours would allow more aquatics programs to occur. City staff will provide expanded programs and explore new aquatic programs, such as water polo and water fitness classes, that would add to the diversity of programming. PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY High 100 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Expand programs for seniors With the population of older adults and seniors in Palo Alto projected to be on the rise, Palo Alto will need to adjust program offerings to meet demand, especially programs tailored to the needs of active seniors. This may include both indoor and outdoor activities. Staff will also coordinate with Avenidas as an important part of the planning effort to ensure that redundancy is minimized and enhancements are based on needs and gaps in the current level of service. Expand non-academic programs for teens Palo Alto will implement recreation programs and services to provide additional opportunities for teens to explore a wide variety of non-academic interests in an accessible, relaxed and fun environment. Examples of current programs include the MakeX maker space, Think Fund Grant program and the counselor-in-training program. Enhancing and expanding these types of programs is important to provide balance in the busy and demanding lives of teens. PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Medium to High PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Medium Collaborate with School District to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities City staff will work with PAUSD to increase access to playgrounds, gyms and other school facilities. Staff will concentrate on specific locations in the city with limited park space with the intent of ensuring access to school open areas and playgrounds during non- school hours, and establishing a gym use agreement for additional City programs and activities in school gyms during non-school hours. PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Medium 101100 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students Intramural sports provide the opportunity for children to learn a new sport, develop social skills, practice teamwork and build friendships. They also promote an active and healthy lifestyle. Palo Alto will explore creating an intramural sports program for middle and high school students. Implementation of intramurals will require coordination with PAUSD and would require additional field and gym space. Increase the variety of activities available in parks When renovating parks, Palo Alto staff will explore adding both active and passive spaces and elements to increase the variety of activities that can be experienced in a particular park. Recommended additions to a park should consider the user groups of the parks as well as different age groups. Further engagement of the community should be considered. Examples of potential elements include: outdoor gathering areas, small-scale active spaces (bocce, pickleball courts), and quiet retreat spaces. PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Medium PLANNING EFFORT Low to High CAPITAL COST $ to $$ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Medium Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development The Palo Alto community highly values accessibility and inclusion. Community Services will expand therapeutic and inclusive programming, including increasing funding for staff training in this area. 102 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers Providing spaces and programs, both indoors and outdoors, where children can play in a less structured format, away from electronic devices, encourages creativity and problem solving and fosters social connections with other youth. Palo Alto will support unstructured play, such as providing space for “pick-up” games, providing sports equipment in parks and gyms, and offering programs with minimal direction and oversight. PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST N/A to $ OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST N/A OPERATING COST $ to $$ TIME FRAME Near URGENCY Low Connect youth, teens and families with nature Parks and open space preserves provide a direct connection to nature. Connecting people to nature provides benefits to physical, emotional and mental health and encourages preservation and environmental education. Palo Alto will provide more programs that focus on nature or take place in natural settings, and that are geared toward specific age groups and families, enhancing the community’s connection to nature. Expand programs related to health and wellness In recent years, Council has identified healthy city and healthy community as a Council priority. Efforts underway include the Healthy City Healthy Community Initiative, an annual health fair, fitness classes and programs specific to teens. Palo Alto will develop additional programming to encourage a healthy city and community on an annual basis based on community need. 103102 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low PLANNING EFFORT Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Long URGENCY Low Expand community-focused special events Palo Alto will develop a yearly community survey to determine the popularity of current special events and explore possible new events. Staff will use survey results to pilot new events and determine the feasibility of continuing these in the future. Offer cultural enrichment programs Community Services will develop cultural enrichment programs that celebrate the diversity of Palo Alto’s community. This will create opportunities for the community to come together and share their distinct cultural backgrounds. PLANNING EFFORT Low to Medium CAPITAL COST $ OPERATING COST $ TIME FRAME Near to Mid URGENCY Low Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks Palo Alto staff will develop a program series that would bring activities to parks. Further review to identify locations for potential pop-up programming sites will be carried out by Community Services staff, who will also schedule and promote pop-up programs. Examples of pop-up programs include: play activities; fitness activities such as yoga or tai chi; nature-oriented programs such as bird watching and park tree walks, or arts-related activities such as painting or music. 104 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Action Plan The complete set of projects and programs identified during the Master Plan process are summarized in a working document called the Action Plan. The Action Plan is maintained separately from this Master Plan document and is designed to adapt and change with the completion of projects, passage of time and shifting funding opportunities. Each project and program is described in terms of location, the relevant element of the system and the plan framework reference (which policy the project or program originates from). The action plan also indicates the anticipated year(s) of implementation and the total estimated costs (capital and operational). Capital costs are broken down between planning/ design and the implementation of the project. Operation costs are further clarified by the staff time required per year of project implementation. The action plan allows a comprehensive look at the projects and programs resulting from this Master Plan. Each year, as the next year is added to the CIP, the Action Plan will feed a new set of projects based on the timelines as they have evolved. Further, new projects will continue to be added to the Action Plan, using the prioritization process described earlier in this chapter.Shown below are examples of action plans ( top: program) (below: projects) 105104 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Funding Today and Tomorrow The City of Palo Alto uses a minimum of seven funding sources for the majority of its capital, operational and recreation program funding: • General Fund • Consumer and Participant Fees (which go to the General Fund) • Parkland Dedication Fees • Development Impact Fees • Public Private Partnerships • Grants • Donations These funding sources are defined and described in Appendix D: Existing Funding Sources. There are limitations (both statutory and in practice) on the use of many of the existing funding sources. Table 5 summarizes EXISTING FUNDING SOURCE CAPITAL OPERATIONAL/ PROGRAMMING GENERAL FUND PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS GRANTS DONATIONS KEY ELIGIBLE LIMITED NOT ELIGIBLE TABLE 5: FUNDING APPLICABILITY 106 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION the existing funding sources by their applicability to capital and operational projects and programs. In addition, Palo Alto’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) process established a schedule to “Keep-Up” with the current maintenance needs of City-owned parks, facilities and open space. The Commission also identified maintenance needs that had not been planned and the cost and schedule to “Catch Up.” City Staff has utilized the IBRC process over the past five years to schedule needed maintenance and have greatly reduced the “Catch Up” items. Potential Funding Options Although there are multiple funding sources for capital and operating projects and programs, there remains a gap in funding. While the total capital funding needed for new projects is substantial, the limited options currently available for maintenance, operations and programming funding is a bigger constraint on achieving the Master Plan goals. The potential for a funding method to expand funding for maintenance, operations and programming should be carefully considered as the City explores options to fill the funding gap. EXPAND EXISTING FUNDING OPTIONS One important option is increasing the amount of funding from existing sources. The General Fund could be expanded by increasing revenue generation. • Parkland dedication fees could be reevaluated to ensure the rates are keeping up with land costs. • Development impact fees could be increased through action by the City Council. • Donations and grants could also be expanded with effort by the City. • Public-private partnerships could include allocating staff time, creating a new position focused on expanding these sources, or hiring a consultant experienced with grant writing. • Participation and membership fees could be evaluated to increase cost recovery and to help pay for new and enhanced programs and services. 107106 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES OF PAST SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS Heritage Park In 2007, the Friends of Heritage Park gave the City a donation of $197,572 to contribute toward a capital project to build the Heritage Park Playground. The City contributed $75,000 toward the project. Council approved a limited-term agreement with the Friends of Heritage Park to design, construct and install the playground facilities and other improvements at Heritage Park. Magical Bridge Playground The City partnered with the Friends of the Magical Bridge to design and build Palo Alto’s first “inclusive” playground at Mitchell Park. The City contributed the land and $300,000 to the project for planning and design purposes, while the Friends contributed approximately $3.5 million for construction. A grant was also secured for $80,000 for improvements to the pathways that lead to the playground. The playground opened to the public in April 2015 and is a regional draw, winning several design awards and high praise from the community. Lytton Plaza Renovation The City formed a public-private partnership with the Friends of Lytton Plaza to renovate Lytton Plaza. The Friends donated $750,000 for the renovation of the plaza. The project was completed in December 2009. Acquisition of new park land at the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve The City contributed $1,110,305 along with $2,592,210 in grant money for the acquisition of 13-acre open space Bressler Property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. In October 2002, the Peninsula Open Space Trust purchased a 13-acre property from the Estate of Jacqueline Bressler with the intent of holding the parcel for open space purposes until the City of Palo Alto could purchase the property. The City acquired the Property and added it to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in 2005. Save the Bay Partnership: The City partnered with Save the Bay in 2001 in order to accomplish the shared goal of restoring sensitive wetland habitat at the Baylands Nature Preserve. Annually, Save the Bay contributes hundreds of hours of staff time to organize and lead 108 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION volunteer restoration programs (thirty-five per year on average) in the preserve. Save the Bay has also fully funded the cost to construct a native plant nursery at the Baylands to propagate native plants that volunteers use to restore Baylands habitat. The partnership continues to provide benefit to the sensitive habitat at the Baylands Nature Preserve and to the Palo Alto community members that participate in the volunteer programs. ISSUE BONDS There are two types of bonds relevant to the Master Plan. While the City Council would need to initiate either type of bond, only one method would require a public vote. General obligation bonds are voter-approved bonds with the assessment placed on real property. The money can only be used for capital improvements, not for maintenance or operations. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 15-20 years). Passage requires a two-thirds majority approval by the voters. Revenue bonds are sold to finance revenue-generating facilities, such as community centers, performing arts centers and in some cases sports complexes. The interest and capital are paid from the revenue produced from the operation of such a facility. The City has to guarantee repayment, meaning that if revenue from the facility does not cover the necessary bond payments, the City will be required to pay from another source. CREATE A SPECIAL DISTRICT There are several types of special districts allowable by California law for recreation purposes. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”) to finance public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities. Formation of a CFD requires a two-thirds vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. If there are fewer than twelve residents, then the vote is instead conducted of current 109108 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION landowners. The assessment cannot be based on property value; instead it is based on the size of the property or square footage of structures. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. The special assessment continues until bonds are paid off and then is typically reduced to a level to maintain the investments. The Landscaping and Lighting Act permits a public agency to assess housing units or land parcels for a variety of city services, including parks. The assessment revenues can be used for parkland acquisition, development and/or maintenance. The agency can choose to use the revenue generated on a pay-as-you-go basis or can sell bonds in order to receive a lump sum amount which is then paid back from the annual revenue generated from the assessment. The pay-as-you-go method provides steady ongoing revenue to fund services. Bonding against revenue provides a larger sum to undertake a bigger project. Establishment of a new assessment district or revision to an existing one requires a simple majority vote of property owners. EXCHANGE OR SELL PROPERTY If the City has an excess piece of property, the City could sell or trade the property to obtain a site more suitable for park use. COMBINING MASTER PLAN PROJECT WITH OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS As the primary part of Palo Alto’s green infrastructure, the parks, natural open space and trails system connects to many other city services. Some projects can be vital parts of other infrastructure projects or be applicable for funding from sources for transportation, stormwater, flood protection and other engineered infrastructure projects. Combining or coupling Master Plan projects with other infrastructure projects can reduce the costs all around, open up new funding streams, provide mitigation and achieve multiple objectives. ESTABLISH AN ENDOWMENT FUND FOR MAINTENANCE Recognizing that operations and maintenance funding is not likely to get any easier to obtain, Palo Alto could fund, or could seek 110 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION philanthropic donations to fund, a endowment for the long-term maintenance of parks, natural open space or recreation facilities. This effort could be started with a smaller, targeted effort to endow the maintenance of a specific type of facility and then grown over time to eventually cover a significant portion of the system maintenance. Evaluating Future Projects As time passes, new ideas will emerge about how to optimize an individual site, add to the system or change the mix of recreation opportunities. The combination of the goals (detailed in Chapter 4) and the prioritization criteria create a framework that can be used to evaluate future proposals for changes to the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Review Process Following a similar process to developing the Master Plan projects and programs, the review process for new ideas includes both staff and PRC review. The review process will follow the steps below. Step 1: Staff, individual or community group proposes a project or program. Step 2: Staff reviews the proposal to determine if the project aligns with the community’s vision as expressed in the Master Plan principles and goals. If a compelling case cannot be made, the process stops here. Step 3: Staff analyzes need using the same categories as in the Needs and Opportunities (see Master Plan Chapter 3): • Current Service/Inventory • Level of Control • Geographic Analysis • Capacity/Bookings • Perception of Quality • Expressed Need • Demographic Trends • Barriers to Access/Participation • Projected Demand 111110 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION In some cases, information may not be readily available for staff to make an adequate evaluation. In these cases, staff may obtain additional data by meeting with the proposer or with local experts, conducting regional or national research or seeking community input. Staff may also recommend conducting a specific technical study. Once adequate information is gathered, staff will complete the analysis of need and document it in a brief report. If PRC review is needed, staff will proceed to Step 4. • Staff makes a recommendation to the PRC. Using the results of the analysis of need (Step 3), staff evaluates the proposal using the prioritization criteria and prepares a staff report to the PRC with a recommendation. Staff may recommend that the PRC add the proposed project or program for further development and eventual addition to the Action Plan. Staff may also recommend against the proposal if the prioritization scoring is low. Low scoring is an indicator that the proposal is not a priority, compared to all opportunities. • The PRC considers the staff’s recommendation at a meeting. The proposer is encouraged to attend and to present the proposal. After consideration at the meeting, the PRC makes a determination and directs staff how to proceed. For proposals recommended for further action, staff can explore the financial and practical considerations and incorporate the proposal into Action Plan and/or the CIP process as applicable. 112 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Progress Reporting Palo Alto annually collects data, both internally and from the community, to measure and track performance, budget and expenditures. These existing measures provide a large selection of data points to draw from when looking at any part of the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, including annual trends. Many of the existing indicators are directly related to Master Plan goals, while others indirectly provide valuable insight into the progress of the Master Plan. Palo Alto has a standing practice of reporting on the annual National Citizen Survey1, a citizen satisfaction survey, as well as a performance-based Citizen Centric Report2, both of which provide data on parks and recreation programs and services. A City-wide Performance Report that provides information to City Council, management and the public contains information on spending, staffing, workload and performance results. In addition, there is internal reporting at the department level that informs program and service delivery decisions, budget proposals and policy and procedure changes. Below are the indicators and measures that Palo Alto currently collects, along with additional recommended indicators to effectively monitor and report on Master Plan progress. 1The National Citizen Survey™ is a collaborative effort between the Nation- al Research Center, Inc., (NRC) and the International City/County Manage- ment Association. The NRC uses a statistically valid survey methodology to gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and services provided by the local government. 2 The Citizen Centric Report is a summary document highlighting perfor- mance, financial data and an overview of the City’s economic outlook. 113112 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 6: EXISTING INDICATORS Indicator Rating Source Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: • Availability of paths and walking trails • Public places where people want to spend time • Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) • Recreational opportunities 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Don’t Know National Citizen Survey X X X X In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? • Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services • Visited a neighborhood park or City park 1=2 times a week or more 2=2-4 times a month 3= Once a month or less 4=Not at all National Citizen Survey X X X X Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: • City parks • Recreation programs or classes • Recreation centers or facilities • Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts • Palo Alto open space • Your neighborhood park 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Don’t Know National Citizen Survey X X X X X X Please rate the quality of Palo Alto’s trees and landscaping for Parks 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Don’t Know National Citizen Survey X X Suggested improvements to Parks or Recreation Activities and Programs (open-ended question, which may change annually) N/A National Citizen Survey X X X X X X Parks/Land Maintained by Community Services # of acres City of Palo Alto Performance Report X Participants in community garden program # of participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X 114 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION Indicator Rating Source Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 Visitors at Foothills Park # of visitors City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X X X Community Services volunteer hours in restorative/resource management programs and neighborhood parks # of hours City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X Enrollment in recreation classes and camps: • Summer camps and aquatics • Kids (excluding camps) • Adults • Preschool # of enrolled participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X X X X X Participants in teen programs # of participants City of Palo Alto Performance Report X X Amount of General Fund expenditures spent on Community Services Percent of total expenditures Citizen Centric Report X X X X X X TABLE 6: EXISTING INDICATORS (CONTINUED) To track progress on Master Plan implementation, additional specific measurable indicators that relate directly to the goals, policies and programs were identified. These will be applied and reported annually to the PRC, City Council and the community. Additional indicators may be added if a need is identified by staff, the PRC or City Council. Table 7 lists the recommended additional indicators. 115114 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED INDICATORS Recommended Indicator Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of park visitors X X X Number of visits to community centers, pools and recreation sites X Diversity of participation and visitors age/culture/ abilities X Senior participation numbers in recreation programs and services X X Percent of residents satisfied or very satisfied with the affordability of recreation programs X Percent of residents satisfied or very satisfied with the inclusivity of recreation programs X Percent of residents satisfied or very satisfied with the accessibility of recreation programs X Percent of residents who rate the number and variety of recreation programs as good or very good X X Number of participants in outdoor education programs X X X Number of new recreation programs, events and locations piloted X X Percentage of residents who live within a ½ mile distance of a City park X Number of acres dedicated as parkland X Number of projects that improved accessibility by meeting or exceeding American Disability Act requirements X Number of dog park users by site X X Number of timeslots used on sports fields X X X Percent of sports fields in the community available for use X X X X Acres of new native landscape and new habitat X X Number of public restrooms in parks X Percent of potable water use reduced (based on 2013 base year)X Amount of funding obtained from grants, sponsorships and other private funding sources X Recreation Division budget that is derived from recreation fees X 116 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation IMPLEMENTATION A Message from the Parks and Recreation Commission After almost two years of effort, outreach and collaboration we are pleased to share the City of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan) that will guide the future of these treasured assets for the next 20 years. Through multiple research techniques and at multiple points in this process we confirmed that Palo Alto residents cherish their parks and recreation programs. Their feedback - corroborated by national studies - confirms that parks are highly valued not just for their beauty or enjoyable experiences, but for a connection that is much deeper. They are valued because they contribute directly to one’s fundamental mental and physical health, even for those who are only rare or occasional users. Palo Alto’s parks, open space and recreation programs and facilities enhance our connections with people and nature, our sense of community and our very quality of life. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan was undertaken to ensure the City provides for the ongoing health and well-being of all our citizens as we move into the future - and to provide the City the strategic direction for doing so. Forecasted changes that demand proactive planning and funding strategies include an increase in Palo Alto’s population, substantial changes in the demographic makeup of our citizens, and further competition for available land from expected office and housing growth. The plan identifies and addresses the current gaps in services and real needs for change such as adapting parks and programs to a growing senior citizen population, improving access and programming to embrace all members of our diverse community, and creating more parkland over time to handle the forecasted population increase. It also addresses preferred amenities and enhancements to parks expressed by citizens and highlights gaps in resources available for maintenance and operations. This process established that not only must we preserve and maintain our valued existing parks and programs, but we also must invest in critical new projects to meet verified needs and increasing demand. This plan outlines the road map and process to do both. Implementing the master plan will require a focused and dedicated commitment from both the City and the public, in partnership, to fund and enhance this vital civic infrastructure. Thank you to all who have participated - citizens, Commissioners, staff members, stakeholders, and City Council -and to those who have invested countless hours to bring this effort to reality. The Parks and Recreation Commission calls on all Palo Altans to help us realize the vision embodied in the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, for this vision can only be realized with the community’s enthusiasm and commitment. City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission 117116 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS Capital Project: Any physical improvement with a minimal cost of $50,000, a useful life of at least 5-7 years, or that extends the life of an existing asset by at least 5 years. Planning and design are considered a part of a capital project. Creek/Riparian Enhancement: Conceptual enhancement opportunity for all of the creeks passing through Palo Alto. Element: One of three divisions of the plan for analysis purposes: parks, trails and natural open space; recreation facilities; and recreation programs. Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route: A concept to improve routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to create a network of high-quality on- and off-street connections that link parks. These routes are envisioned to have enhanced crossings, street treatments and other improvements beyond the bicycle infrastructure outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Streetscape and plantings are also linked to the idea of Pollinator Pathways. Facility: A built feature in a park or preserve that adds, supports or enhances a recreation activity. Goals: A broad statement of direction describing the desired end state. Goals are qualitative in nature and collectively should achieve the system envisioned by the principles. Mean Projected High Water 3-Foot Sea Level Rise: The line at which water meets the land surface at the mean high water point projected in NOAA models for 3 feet of sea level rise. Natural Open Space Preserve: A category of parkland that is designated to protect and provide access to nature. The four natural open space preserves are: Baylands Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Park Connector: A conceptual second tier of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian routes that link the major routes to a few isolated sites. Park Search Area: The inverse of the park service areas, highlighting the areas outside of a ½-mile walk from any parkland. These areas are the targets for strategies to add to the park system. 118118 Policy: A values-based framework that provides clear direction and guides an action toward achieving the goal. Policies state what will be done, but not how. Pollinator Pathway: A concept for pathways, utilizing the Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route network, that feature plantings and tree canopy along the streetscape to enhance habitat connections for birds and insects with multiple benefits, including enhancing pollination. Principles: A fundamental basis that describes a desired state or preferred direction. Collectively, the principles articulate the Palo Alto community’s vision for the future parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Recreation Program: A class, league, camp, tour or event that facilitates participating in an activity. Riparian Connected Parks: Sites with a creek (natural or channelized) passing through or adjacent. Universal Design: “The concept of designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.” - Ronald L. Mace of North Carolina State University, College of Design Urban Canopy Target Area: The lowest canopy coverage neighborhoods in the Urban Forestry Master Plan (0-30% coverage). Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Glossary 119118 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 118 Bibliography Documents 1. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections and Priorities: 2009. Building Momentum.” 2. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2013.” 3. City of Palo Alto, Administrative Services Department. “2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.” June 30, 2015. 4. City of Palo Alto City Manager. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Foothills Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/ documents/15866 5. City of Palo Alto. “Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Advisory Committee Report: Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 21, 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/documents/29729 6. City of Palo Alto. “Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.” July 2012. 7. City of Palo Alto. “Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects.” March 17, 2014. https://www. cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39437. 8. City of Palo Alto. “Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan.” February 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto. org/civicax/filebank/documents/28774 9. City of Palo Alto. Climate Protection Plan. December 3, 2007. www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/ filebank/documents/9986 10. City of Palo Alto. “Citizen Centric Report for Fiscal Year 2013.” March 17, 2014. 11. City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/documents/38719 12. City of Palo Alto. City Council Informational Report. “Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011.” March 5, 2012. 13. City of Palo Alto, City Manager’s Office. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Foothills Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009. 14. City of Palo Alto, Community Service Department. “Adoption of Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities Resolution.” October 26, 2015. 15. City of Palo Alto, Community Services and Public Works Department. “Parks and Recreation Master Plan Staff Report.” October 23, 2012. 16. City of Palo Alto.” Community Services Class Cost Recovery Policy.” Adopted by Council November 26, 2007. 17. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR: Biological Resources.” February 5, 2016. 120 18. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Population, Housing, and Employment.” August 29, 2014. 19. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Services.” August 29, 2014. 20. City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment. “Tree Technical Manual: Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030.” June 2001. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/ filebank/documents/6937. 21. City of Palo Alto Department of Utilities, Utility Marketing Services in cooperation with the Department of Water Resources.“ January 2009. Landscape Standards.” http://www.cityofpaloalto. org/civicax/filebank/documents/18226. 22. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries.” October 2001. 23. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees.” August 17, 2015. 24. City of Palo Alto. “Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” June 2013. 25. City of Palo Alto, Finance Committee. “Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees.” May 6, 2014. 26. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Capital Budget.” April 30, 2012. 27. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget.” August 5, 2013. 28. City of Palo Alto. “The National Citizen Survey.” January 23, 2015. 29. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan.” 4th Edition. 2008. 30. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Municipal Code.” www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/ paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca 31. City of Palo Alto. “Performance Report for FY 2013.” March 17, 2014. 32. City of Palo Alto. “Public Art Master Plan.” Revised Draft. April 18, 2016. 33. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department. “Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl, Byxbee Park Hills.” May 2015. 34. City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Auditor. “Study Session: Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report FY 2011.” March 19, 2012. 35. City of Palo Alto Recreation Division: Community Services Division. “Summary of Programs and Services.” Hard copy only. 36. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School. “Bicycle Counts.” 2010. 37. City of Palo Alto. “Urban Forest Master Plan.” February 2015. 38. City of Palo Alto Utilities. “Urban Wastewater Management Plan.” June 2011. www.cityofpaloalto. org/civicax/filebank/documents/27107 39. Cubberley Community Center. “Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report.” May 2013. Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 121120 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 40. Fehr and Peers. ”Maybell Plan Drawings.” January 28, 2014. http://www.bpapaloalto.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/Maybell-drawings-01.30.14.pdf 41. Gallagher, Tim. “Developing Sustainable Park Systems in Oregon.” June 2012 42. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. “Imagine the Future of Open Space 2014 Vision Plan.” http://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2014_Vision_Plan.pdf 43. National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). “National Citizens Survey: City of Palo Alto 2013.” 2013. 44. Palo Alto Unified School District, prepared by Decision Insight. “Analysis of enrollment projections: Fall 2014.” December 2013. 45. Project Safety Net. “Strategic Plan 2013-2014.” www.psnpaloalto.com/home/psn-strategic-plan/. 46. Stanford University / City of Palo Alto. “The Stanford and Palo Alto Trails Program: Connecting the Bay to the Ridge.” Stanford University / City of Palo Alto Joint Grant Application, September 6, 2012, Santa Clara County Recreation Fund Established by the County / Stanford Trails Agreement. http:// www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/Recreational%20Projects%20Applications/Stanford%20 and%20Palo%20Alto%20Application_Pt%203%20-%20Stanford%20Perimeter%20Trail.pdf Databases 47. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections by Major Age Groups (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 48. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 49. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections by Total Population every 5 Years (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 50. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population Projections Median Age by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (2010-2060). December 15, 2014. 51. City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home 52. City of Palo Alto Recreation Registration System (2014 onward) Websites 53. U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/ jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml 54. U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census Summary. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ community_facts.xhtml 55. City of Palo Alto, CA. “City Sustainability Policy.” http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/news/ details.asp?NewsID=751&TargetID=59 122 56. City of Palo Alto. Budget Viewer. https://paloalto.opengov.com/transparency#/329/accountType=ex penses&breakdown=3ae92313-04df-42e6-aaf9-6428e2d2c5b5&currentYearAmount=cumulativ e&currentYearPeriod=years&graph=stacked&legendSort=desc&month=6&proration=true&saved_ view=null&selection=F27FD044A63ADC842F2C21EB66DA828B&fiscal_start=earliest&fiscal_ end=latest 57. City of Palo Alto. “Golf Course Reconfiguration Project.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/golf/ new/default.asp 58. Safe Routes to School: Palo Alto. http://www.saferoutes.paloaltopta.org/ 59. City of Palo Alto. “News Details: Rinconada Long Range Plan.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/ displaynews.asp?NewsID=1917&targetid=109 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Bibliography 123122 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Photo Credits Photo Credits The photos in this document were provided by the City of Palo Alto unless credited below. Page xi TOP: hustace_mig_santeepark_7321, MIG, Inc. MIDDLE: P6240900, Ryan Mottau, MIG, Inc. BOTTOM: Outdoor Fitness Machines, Barry Cawston, http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_ id=3978634 Page xii TOP: 2012billyhustace_0812_7826_darker, MIG, Inc. Page xiv MIDDLE: hustace_0412_anaheimcove_0432, MIG, Inc. BOTTOM: 8_BigBird’s Climbing Nest06, http://www.japanesesearch.com/big-birds-climbing-nest-in- universal-studios-osaka/ Page 11 2011.05.28-027-Snowy-Egret-cedMed.jpg, Citizen Science League. http://csl.dynamicpatterns. com/2011/05/28/nesting-season-at-the-palo-alto-baylands/ Page 54 P1030296.jpg, Advocates for Privately Owned Public Space, The Municipal Art Society of New York, http://apops.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/P1030296.jpg Page 58 TOP: 1-2-JCWCEVENT_NaturalAreas, David F. Ashton, http://eastpdxnews.com/general-news-features/ hundreds-of-volunteers-clean-up-johnson-creek/ Page 60 BOTTOM: AA DroughtQ&A2, Andy Alfaro, http://www.modbee.com/news/article22403646.html 124 Page 61 TOP: McAllisterdogpark, San Antonio Parks & Rec, http://www.sanantonio.gov/ParksAndRec/ ParksFacilities/AllParksFacilities/ParksFacilitiesDetails/TabId/3354/ArtMID/14820/ArticleID/2578/ McAllister-Park.aspx?Park=141&Facility= BOTTOM: dog_parkrk, Username: Fidelity http://www.doggoes.com/parks/california/san-mateo- county/foster-city-dog-park-boat-park Page 62 TOP: Community-Garden, MIG, Inc. BOTTOM: 6-East-Palo-Alto-United-States1, 350.org, http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/current-affairs/ social-issues/10-ways-to-celebrate-10-10-10/ Page 63 606wide, Jeff Banowetz, https://rootsrated.com/stories/new-proposed-bike-lanes-could-change-the- way-you-ride-in-chicago Page 64 PA7.jpg, Upper Playground. http://www.upperplayground.com/blogs/news-upperplay- ground/15493048-brilliance-new-interactive-illuminated-sculpture-garden-in-palo-alto Page 66 TOP: Earth Day 045, Dr. Laura Russomano, http://character.org/schools-of-character/promising- practices-overview/promising-practices-award-winners/winners-list/promising-practices-2012/ theunis-dey/ BOTTOM: Julio great horned owl2, MIG, Inc. Page 68 TOP: INSTALLATIONS_c984b34b42fe0469a8f60619532cfdf0, JUSTIN SAGLIO, https://www. bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2014/09/11/interactive-art-piece-swing-time-lights- lawn/4UQQCGiRZ0lPDysO4IYxNK/story.html BOTTOM: The porch, MIG, Inc. Page 69 150dpiUCBUnderhill-1024wx500h.jpg, Watry Design, http://watrydesign.com/projects/uc-berkeley-un- derhill-parking-structure Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Photo Credits 125124 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Page 70 3876 Noriega Street SF Devils-teeth-baking-company, MIG, Inc. Page 73 BOTTOM: Parachute solar flowers, Garfield Clean Energy, http://www.postindependent.com/news/in-solar-energy- rifle-shines-most-brightly/ Page 75 stormwaterplanter_residential, sitephocus.com, https://hpigreen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/highresdownload_ highpoint-005.jpg Title Page, Appendix B Youth Soccer_RAM, Ryan Mottau, MIG, Inc. APPENDIX A PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY THE FOLLOWING PAGES CONTAIN AN INVENTORY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IN PALO ALTO. A-1 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Ownership Address/Location La n d ( a c r e s ) Ba s e b a l l F i e l d So f t b a l l F i e l d s So c c e r F i e l d s City Park Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto Geng Road, off Embarcadero 6 1 1 Bol Park City of Palo Alto Laguna between Barron and Matadero 13.8 Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 39 Fernando Avenue 1.5 Bowden Park City of Palo Alto Alma Street at California Avenue 2 Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 474 Embarcadero Road 1.9 (Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto Arastradero at Clemo Street 4.1 Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 211 Wellesley Street 1.1 Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto Lytton Avenue at Bryant Street 0.5 El Camino Park Stanford University*1 El Camino Real 12.19 1 1 Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 851 Center Drive 9.6 El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto El Camino Real at Alma Street 0.5 Greer Park City of Palo Alto 198 Amarillo Street 22 1 3 5 Heritage Park City of Palo Alto Homer at Waverley 2.01 Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 291 Cowper Street 4.2 1 Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Avenue from Emerson to Marlowe 12.4 Johnson Park City of Palo Alto Everett and Waverley 2.5 Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto Waverly at Embarcadero Road 0.245 Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 202 University Avenue 0.2 Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 23 Wellesley Street 1.1 Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 6 East Meadow Avenue 21.4 Monroe Park City of Palo Alto Monroe and Miller Avenue 0.55 Peers Park City of Palo Alto 1899 Park Boulevard 4.7 Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 8 East Meadow Avenue 4.4 Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 777 Embarcadero Road 19 Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4116 Park Boulevard 4.7 1 1 Scott Park City of Palo Alto Scott Street at Channing Avenue 0.4 Seale Park City of Palo Alto 31 Stockton 4.3 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Stanford University*El Camino at Page Mill Road 5.9 2 Terman Park City of Palo Alto (joint shared use with PAUSD)"655 Arastradero Road 7.7 1 2 Wallis Park City of Palo Alto Grant Avenue at Ash Street 0.3 Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 2298 Dartmouth Street 1.1 Williams Park (Museum of American Heritage)City of Palo Alto 351 Homer Ave 0.7 Werry Park City of Palo Alto 23 Dartmouth Street 1.1 Subtotal 174.08 4 6 11 * Leased by the City of Palo Alto. The El Camino lease expires in 2042 and the Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields lease expires in 2056. A-2A-1 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Yo u t h S o c c e r F i e l d s Fo o t b a l l F i e l d Li g h t s ( f i e l d s ) Qu a l i t y R a t i n g ( f i e l d s ) Te n n i s C o u r t s Ba s k e t b a l l C o u r t s Gy m S p a c e Po o l Pl a y A r e a Pu b l i c A r t / M e m o r i a l Bu i l d i n g Tr a i l Pi c n i c A r e a Re s t r o o m s Ot h e r F a c i l i t i e s Other Facility Description yes A 2 1 2 Concessions stand/maintenance equipment storage; restrooms equipment storage 1 E 1 perimeter trail 2 1 Un-channeled creek 1 2 perimeter trail 2 1 yes perimeter trail 1 1 Bowling green 1 E 1 2 footpath 1 1 E 1 1 1 1 Wireless internet access yes perimeter trail 1 1 1 C 2 yes 1 3 Community gardens, multi-purpose concrete bowl connections B 2 1 yes 3 1 2 Skateboard park (outdated); dog "exercise area" 1 1 1 B 2 1 2 yes perimeter trail 1 1 3 Fenced dog run, handball court, multi-purpose bowl 1 E 1 1 perimeter trail 5 3 Community garden, sand volley ball court, open turf yes 1 Fountain 1 1 Library 1 7 4 yes 2 0.25 miles 6 3 1 Magical Bridge accessible play area, fenced dog run, water feature, handball courts, horseshoe pits, shuffleboard, petanque, multipurpose bowl, fieldhouse, concession stand/kitchen area 1 walking path 1 1 D 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 Field house with restroom 1 E 1 1 T-ball field 1 D 9 2 2 2 1 E 1 2 footpath 2 2 Multi-purpose bowl 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 pathway 3 1 yes A yes 1 1 1 1 Snack shack C 2 4 perimeter trail yes E 2 Museum of American Heritage 1 E 1 1 11 0 3 24 14 0 1 29 8 8 39 13 22 A-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Quality Rating Key “A” Facility “B” Facility “C” Facility PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Ownership Address/Location La n d ( a c r e s ) Ba s e b a l l F i e l d So f t b a l l F i e l d s So c c e r F i e l d s City Open Space/Conservation Lands Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 2775 Embarcadero Road 1,986 Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto Old Trace Road 22 Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 33 Page Mill Road 1,400 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto Arastradero Road at Page Mill Road 622 Subtotal 4,030 0 0 0 Other Recreation Facilities in Palo Alto Cubberly Community Center and Fields City of Palo Alto/PAUSD 4 Middlefield Road, T-2 4 3 Gamble Garden City of Palo Alto 1431 Waverley Street King Plaza at City Hall City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Lucie Stern Community Center City of Palo Alto 13 5 Middlefield Road Middlefield Ballpark Palo Alto Little League 3672 Middlefield Road Mitchell Park Community Center City of Palo Alto 3800 Middlefield Road Junior Museum and Zoo City of Palo Alto 1451 Middlefield Road Municipal Golf Course City of Palo Alto 1875 Embarcadero Road 181 Ventura Community Center City of Palo Alto 3990 Ventura Court Winter Lodge City of Palo Alto 3009 Middlefield Road Subtotal 181 0 4 3 Palo Alto Unified School District Facilities Barron Park Elementary School PAUSD 8 Barron Avenue Duveneck Elementary School PAUSD 75 Alester Avenue El Carmelo Elementary School PAUSD Loma Verde Avenue Escondido Elementary School PAUSD 89 Escondido Road Fairmeadow Elementary School PAUSD 5 East Meadow Drive Greendell Early Childhood Education Center PAUSD 412 Middlefield Road Gunn High School PAUSD 78 Arastradero Road 1*1*2* Hoover Elementary School PAUSD 445 E. Charleston Road JLS Middle School PAUSD 48 E. Meadow Drive 3 Jordan Middle School PAUSD 75 N. California Avenue 1 3 Juana Briones Elementary School PAUSD 41 Orme Street Lucille Nixon Elementary School PAUSD Stanford Avenue Ohlone Elementary School PAUSD 95 Amarillo Avenue Palo Verde Elementary School PAUSD 345 Louis Road Palo Alto High School (Paly)PAUSD 5 Embarcadero Road 1*1*2* Terman Middle School PAUSD (joint shared use with City)655 Arastradero Road 2 Ventura Community Center (building only)PAUSD 3990 Ventura Court Walter Hays Elementary School PAUSD 1525 Middlefield Road Subtotal 0 0 1 8 Palo Alto Total 4384.7 4 11 22 *Use of HS fields is coordinated by PAUSD A-4A-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX A: PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY High-quality turf, possibly with lights and few time restrictions High-quality turf, no nights and few time restrictions Good quality turf, no lights Quality Rating Key “A” Facility “B” Facility “C” Facility Fair turf quality, no lights, restrictions on use time and close proximity to neighbors Low turf quality, no lights, no bathroom access and time restrictions Yo u t h S o c c e r F i e l d s Fo o t b a l l F i e l d Li g h t s ( f i e l d s ) Qu a l i t y R a t i n g ( f i e l d s ) Te n n i s C o u r t s Ba s k e t b a l l C o u r t s Gy m S p a c e Po o l Pl a y A r e a Pu b l i c A r t / M e m o r i a l Bu i l d i n g Tr a i l Pi c n i c A r e a Re s t r o o m s Ot h e r F a c i l i t i e s Other Facility Description yes 1 15 miles 1 1 2 Nature interpretive center yes 1 15 miles 1 1 3 Campground; large turf area; Boranda Lake dock; nature interpretive center yes 1 10.3 miles 1 Nature interpretive center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 3 5 B 6 yes 1 2 Theater 1 Historic home and garden 1 2 Community Theatre and Children's Theatre 2 Snack shack and scoreboard 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 Ice skating rink 1 0 0 6 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 8 1 E 3 1 E 2 1 E 2 1 E 1 E 2 1 E 1*yes C 7 3 1 1 C 3 1 C 6 6 C 6 7 1 E 4 1 E 3 1 E 2 1 E 4 1*yes 7 4 C 5 3 1 1 E 3 13 0 2 26 56 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 5 56 15 1 2 30 11 13 0 41 20 33 “D” Facility “E” Facility APPENDIX B GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS THE MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF PALO ALTO’S SYSTEM USED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DATA ON the parks, streets, trails and recreation facilities to evaluate the system from the perspective of a pedestrian or cyclist. The core of the analysis is described and illustrated in Chapter 3. This appendix includes additional mapping that was completed to illustrate the distribution of components and activities that emerged as important in the planning process. These include: exercise and fitness; gathering; play for children; relax and enjoy the outdoors; throw a ball; recreation with dogs; indoor recreation, and sports courts. Additionally, community input through the Mapita interactive map reported a park quality rating that is visualized in a final map. C-2C-2B-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k B arron C reek Adobe Creek St a n f o rd M o unt a i nView M enlo P a r k L o s A l t o s Lo s A lto sHills E a stPalo A lto Ather t o n S a n M a t e o Co unty Po rto l aValley S an F r a n c is co Ba y S t a n f or d S a n ta C l a r a Co unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal Emb a r c a rd er o Rd Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle s to n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Exercise and Fitness Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-2 B-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford Mo untai nView Menlo Park Lo s A l to s Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley Sa n F ra nc i sc o B a y Stanford Santa Cl a r a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Exercise and Fitness Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-4C-4B-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat ad e ro C r e e k Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stan f o r d M o unt a i nView M enlo P a r k L o s A l t os L os A l t osHills Ea s tPalo Al t o Ather t o n S a n M a t e o Co unty P o rto l a Val l e y S an F r a n c is c o B a y S t a n f ord S a nt a C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a mino R eal Em b a rcard e r o Rd Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Gathering Spaces Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS StanfordUniversity FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan C-4 B-5 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M ount a inView Menlo Park Los A l to s Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley S a n F r a n cis co Ba y Stanford SantaC lar a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a mino R eal Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Gathering Spaces Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS StanfordUniversity FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan C-6C-6B-6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S an F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C re e k Barron Creek Adobe Creek S t a n f or d M ount a inView M enl o P a r k L os A l t o s Lo s A l t o sHills E a s tPalo Alt o At her to n Sa n Ma t e o C o unt y P o rto l a V a l l e y S a n Fra n c i s c o B ay S t a nf o r d S a nt a C lara C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o Re al E m b arc a r dero Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real San d Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Play for Children Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-6 B-7 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M ount a i nView Menlo Park Los Al t os Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley S a n F r a n ci s co Bay Stanford Santa C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o Re al Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Play for Children Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-8C-8B-8 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S an F r a ncisquito Creek Mat a d e ro C r e ek B arron C reek Adobe Creek S t a n f or d M o unt a i n V ie w M enl o P ark Lo s A l t o s L o s A l t osHills E a s tPalo A l t o Ather t o n S a n Ma t e o C o unt y Po rto l a Val l e y S a n F r a n ci s c o B ay S t a nfo r d S a n t a C l a r a Co unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal E m barc ar de ro Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h arle s to n Rd El Camino Real San d Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Relax and Enjoy the Outdoors Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-8 B-9 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M ount a i n Vi e w Menlo Park Los Al t os Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley S a n Fra n c i s c o B ay Stanford SantaC l a r a C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Relax and Enjoy the Outdoors Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-10C-10B-10 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k B arron Creek Adobe Creek S tan fo r d M ount a i nView Menl o P a r k L o s Al t os Lo s A l to s Hill s E a st P a l o A lto A t her t on S a n M a t eo C o unt y P orto l aValley S a n F r a n ci s c o B ay St a n f o rd S a n ta C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o Re al Emb a r ca rd e r o Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real San d Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Throw, Catch, Shoot or Kick a Ball Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-10 B-11 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford Mo unta i nView Menlo Park Los A l to s Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley Sa n F ra nc i sc o B a y Stanford Santa C lar a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o Re al Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rle st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Space to Throw, Catch, Shoot or Kick a Ball Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-12B-12 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k B arron Creek Adobe Creek St a n f o rd M ou n t a i nView M e n lo P a r k L o s Al t os Lo s A lt o s Hi l ls E a s tPalo A lt o Ath e r t o n S a n M a te o Co u nty Po r t o l aValley S a n Fr a n c i s c o B ay S t a n f or d S a nt a C l a ra C o un t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal E m ba r c a r de r o R d Middlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle s t o n R d El Camino Real Sa n d Hill R d Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Recreation Areas for Dogs Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Dog Recreation Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-12 B-13 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M ou n t a inView Menlo Park Los A l t o s Los Altos Hills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley S a n Fra n c i sc o B a y Stanford Santa C lar a C ou n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R eal Embarcardero RdMiddlefield Rd Alm a St Arastradero Rd Alm a St C h a rle st o n R d El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Recreation Areas for Dogs Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Dog Recreation Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (PrivateTrail with Public Access) C-14B-14 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS San F r a ncisquitoCreek Matad e ro C r e e k Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stan f o r d M ount a i n Vi e w M enlo P a r k L os A l t o s L os A l t o sHills Eas tPalo A l t o Ather t o n S a n M a t e o Co unty P o rto l aValley S an F r a n cis co Ba y S t a n f ord San t a C lara C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R e al Emb a r card e r o Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Indoor Recreation Facilities Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Community Recreation Centers Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance Other Community Services Buildings Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-14 B-15 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M o unt a i n V ie w Menlo Park Lo s Al t os Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County PortolaValley San F r anc i s c o B a y Stanford Santa C l a ra C o unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R e al Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Indoor Recreation Facilities Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Community Recreation Centers Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance Other Community Services Buildings Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-16B-16 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S a n F r a ncisquitoCreek Mat a d e ro C r e e k B arron C reek Adobe Creek S t a n f ord Mount a in V i e w M enl o P ark Lo s A l to s Lo s A l to s Hill s E a s t Pal o A l t o A t hert o n San Mat e o C o unt y P orto laValley S a n F r a n cis co Ba y S t a nf o r d S an t a C lar a C ount y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park May eldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o Re al Emb a r c a rd er o Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rle st o n Rd El Camino Real San d Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Sports Courts Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-16 B-17 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M o untai nView Menlo Park Lo s Al t o s Los AltosHills EastPalo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley Sa n F ra nc i sc o B a y Stanford Santa C l a r a Co unt y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayeldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a mino R eal Embarcardero Rd Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rle s to n Rd El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave Palo Alto Airport Parks with Sports Courts Date: October 2016 Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson- ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Experience Service Areas 1/4 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1/2 Mile or Less Walking Distance 1 Mile or Less Walking Distance City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-18C-18B-18 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS S a n F ra ncisquito Creek Mat a d e ro C re e k Barron Creek Adobe Creek St a n f o rd Mo u n t a i nView M e nl o P a r k L os A l t o s L o s Al t os H i ll s Ea s t P a lo A l t o At h e r to n San Mat e o C o un t y P o rto l a V a l l e y Sa n F ranc i sc o B a y S ta nfo r d San t a C lar a C ou n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryPark BoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R e al E m b a r c a rd e ro R d Middlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rl e st o n R d El Camino Real San d Hill R d Santa Cruz Ave 78 4956 71 72 42 80 71 36 62 67 75 61 78 39 73 74 69 76 23 69 74 61 85 73 7468 31 64 65 61 48 76 75 67 82 Palo Alto Airport 5955 Overall Park Quality Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Quality 10 25 50 75 100 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) C-18 B-19 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX B: GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS SanFrancisquitoCreek MataderoCreek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Stanford M o unt a i nView Menlo Park Los A lt o s Los Altos Hills East Palo Alto Atherton San Mateo County Portola Valley S a n F r a n ci s co Bay Stanford Santa C l a r a Co u n t y Baylands Preserve BaylandsAthleticCenter GreerPark BolPark MitchellPark Esther ClarkPreserve El CaminoPark TermanPark HooverPark EleanorPardeePark Peers Park SealePark RoblesPark RamosPark Briones Park CubberleyCommunityCenter JohnsonPark BowdenPark Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields Heritage Park BowlingGreenPark El PaloAlto Park WerryParkBoulwarePark CameronPark WeisshaarPark MonroePark RinconadaPark WilliamsPark Cogswell Plaza LyttonPlaza Sarah WallisPark HopkinsCreekside Park Palo AltoGolf Course Scott Park MayfieldPark VenturaCommunity Center Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve KelloggPark Foothills Park Page Mill Rd Oregon Expy El C a min o R e al Embarcardero RdMiddlefield Rd Alma St Arastradero Rd Alma St C h a rle s t o n R d El Camino Real Sand Hill Rd Santa Cruz Ave 78 4956 7172 42 80 71 36 62 67 75 61 78 39 73 74 69 76 23 69 74 61 85 73 7468 31 64 65 61 48 76 75 67 82 Palo Alto Airport 5955 Overall Park Quality Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS and Santa Clara County GIS Stanford FoothillsPark Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve BaylandPreserve Santa ClaraCounty San MateoCounty Palo Alto Menlo Park MountainView Los AltosLos AltosHills Atherton Cupertino PortolaValley East Palo Alto UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve Base Map Features City of Palo Alto Major Highways and Freeways Streets Creeks and Channels Water Bodies Schools Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016) City Park City Natural Open Space Other City Property 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Park Quality 10 25 50 75 100 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Trails Trails Private Recreation Route Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail with Public Access) APPENDIX C COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS COMMITTED TO CREATING A PLAN THAT ALIGNS WITH LOCAL NEEDS, PREFERENCES AND PRIORITIES. Community input was integral to each phase of the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan development. The engagement plan was designed to: increase community awareness of the project; inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project; provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation; offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences; ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values; and get community buy-in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long-term implementation. C-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community Engagement Activities To achieve these goals, the Public Engagement Plan laid out a robust, layered outreach strategy that included a variety of engagement tools and activities so Palo Alto residents and other interested community members could participate in a manner convenient and comfortable for them. There were numerous opportunities for participation, with a variety of formats, times and levels of interaction offered as well as both online and face-to-face methods. PROJECT WEBPAGE A Master Plan project webpage, hosted on the City’s website with a project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org), served as the information portal and document library for the planning effort. PUBLIC INFORMATION UPDATES The project team disseminated public information updates through the City’s established mailing lists, newsletters and social media accounts. These updates informed the community about upcoming meetings, online participation opportunities and project status. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AT A GLANCE 200+ Intercept Survey Participants 487 Online Map-Based Survey Participants 65 Community Input Workshop Participants 1,100+ Online Community Survey Participants 16 Follow-up Stakeholder Interviews 736 Community Prioritization Challenge and Workshop Participants 200+ Site Concept Review Comments Project webpage C-2 C-3 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP The Stakeholder Advisory Group provided an informed sounding board for ideas and provided updated information about related efforts and organizations. This group was also asked to help boost participation in other engagement activities by passing along information to existing networks and constituent groups about the Master Plan process. This group consisted of representatives from local advocacy groups, recreation organizations, local employers and landowners, community service providers and others. To respect the time of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the project team designed the process to solicit this group’s input at strategic times during the project. INTERCEPT EVENTS During the summer of 2014, the project team and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) members conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input from visitors outdoors at parks, farmers markets and community events. This approach is effective at engaging all age groups, especially families with children, and allows for informal and educational discussions with the public. It also facilitates interaction with people who do not typically attend public meetings, due to schedule conflicts or a lack of awareness. The project team selected intercept times and locations to reach a cross-section of Palo Altans. More than 200 people learned about the park system and the Master Plan effort and informed the planning team about their values and motivations as related to parks, natural open space and recreation. ONLINE MAP-BASED SURVEY During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online, interactive, map-based survey using the Mapita application. This tool allows community members to respond to a series of questions and provide geographically tagged comments on specific parks, facilities and transportation routes throughout the City. A total of 487 respondents provided comments on park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities. This effort generated a rich data set about how people use the park system, how they travel to the places they go, and what their experience is like, including site-specific data. The images on the next page are example graphics from the map-based survey. C-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Site-specific comments on Bol Park from the online map-based survey Routes to respondents’ closest park (darker lines indicate more intensely-used routes) C-4 C-5 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY INPUT WORKSHOPS In fall and winter 2014, the project team conducted three interactive public workshops in different areas of Palo Alto, attended by about 65 community members. Participants took part in a visual preference survey about the character and design of parks using real-time keypad polling. This activity, facilitated in small groups, provided opportunities for in-depth discussion of what features participants would like to protect, preserve, improve or add to Palo Alto. The project team collected polling data, recorded group discussion and collected additional input on comment cards. For example, the image below shows the level of participant support (combined from all three workshops) for a landscape with integrated natural plantings. ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the project team in close consultation with the PRC. This tool collected data on community priorities and preferences to inform the development of recommendations and actions. The survey was available online and in hard copy, in both English and Spanish, from mid-November to mid-December 2015. Visual preference survey result from a community input workshop C-6 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOLLOW-UP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS As the planning process unfolded, the project team identified issues for which additional knowledge from staff and community experts would be beneficial to understanding needs and identifying potential recommendations. Between October 2014 and March 2015, sixteen follow-up stakeholder interviews were conducted to gather additional data and explore issues in depth. The interviewees included City and partner staff, volunteers and community members across a variety of topics: • Community gardening • Aquatics • Cubberley Community Center tenants • Junior Museum and Zoo • Palo Alto Art Center • Children’s Library • Palo Alto Children’s Theatre • Middle school athletics • Palo Alto dog owners • Avenidas • Palo Alto Youth Council • Boost drop-in programming COMMUNITY PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE AND WORKSHOP To obtain community input on how to prioritize enhancements within areas of focus, the project team implemented an online interactive exercise called the Community Prioritization Challenge from August 28, 2015, to February 15, 2016. A total of 731 respondents provided feedback through this activity. The online exercise was supplemented by an in-person workshop held on February 11, 2016, which was lightly attended (five participants representing different recreation interest groups) but included a rich conversation about priorities. The online exercise was mirrored by a printed display board that listed the twelve areas of focus, on which each participant was asked to place five sticky dots to indicate preferred investments. C-6 C-7 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community Prioritization Challenge C-8 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SITE CONCEPTS REVIEW The project team reached out to the community at the May Fête on May 7, 2016, to review preliminary site concepts, which are illustrations of how the recommendations of this plan could play out across each park and preserve. The site concepts were presented as bubble diagrams, indicating areas within the site and the general type of improvements recommended. Shortly after this initial event, on May 25, a workshop was held to provide another opportunity to comment on the concepts. Approximately thirty people reviewed the concepts at the workshop. Further comments were received from other City of Palo Alto department staff (including Public Safety and Planning) as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission. To expand the opportunity to comment, the project team created and advertised an online comment form that provided the opportunity to provide site-specific feedback on the concepts. Over 200 comments were received through this form. These concepts have been refined and are presented in Chapter 5 of this plan. PUBLIC COMMENT ON PLAN The project team created an online feedback form to collect comments from the public on the draft Master Plan. As comments were made, they were logged to track the source of the comment, specific feedback or recommended changes for consideration, and aggregated feedback to identify patterns. Comments were discussed with staff and the PRC to determine appropriate action. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) The planning team engaged the PRC throughout the Master Plan effort, from the initial scope development and consultant selection through every step of the process. This commission’s involvement was critical to understanding the full range of issues in the community and in shaping further community engagement. CITY COUNCIL An important part of the Master Plan process was City Council involvement. Council members represent Palo Alto residents and are the policy and decision-making body of the City. As an initial step, the project team made a presentation to the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a joint study session. This presentation introduced the goals and objectives of the planning process as well as preliminary plans for community engagement and system analysis. As the planning process progressed, City C-8 C-9 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Council was provided updates through periodic reports and two study sessions. Community Engagement Results and Plan Development The planning team identified patterns and trends that cut across all the engagement activities and results, and crafted the Master Plan Principles described in Chapter 4 to articulate a vision for the future. These principles served as the foundation for the Master Plan. The planning team then developed six Master Plan Goals stating desired outcomes and accompanying policies and programs to serve as a guide for City decision making to improve the parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. For more detailed descriptions of each outreach activity and key findings, please see the Technical Supplement on the City website. APPENDIX D EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO USES A VARIETY OF FUNDING SOURCES TO SUPPORT PARK, TRAIL, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES. The following pages summarize these existing sources. D-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES General Fund The General Fund is the pool of unrestricted tax dollars and other revenues that a city uses to pay for most of the services it provides. General Funds are allocated out in the budgeting process, and dollars for park operations must compete with other city needs for limited resources. Palo Alto uses the General Fund as the primary source for operations and programming and also makes a substantial transfer to the Capital Improvement Program each year. Recreation programs generate revenue from user fees, which flow directly into the General Fund, not into the budget for recreation services. Parkland Dedication Fees A separate fee is charged at the time land is subdivided for additional development. The parkland dedication fee is authorized under the Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) allowing cities to require developers set aside land, donate conservation easements or pay fees for park improvements. This fee is calculated based on the maximum land requirement allowed under the act, (5 acres per 1,000 persons), the number of dwelling units and the current value of land. This funding source will be relatively insignificant in the future due to the limited opportunity to subdivide land within Palo Alto. In 2016, the parkland dedication fee fund balance is $3,214,370. Development Impact Fees The City of Palo Alto collects impact fees authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act for both new park system expansion and community centers. These fees are collected at the time building permits are issued for new construction and are based on a measurable impact of additional people to the system. The fees are adjusted annually to account for inflation. The current impact fee amounts are listed in Table D-1. The amount of the impact fee is based on two variables: the projected growth of the user population resulting from the development and the cost of planned improvements in response to that growth. In 2014, the City revisited the nexus study and projects that form the basis of all of the development impact fees D-3D-2 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES FEES: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY UNDER 900 SQUARE FEET PARKS $11,864 $17,716 $7,766 $3,926 COMMUNITY CENTERS $3,075 $4,605 $2,024 $1,021 TOTAL RELEVANT* IMPACT FEES PER HOME $14,939 $22,321 $9,790 $4,947 charged. This study determined that the fees were adequate for current needs but should be revisited following the completion of this Master Plan. In addition to the ongoing collection of impact fees as development continues, Palo Alto currently has a balance in the impact fee funds. In 2016, the park development impact fee fund balance is $3,946,291 and the community center impact fee fund balance is $5,727,035, although this balance is mostly committed to improvements that are already in the CIP. Table D-1: Current Impact Fees FEES: COMMERCIAL HOTEL/MOTEL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKS $5.038 $2.278 $5.038 $5.038 COMMUNITY CENTERS $0.284 $0.128 $0.284 $0.284 TOTAL RELEVANT* IMPACT FEES PER SQUARE FOOT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION $5.32 $2.41 $5.32 $5.32 *The City also collects development impact fees for Public Safety Facilities, General Government Facilities, Housing, Traffic and Public Art. D-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES Grants Both private and public agencies offer a variety of grant programs. Most park and recreation grant funds originate with either the Federal or State government and are limited to funding the acquisition, design and construction of parks, facilities and trails. The active list of grant programs regularly changes, as Federal and State budgets expand and contract, and the application schedule and process must be learned and monitored. Further, most grants require that the local agency match a percentage of the funding with local dollars. In addition, private and corporate foundations are granting funding for the construction of facilities and the acquisition of lands that further their missions. Some private grant agencies in the health sector are currently funding pilot programs in some areas of the country to improve health outcomes, but for the most part grants are not a sustainable ongoing source of funding for recreation programming. Palo Alto has had some success with utilizing grant funding to expand successful programs, including those at the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Palo Alto Art Center, beyond the borders of the City. This allows these unique programs to reach a larger audience without costing the taxpayers of Palo Alto additional funds. Public-Private Partnerships The idea of working in close collaboration with a private entity to enhance park and recreation opportunities is gaining in popularity across the country. The basic approach is for a public agency to enter into a working agreement with a private corporation or non-profit entity to help fund, build and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives that a public agency can offer are free land to place a facility (usually a park or other piece of public land), certain tax advantages and access to public facilities. While the public agency may have to give up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of developing public facilities at a lower cost. Palo Alto has had several high-profile successes, most recently with the Magical Bridge Playground, with a fairly unique model of public-private partnership. In this model, the City allows a partner organization to take on the design and construction D-5D-4 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation APPENDIX D: EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING SOURCES process, carving out the project site and leasing the property to the partner for the duration of the project. The City remains involved in oversight and technical assistance and takes possession of the project at completion. Putting the partner organization at the front of the effort has resulted in very successful fundraising and a high- quality and relatively lower-cost process. Donations The donations of labor, land or cash by service agencies, private groups or individuals are a popular way to raise money for specific projects. The most effective agencies actively solicit donations both from the general public and through developed relationships with local companies and philanthropists. Friends of the Palo Alto Parks is an established channel for tax-deductible donations that can be directed to specific projects or to park improvements in general. The current level of donations has averaged approximately $15,000 per year. Labor hours contributed by volunteers are another type of donation that benefits the City’s parks and open space preserves. In Palo Alto’s history, there have been significant donations, such as Lucie Stern Center. Funding Gap Palo Alto currently has more options for funding capital projects than it does for funding that can fund the operation, maintenance and programming of the system. The City should sustain a sufficient investment to maintain its existing facilities, amenities and programs. Future funding options should address this gap. Attachment B Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available at www.paloaltoparksplan.org A hard copy is available for viewing at City of Palo Alto City Hall 5th Floor – Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment C PROJECT NAME Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan APPLICATION NUMBER Not Applicable APPLICANT AGREEMENT DATE 5/1/2017 APPROVED BY APPLICANT/OWNER City of Palo Alto, Department of Public Works; Peter Jensen The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an MND. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation AIR QUALITY Impact AIR-1: Future implementation of projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan have the potential to emit fugitive dust during construction activities. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: To reduce potential fugitive dust that may be generated by project construction activities, the City of Palo Alto shall implement the following BAAQMD basic construction measures when they are appropriate (BAAQMD Guidelines pg. 8-3, Table 8-1):  Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) during construction as necessary and adequately wet demolition surfaces to limit visible dust emissions  Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose materials off the project site.  Use a wet power vacuum street sweeper as necessary to remove all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads (dry power sweeping is prohibited) during construction of the proposed project.  Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads/areas shall not exceed 15 miles per hour.  Complete all areas to be paved as soon as possible and lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Minimize idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to five minutes and post signs reminding workers of this idling restriction at access points and equipment staging areas during construction of the proposed project.  Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and have a CARB-certified visible emissions evaluator check equipment prior to use at the site.  Post a publicly visible sign with the name and telephone number of the construction contractor and City staff person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The publicly visible sign shall also include the contact phone number for The City or its contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of dust control measures. During construction activities. Director of Public Works Director of Planning City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to special-status species and/or sensitive creek or riparian habitats. Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: All activities associated with the Master Plan shall comply with all relevant goals, policies and programs protecting creeks and riparian habitat in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2011) or any approved update to the current Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan 2030 expected by end of 2017), including Goal N-2; Policies N-11, N-12 and N-13; and Program N-7. For setback standards, Program N-7 directs that all new buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas (including dog parks), and ornamental landscaped areas constructed under the Master Plan shall maintain a 100-foot setback from the top of bank of any natural creek, with the exception of existing development which will be considered legal and nonconforming. Native vegetation along creek banks shall be preserved, and any vegetation along creek banks that is removed should be replaced with native species (Policy N-12). Site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks shall be minimized through careful review of grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks (Policy N-13). This measure shall apply to the Baylands Preserve, Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, Hopkins Creekside Park and the Municipal Golf Course which are adjacent to San Francisquito Creek; Bol Park, Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park which are adjacent to Matadero Creek; Mitchell Park and Terman Park which are adjacent to Adobe Creek; the Ventura Community Center which is adjacent to Barron Creek; and Foothills Park and Pearson Arastradero Preserve which contain numerous drainages. If ground disturbance within 100 feet of a creek or impacts to riparian vegetation are unavoidable, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1c shall apply. The City or its contractor. The City shall review design documents to ensure design plans reflect policy and new development is not within 100 feet of a natural creek. During project design to ensure design of project is consistent with policy and new development is not placed with 100 ft. of a natural creek and during construction to ensure creek resources are not impacted by construction activities and after construction for vegetation restoration. Director of Public Works Director of Planning City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Impact BIO-1: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to special-status species and/or sensitive creek or riparian habitats. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Master Plan activities involving grading, excavation or other ground disturbance in any of the City parks, natural preserves, or recreational facilities that either drain directly to a creek, or are within 100 feet of a creek, shall be restricted to the dry season if possible, between April 15 and October 31. If this is not possible, measures shall be taken, as appropriate to protect water quality and wildlife in the creek during storm events. These measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of silt fencing and/or straw wattles between the work area and the creek to prevent storm water runoff from the work site entering the creek. To protect wildlife in the creek corridor, no plastic monofilament shall be used in the water quality protection/ erosion control devices because it can entrap wildlife. This measure shall apply to the Baylands Preserve, Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, Hopkins Creekside Park and the Municipal Golf Course which are adjacent to San Francisquito Creek; Bol Park, Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park which are adjacent to Matadero Creek; Mitchell Park and Terman Park which are adjacent to Adobe Creek; the Ventura Community Center which is adjacent to Barron Creek; and Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve which contain numerous drainages.. The City or its contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of these storm water protection measures. Prior to the start of, and during construction activities. Director of Public Works Director of Planning Impact BIO-1: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to special-status species and/or sensitive creek or riparian habitats. Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: All Master Plan activities requiring ground disturbance within 100 feet of a creek or involving impacts to riparian vegetation, shall implement the following mitigation measures to protect special- status species. These measures shall not apply to parks adjacent to concrete channelized segments of creeks that lack riparian vegetation.  A qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction survey for any special-status species that may occur in the creek or riparian habitat where Master Plan activities are proposed. If any special-status species are found, work shall not begin until the biologist has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and/or the California Department of Fish and The City or its contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of these applicable policies and programs. Prior to the start of, and during construction activities. Director of Public Works Director of Planning City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Wildlife (CDFW), as appropriate depending on the species, regarding appropriate protection measures to be implemented during and prior to construction.  If a special-status species is encountered after work has begun, all work shall be halted until appropriate protection measures are determined in consultation with the appropriate state and federal resource agencies (USFWS, NMFS and/or CDFW).  A worker education program shall be prepared and implemented for all construction crews that will work within the creek setback or riparian zone. The education program shall include a description of special-status species that may occur, and a list of measures for the workers to follow to minimize impacts to the species and their habitats and to protect water quality in the creek. Impact BIO-2: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of state and federal laws pertaining to birds, all Master Plan activities which could disturb nesting birds (including but not limited to: equipment mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, excavation, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after August 31), if possible. If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all suitable nesting habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance including staging and storage areas, plus a 250-foot (passerines) and 1,000-foot (raptor nests) buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before the commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. The survey buffer can be reduced in urban environments at the discretion of the qualified biologist performing the survey. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. The preconstruction survey report and any reports The City or its contractor. February 1st through August 31st, no more than 7 days in advance of the start of project construction. Director of Public Works Director of Planning City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation prepared to document nest monitoring shall be submitted to the City Department of Public Works. Active nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest, or fledglings are using or being fed in the nest or its immediate vicinity. The results of the surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Palo Alto Division of Open Space, Parks and Golf prior to initiation of project construction. The biologist shall prepare a written record of survey results and implementation of any avoidance and minimization measures. The biologist shall monitor any active nests to determine when young have matured sufficiently to have fledged. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey area, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b shall not be required. Impact BIO-2: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: If pre-construction nesting bird surveys reveal locations of active nesting at the project site, no site disturbance and/or mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to: equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), shall take place within 250 feet of non-raptor nests and 1,000 feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) until the chicks have fledged. The nest buffer can be reduced in urban environments at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant CDFW Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented and provided to the City of Palo Alto Division of Open Space, Parks and Golf. The City or its contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of this measure. Prior to the start of, and during construction activities. Director of Public Works Director of Planning Impact BIO-3: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A qualified biologist shall visually inspect trees or structures which are proposed for removal as part of subsequently approved Master Plan The City or its contractor. Year-round, no more than 7 days in advance of the Director of Public Works City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation resulting in impacts to roosting bats protected by California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations. activities for bat roosts within 7 days prior to their removal. The biologist shall look for signs of bats, including sightings of live or dead bats, bat calls or squeaking, the smell of bats, bat droppings, grease stains or urine stains around openings in trees or structures, or flies around such openings. Trees with multiple hollows, crevices, forked branches, woodpecker holes or loose and flaking bark have the highest chance of occupation and should be inspected the most carefully. The biological survey report shall be submitted to the City prior to the start of construction. If signs of bats are detected, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife should be contacted for guidance on how to proceed. Echo-location surveys may be needed to verify the presence of bats, or an exclusion zone around the occupied tree or structure may be recommended until bats leave the roost. Due to restrictions of the California Health Department, direct contact by workers with any bat is not allowed. The qualified biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bat roost is discovered during project construction. start of project construction. Director of Planning Impact BIO-4: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential conflicts with the Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To ensure compliance with the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan (2013), the City shall contact the Conservation Program Manager (Alan Eugene Launer, 650-714-4807, AELAUNER@stanford.edu) from the Stanford Land Use and Environmental Planning Department to determine whether additional avoidance measures are required prior to initiation of Master Plan activities involving ground disturbance at El Camino Park and the Stanford- Palo Alto Playing Fields. The City shall document the communications with the Conservation Program Manager. This measure applies only to the area covered by the Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan. The City and Stanford Conservation Program Manager shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for consistency with HCP requirements. This measure is reflected in Policy 4.D of the Master Plan. The City or its contractor. Prior to the start of construction activities. Director of Public Works Director of Planning CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: Master Plan implementation Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground- The City or its During construction in Director of Public Works City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 8 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation may lead to potential impacts to unrecorded cultural or archaeological resources. disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, whom meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. In anticipation of additional discoveries during the completion of construction, Archaeological Sensitivity Training will be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for all personnel who engage in ground moving activities at the site. If necessary, the archaeologist shall prepare a written record of monitoring results, including a summary of any resources encountered and avoidance measures implemented with the City’s review. contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of this measure native soils. Director of Planning Impact CUL-2: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential impacts to unrecorded human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a The City or its contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of these applicable policies and programs. During construction in native soils. Director of Public Works Director of Planning City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. Impact CUL-3: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential impacts to paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all ground-disturbing activities shall be halted so the find can be evaluated. Construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified paleontologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. All paleontological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional paleontologist who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In anticipation of additional discoveries during the completion of construction, Paleontological Sensitivity Training will be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for all personnel who will engage in ground moving activities on the site. The City shall coordinate with the paleontologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of paleontological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If appropriate, the paleontologist may introduce paleontological monitoring on all or part of the site. A paleontological report will be written detailing all paleontological finds and shall be submitted to the City and University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). The City or its contractor. The City shall review all appropriate bid, contract, and engineering and site plan documents for inclusion of this measure. During construction activities in native soils. Director of Public Works Director of Planning STATE OF CALIFORNIA--£:ALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660. MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 Making Conservation a California Way of life. PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov June 5, 2017 Ms. Clare Campbell Department of Planning & Community Enviromnent City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell: 04-SCL-2017-00205SCL/V AR/PM VARSCH# 2017052018 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan -Mitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the enviromnental review process for the above-referenced Master Plan (Plan). In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Caltrans new mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluating and mitigating impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans Strategic Management Plan aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Project Understanding The Plan will serve for the next 20 years as a guide for park and recreation improvements and projects throughout the City of Palo Alto (City), encompassing State Route (SR) 82, US 101, and Interstate (I-) 280. It represents a coordinated effort to align recreation resources and obtain community support to enhance recreation facilities and services. The goals and policies aim to improve existing park facilities, services and infrastructure, as well as to acquire and develop new urban parks and facilities in under-served areas of the City. Lead Agency As the lead agency, the City is responsible for all mitigation for the Plans and projects proposed under the Plan, including any needed improvements to the STN and for VMT reduction. Fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. ''Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and ejjicienl transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Comment Letter A Attachment D Ms. Clare Campbell/City of Palo Alto June 5, 2017 Page 2 Cultural Resources Section E. Cultural Tribal Cultural Resources of the Initial Study (pages 73-84) does not present an adequate level of identification and evaluation of historical resources or Tribal Cultural Resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor does it provide mitigation measures that mandate the identification and evaluation of these resources as projects are developed under the Plan. The Archaeological Resources section (page 81) cites that a California Historical Resources Infonnation System (CHRIS) search was not conducted due to the sizeable scope of the project area. However, such a records search should be the primary method, in addition to field surveys, of determining the Plan's potential to significantly impact historical resources and unique archaeological resources. To meet the general professional standards for CEQA compliance, Caltrans recommends that the City conduct a cultural resource technical study that at a minimum includes a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the CHRIS and a field survey of the project area by a qualified archaeologist and a qualified architectural historian. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Caltrans recommends that the City conduct Native American consultation with tribes, groups, and individuals who are interested in the project area and may have knowledge of Tribal Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties, or other sacred sites. As listed in Section E -Check Box G (page 73), such resources are not limited to archaeological sites and can often include intangible elements that can be significantly impacted beyond the effects of ground disturbance. Given this, Mitigation Measure CU-1 does provide for adequate or appropriate mitigation. If an encroachment pennit is needed for work within State right-of-way (ROW), Caltrans may require cultural resource technical studies be prepared in compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024, and the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Chapter 2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol2/vol2.htm). Should ground-disturbing activities take place within State ROW and there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, in compliance with CEQA, PRC 5024.5, and the SER, all construction within 60 feet of the find shall cease and the Caltrans District 4 Office of Cultural Resource Studies (OCRS) shall be immediately contacted at (510) 622-1673. Traffic Control Plan A Caltrans-approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP) is required to avoid project-related impacts to the STN, if it is anticipated that vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic will be impacted during the construction of projects proposed under the Plan requiring traffic restrictions and detours. The TCP must also comply with the requirements of con-esponding jurisdictions. In addition, pedestrian access through the construction zone must be in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations (see Caltrans Temporary Pedestrian Facilities Handbook for maintaining pedestrian access and meeting ADA requirements during construction at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/safety/Temporary _Pedestrian_ Facilities_ Handbook.pd±) (see also Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 11-01 "Accommodating Bicyclists in Temporary Traffic Control Zones" at: www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/1 l-01.pdf). All curb ramps and "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system lo enhance California's economy and livability .. A1 A2 A3 A4 Ms. Clare Campbell/City of Palo Alto June 5, 2017 Page 3 pedestrian facilities located within the limits of projects proposed under the Plan are required to be brought up to current ADA standards as part of the project. For further TCP assistance, please contact the Caltrans District 4 Office of Traffic Management Operations at ( 510) 286-4579. Further transportation management infonnation is available at the following website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trafingmt/tmp_lcs/index.htm. Bridges, Trestles, Culverts and Other Structures in Riparian Environments Some project-level activities may affect riparian flow patterns upstream of bridges, trestles, culverts or other structures for which Caltrans holds responsibility. Please ensure project-level environmental documents include hydrological studies to detennine whether such impacts will occur, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. Sea Level Rise The effects of sea level rise may have impacts on transportation facilities located in the Plan area. Executive Order (EO) S-13-08 directs State agencies to plan for potential impacts by considering a range of sea level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100. Higher water levels may increase erosion rates, change environmental characteristics that affect material durability, lead to increased groundwater levels and change sediment movement along shores and at estuaries and river mouths, as well as affect soil pore pressure at dikes and levees on which transportation facilities are constructed. All these factors must be addressed through geotechnical and hydrological studies conducted in coordination with Caltrans. Hazardous Materials All motor carriers and drivers involved in transportation of hazardous materials must comply with the requirements contained in federal and State regulations, and must apply for and obtain a hazardous materials transportation license from the California Highway Patrol. When transporting ce1tain types of hazardous materials including inhalation hazards, safe routing and safe stopping places are required. A route map must be carried in the vehicle. More information is available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/ops-guide/hazard.htm. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any ingress-egress, work (e.g., construction, vegetation management, drainage improvement, etc.), staging, storage, or traffic control that is conducted within or adjacent to or encroaches upon the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. Where construction related traffic restrictions and detours affect the STN, a Transportation Management Plan or construction TIA may be required. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment pennit process. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5)sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW as well as any applicable specifications, calculations, maps, etc. must be submitted to the following address: David Salladay, DistrictOffice Chief, Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. It is important to note that, in order to uphold the Caltrans "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" A5 A6 A7 A8 A4 Ms. Clare Campbell/City of Palo Alto June 5, 2017 Page 4 statutory responsibility to protect the safety of the traveling public, if this information is not adequately provided, then a pennit will not be issued for said encroachments. See the following website for more infonnation: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/pennits. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Brian Ashurst at (510) 286-5505 or brian.ashurst@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse -electronic copy Robert Swierk, VTA -electronic copy "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California ·s economy and livability .. A8 County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, California 95032-7669 (408) 355-2200 FAX 355-2290 Reservations (408) 355-2201 www.parkhere.org 31 May 2017 Ms. Clare Campbell Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan To Whom It May Concern: The County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department (County Parks) supports the City of Palo Alto’s commitment to building and continuing its strong park system. The Parks, Trail, Open Space & Recreation Plan will guide the city in providing additional and improved recreational services to City residents as well as regional users. County Parks is charged with the planning and implementation of The Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (Countywide Trails Plan), an element of the Parks and Recreation Section of the County General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 1995. Although responsibility for the actual construction and long-term management of each individual trail varies, the County Parks Department provides general oversight and protection for the overall trail system. The Countywide Trails Plan (CWTMP) depicts a number of proposed trail routes that today are either existing or proposed. The following CWTMP alignments are located within the City of Palo Alto: Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Regional Trail (R1)– This regional trail commemorates the route taken by de Anza in 1775 – 1776 when he led a group of colonists from what is now Horcasitas, Sonora, Mexico to San Francisco Bay where they established a presidio and mission for New Spain. This hiking and bicycle route within Palo Alto is complete. Comment Letter B B1 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Matadero Creek/ Page Mill Sub-Regional Trail (S1) – this multi-city trail connects to the Bay Area Ridge Trail Santa Cruz Mountains Section (R5-A). 2.6-mile section of this trail within the City of Palo Alto remains incomplete. Adobe Creek Connector Trail (C2) – this trail connects the San Francisco Bay Trail with the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (R1-A). This trail remains incomplete. San Francisco Bay Trail (R4) – as a hiking and bicycle route, the Bay Trail circles San Francisco and San Pablo Bays linking nine Bay Area counties and over forty-two shoreline cities. This trail remains incomplete. The policies within the Countywide Trails Plan are intended to provide a coordinated vision for linking trail plans and implementation efforts of individual jurisdictions and agencies within the County. The County Parks Department respectfully recommends that the Countywide Trails Plan be acknowledged within the City’s Parks, Trail, Natural Open Space & Recreation Plan. In addition, for clarification purposes, County Parks recommends within Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map that regional trails be labeled with their names. The County Parks Planning Team is available as a resource regarding the Trails Element of the Parks and Recreation Chapter of the 1995 County of Santa Clara General Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trail, Natural Open Space & Recreation Plan. If you have questions related to these comments, please call me at (408) 355-2228 or e-mail me at Cherise.Orange@prk.sccgov.org . Sincerely, Cherise Orange Associate Planner B1 B2 B3 County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department 10 I Skyport Drive San Jose, California 951 10-1 302 1-408-573-2400 June 5, 2017 Clare Campbell Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan Dear Ms. Campbell: The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department appreciates the opportunity to review the subject project and is submitting the following comment(s). •Figure 4 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration illustrates enhanced bikeway featuresalong or crossing Page Mill-Oregon Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard/FoothillExpressway. Any project features affecting the County roads right-of-way should be reviewed and approved by the County. •The Master Plan proposes to add and/or enhance the parks and trails within the City thatmay result in increase in traffic accessing these facilities. If the increase in traffic resultsin significant impacts, appropriate mitigation measures should be identified to addressthese impacts. If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please contact me at (408) 573- 2462 or aruna.bodduna@rda.sccgov.org. Sincerely, \_ Aruna Bodduna Associate Transportation Planner cc: MA, DSC Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith 7-007 Comment Letter C C1 C2 Response to Comments Memo Page 20 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation Master Plan July 16, 2017 This page intentionally left blank From:Barbara Beard To:Barbara Beard Subject:CEQA Referral - Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:19:45 AM From: Costa, Aaron [mailto:aaron.costa@cep.sccgov.org] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 10:37 AMTo: Campbell, ClareSubject: RE: CEQA Referral - Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Clare, The County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has the following comments in response to the NOI:  Section H – Hazards and Hazardous Materials.  Residual contamination related to underground storage tanks likely remains at all of the locations listed in Table 9 and has the potential to be encountered during site/project specific subsurface work activities.  Additionally, contaminants such as pesticides and metals may be present at current/future park facilities.  The DEH requests that language is added to subsection d to call-out that a site/project specific analysis of hazardous materials (Phase I/Phase II) should be performed prior to commencement of subsurface work at sites within the plan.    Thank you, Aaron Costa Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist Site Mitigation Program County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health 1555 Berger Drive Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112 (408)918-1954 http://www.sccgov.org/deh *My normal office hours are 6:30am-3:00pm Mon-Fri NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message.  If you are NOT an authorized recipient,  you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. D1 D2 Comment Letter D Response to Comments Memo Page 22 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation Master Plan July 16, 2017 This page intentionally left blank. 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org June 5, 2017 Ms. Clare Campbell Mr. Peter Jensen Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Re: Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Campbell and Mr. Jensen, The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Plan). SCVAS is one of the largest Audubon chapters in California. Our mission is to promote the enjoyment, understanding, and protection of birds and other wildlife by engaging people of all ages in birding, education, and conservation. We have hundreds of members in Palo Alto who enjoy the City’s parks and open space. We have been active in the public outreach process of updating the Plan, and we are thankful for the opportunity to have a representative from our organization on the stakeholder group. Please consider the following comments: 1. Please describe and cite the Palo Alto City’s Charter, Article IIIV “Parks” in the Plan and in the IS/MND Project description / Regulatory Setting (MND, page 42). Please add a map of Dedicated open space and parkland to the Plan. 2.Section 2.9.4 Needs (p. 11-12) The need for nature in natural open space as well as in urban/suburban parks (including enhancement of habitat, and pollinator-corridors throughout the city) was identified in the Plan’s Title, guiding Principles (“Nature”) and the Goals (“Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems, and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto“). Hundreds of participants in the public outreach process identified nature, access to nature, relaxation in nature, and habitat for wildlife etc. in their responses to questionnaires, intercept events and community meetings. This need does not appear in the “Needs” section. The MND proposes, “Five categories of park- related activities were identified during the community outreach process as being important: Relax and enjoy the outdoors….” Santa Clara ValleyAudubon Society Comment Letter E E1 E2 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org •Please add a Need: “Conservation, restoration and enhancement of nature and wildlife habitat, and providing access to nature” 3. Mitigation Measure Bio-1 – please expand the riparian Corridor to 100-ft from the outer Drip-line of the riparian vegetation for most activities, and 200-ft for active recreation areas. This would bring the mitigation to current minimum City standards, as recently adopted by the City of San Jose. In San Jose, most riparian projects are subject to a minimum setback of 100 feet with the exception of: multi-use trails (10 feet), crop and horticultural projects (25 feet), equipment/chemical storage (300 feet), and active recreational areas (200 feet). Setbacks are measured from the outside drip line of the Riparian Corridor vegetation or top‐of‐bank; whichever is greater (see San Jose Council Policy Number 6-34, pages 3-5). 4.Mitigation Measure Bio-2 – “Active nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest” please add: or fledgling’s are using or being fed in the nest or its immediate vicinity. 5.Increased access to Nature – It is extremely positive that the Master Plan creates increased access to nature. But increased access can come with a price to nature. Please provide more discussion and mitigation of impacts of new access to natural areas, especially in Open Space Preserves and along wetlands and creeks. Please also give more consideration to mitigation of the impacts on wildlife of allowing dogs on new trails in Open Space Preserves and along creeks. Many nature Preserves limit canine access to all or parks of their Preserves. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning and outreach process and to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Cell: (650) 868-2114 E3 E2 E4 E5 E6 RESO MND Parks Master Plan 1 Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration for which an Initial Study was Prepared, in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and Adopting a Related Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program R E C I T A L S A. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Palo Alto prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) all in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”). B. The Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (the “Project”) analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is a guidance and planning document for park and recreation improvements, expansion and enhancement of facilities and services, and management of parks throughout the city to serve the community’s needs. A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from May 8, 2017 through June 6, 2017. D. The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the public review period and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including minor revisions. E. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level. F. In connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level. G. Whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires the lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-making body of the City of Palo Alto as RESO MND Parks Master Plan 2 Not Yet Approved lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” or “MMRP”). H. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project. I. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, together with comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA. J. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are on file in the Office of Planning and Community Environment, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings: (1) it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, (2) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto, as lead agency for the Project. The City Council designates the Director of Public Works, at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based. SECTION 2. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (1) is available at www.paloaltoparksplan.org; and (2) a hard copy is available for viewing at City of Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor – Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. RESO MND Parks Master Plan 3 Not Yet Approved INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Deputy City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 8377) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cubberley Community Center Master Plan RFP Title: Approval to Release a Request for Proposals for a Consulting Firm to Assist the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District with Master Planning of the Cubberley Community Center and Discussion of the Cubberley Master Planning Process. From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Policy and Services Committee recommends that Council direct the Community Services Department to release a Request for Proposals for a Consulting Firm to assist the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District with master planning of the Cubberley Community Center. Background The Cubberley Community Center is located on a 35-acre site in south Palo Alto that was previously home to Cubberley High School until 1979. Of the 35 acres, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) owns 27 acres and the City of Palo Alto owns 8 acres. The City has leased PAUSD’s 27 acres since January 1, 1990 and operates the community center on the combined 35 acre site. The lease has been amended multiple times and the current amendment will expire in December 2019. The lease amendment includes a condition that the City and PAUSD will jointly develop a master plan for the entire site by December 31, 2019 and shall meet and confer to determine the scope and funding for the preparation of the plan. A Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CCAC) representing a cross-section of Cubberley tenants, city-wide neighborhoods, schools and city-wide representatives, and other relevant organizations, was formed in 2012 to cooperatively explore all practical joint uses of the Cubberley campus for both educational and community service needs. Several sub- committees were formed focusing on school needs, community needs, facilities, and finance. Additionally, a Policy Advisory Committee consisting of City Council members and School District Board members was created. The result of the CCAC process was the recommendation that the site be designed for shared City/School District use and for the City of Palo Alto Page 2 City and the School District to work cooperatively toward a phased development to support both school and community needs. The final report of the CCAC can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33455. On March 9, 2016, City Manager Jim Keene and PAUSD Superintendent Max McGee signed a Cubberley Futures Compact to demonstrate the commitment between the City and the School District to collaboratively plan for the future of the 35-acre Cubberley site. Since then, City staff have had conversations with design thinking teams at Stanford’s d.school and IDEO to better understand the role that design thinking techniques could have in planning for the future of Cubberley. City and PAUSD staff have been working closely together to develop a scope of work that will be used to request proposals from consulting firms who are experienced in master planning, design thinking and stakeholder engagement. The scope of work has gone through multiple iterations as the school district further analyzed their enrollment projections and potential future needs for Cubberley. The scope of work was presented to the City’s Policy and Services Committee (PSC) on June 13, 2017. A motion passed unanimously to “recommend the City Council direct the Community Services Department to release a Request for Proposals for a Consulting Firm to assist the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District with master planning of the Cubberley Community Center, including a negotiated cost sharing agreement, and that the negotiation will not cause a delay to the RFP.” Following the PSC discussion, PAUSD staff presented a slightly revised version of the scope of work to the PAUSD Board of Education where it also passed. The revisions included in the draft that went before the Board of Education included some changes made by PAUSD with respect to their potential needs for Cubberley in the Purpose section of the Scope of Work. Discussion Both the City and PAUSD have an interest in developing a plan for the 35-acre site to meet the future educational, recreational, and community needs of PAUSD, Palo Alto and the community and have committed to collaborating on the future use of the entire Cubberley site. The City has a broad vision for a community center that provides a multi-cultural learning environment and supports social, emotional and physical health for all ages and abilities. The City is ready to define the function and form of a new center on its eight acres and the City has established a Cubberley Community Center Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan in the City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Budget (Project Number CB-16001). The overriding consideration to PAUSD regarding Cubberley is projected school enrollment, administrative facility needs, potential PAUSD employee housing and other extended educational needs. The current data for PAUSD enrollment projections do not support development of Cubberley in the near- term or mid-term for an additional school. PAUSD has expressed their commitment to collaborating on the Cubberley master planning process. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Even though the time horizon for rebuilding parts or all of Cubberley may be different for the City and PAUSD the two agencies are committed to developing a comprehensive master plan that supports the interests of the community. City and PAUSD staff have drafted a scope of work for the master planning process which is described below. Scope of Work With the assistance of a consulting firm experienced in creative and effective public engagement design thinking processes, the City and PAUSD will lead a collaborative group of staff from both organizations, as well as community stakeholders in a master planning process that will include an evaluation of the community’s assets and opportunities related to education, recreation and wellness. The master planning process will build on the previous work of the CCAC to develop an effective and comprehensive master plan for the Cubberley Community Center site. The goal is to create an inclusive yet flexible process that can accommodate changing needs for the immediate and long term future of the site. The outcome will be a process that is inclusive, adaptable, and synergizes multiple uses while meeting our timeline and shared vision. The tasks included in the scope of work are grouped into two separate phases. The first phase is focused on developing a plan for efficient yet productive stakeholder and community engagement, and developing conceptual designs for Cubberley. At the completion of Phase One, we can expect to have three to six conceptual design scenarios that will be reviewed by Council, PAUSD Board of Education and the community. These scenarios will be developed with the stakeholder group, and will consider community input and results of the asset and opportunity evaluation. Phase One includes the following tasks: TASK 1: DEVELOP WORKPLAN TASK 2: REVIEW FINAL REPORT OF THE CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TASK 3: DEVELOP A STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN TASK 4: COMMUNITY ASSET EVALUATION TASK 5: VISIONING WORKSHOP TASK 6: DESIGN THINKING WORKSHOPS Phase two will consolidate what was learned in phase one into a Master Plan document, including a preferred conceptual design alternative based on feedback received from Council and the Board of Education. Phase two will only be initiated after the consultant has successfully completed phase one. At the end of the second phase, we can expect to have a Final Master Plan with preferred conceptual design, and a completed environmental review that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. Tasks included in phase two are: TASK 7: DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS City of Palo Alto Page 4 TASK 8: DRAFT CUBBERLEY MASTER PLAN REPORT AND SCHEMATICS TASK 9: COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN REVIEW MEETING TASK 10: CITY AND PAUSD COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS TASK 11: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW TASK 12: FINAL CUBBERLEY MASTER PLAN Funding The Cubberley master planning effort will be funded jointly by the City and PAUSD. It is anticipated that the cost of the master planning effort will be shared equally between the City and PAUSD. A cost sharing agreement with PAUSD will be finalized prior to executing a professional service agreement for the master planning work. The Cubberley Community Center Master Plan is included in the FY 2018 Adopted Capital Budget (Project Number CB- 16001) providing $414,877 from the Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund. Timeline It is expected that a Request for Proposals will be released in late September 2017 with the goal of having a contract in place by December 2017. Attachments:  Attachment A - Cubberley RFP Draft Scope of Work Attachment A 1 Master Plan and Visioning - Cubberley Community Center The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School Goal To collaboratively develop a community vision and master design plan for the Cubberley Community Center that is innovative, flexible and adaptable. Purpose The Cubberley Community Center is located on a 35-acre site in south Palo Alto that was previously home to Cubberley High School until 1979. Of the 35 acres, the Palo Alto Unified School District owns 27 acres and the City of Palo Alto owns 8 acres. The City leases PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community center facility including athletic fields and tennis courts on the combined 35 acre site. The current lease between the City and PAUSD will expire in December 2019. In March 2016, Palo Alto’s City Manager and PAUSD’s Superintendent signed the Cubberley Futures Compact demonstrating their “commitment to jointly and cooperatively work toward a vision for the future that has the maximum impact for the common good” of the Palo Alto community and future generations. Both the City and PAUSD have an interest in developing a plan for the 35 acre site to meet the future educational, recreational, and community needs of the City of Palo Alto and PAUSD. We are committed to collaborating on the future use of the entire Cubberley site so opportunities for maximizing and sharing public space are included and the most benefit to the community is provided. The City has a broad vision for a community center that provides multi-cultural learning environment that supports social, emotional and physical health for all ages and abilities. The City is ready to define the function and form of a new center on its eight acres and the City has established a Cubberley Community Center Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan in the City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Budget (Project Number CB-16001). For PAUSD, the overriding consideration regarding Cubberley is the need to provide for potential future school enrollment growth. Potential PAUSD employee housing, administrative facility needs and other extended educational needs are also a consideration. Current PAUSD enrollment projections do not support the need for an additional school within the next 5-10 years. However, both the proposed Stanford GUP and the City of Palo Comp Plan carry with them the risk of enrollment growth and the requirement for additional school facilities. While there are two discreet property-owners (City and PAUSD) within the 35 acres, the master planning process should recognize the benefit of planning the 35 acres collaboratively, while at the same time acknowledging the differing potential time horizons for City and PAUSD development. With the assistance of a consulting firm experienced in creative and effective public engagement design thinking processes, the City and PAUSD will lead a collaborative group of staff from both organizations, as well as community stakeholders in a needs assessment and master planning process. The goal is to create an inclusive yet flexible process that can accommodate changing needs for the immediate and long term future of the site. The outcome will be a process that is inclusive, adaptable, and synergizes multiple uses while meeting our timeline and shared vision. The City and the PAUSD are seeking a design team that will partner with the community and build on the previous work of the CCAC to develop an effective and comprehensive master plan for the Cubberley Community Center site. Draft Scope of Work Attachment A 2 Background A Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CCAC), representing a cross-section of Cubberley tenants, city-wide neighborhoods, schools and city-wide representatives, and other relevant organizations, was formed in 2012 to cooperatively explore all practical joint uses of the Cubberley campus for both educational and community service needs. Four sub-committees were formed to focus on: 1) school needs; 2) community needs; 3) facilities; and 4) finance. Additionally, a Policy Advisory Committee consisting of City Council members and School District Board members was created. The result of the CAC process was the recommendation that the site be designed for shared City / School District use and for the City and the School District to work cooperatively toward a phased development to support both school and community needs. The Master Plan and visioning process will consider the prior work of the Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CCAC) including the Final Report of the CCAC that was completed in 2013. (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/cubberley_community_advisory_committee.asp) Scope of Work Phase One TASK 1: DEVELOP WORKPLAN Consultant will work with City and PAUSD staff to finalize a detailed schedule of work for Tasks 2 through 5, including which tasks can be conducted in parallel, critical path tasks, key decision points and frequency of regular project team meetings/conference calls. All existing information that will be provided by the City and PAUSD will be identified in this task. Meetings to Include: • Meeting with City and PAUSD staff to review draft scope and schedule Deliverables:  Draft scope and schedule  Final scope and schedule  Request for information letter TASK 2: REVIEW FINAL REPORT OF THE CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Consultant will review the 2013 Final Report of the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee and all supporting and background material, meeting notes, including subcommittee meeting notes. Meetings to Include: • None Deliverables:  None TASK 3: DEVELOP A STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN Draft Scope of Work Attachment A 3 Consultant will develop a stakeholder and community engagement plan that will guide community outreach during the Master Plan process, including specific charge of the group, timing of stakeholder participation, and number and format of stakeholder workshops and community meetings. The stakeholder group will be created through a public application process with final selection of the group by the City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent. Meetings to Include: • Stakeholder Advisory Group workshops (number of workshops identified in tasks 5 and 6)  Community meetings (number tbd) Deliverables:  Stakeholder and Community Engagement Plan  Stakeholder workshop agendas and outcome summaries TASK 4: COMMUNITY ASSET EVALUATION Consultant will conduct an evaluation of the community’s recreational, educational and cultural assets to identify opportunities for Cubberley that address community preferences and fill existing gaps in services and programs, while maximizing public resources. The evaluation will use existing information to be provided by PAUSD and City (for example; existing uses of Cubberley Community Center, results of the City of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan outreach efforts and Comprehensive Plan Update, PAUSD enrollment data and future projections, the report of the PAUSD Enrollment Management Advisory Committee, PAUSD youth and extracurricular programs), as well as other relevant data identified by Consultant (for example; projected local, regional and national trends in education and recreation). Consultant will identify where gaps exist and develop a plan to fill those gaps and obtain additional data, if needed. Consultant will prepare a draft report and a final report that consolidates the findings and recommendations of this task. Meetings to Include: • Stakeholder Advisory Group workshops (number tbd)  Community meetings (number tbd)  Presentation of final asset evaluation report to project team  Presentation to City/School Liaison Committee Deliverables:  Draft memorandum summarizing findings of asset evaluation including inventory list of existing data reviewed, gaps identified in data, and plan for collecting additional information  Draft memorandum summarizing findings of additional data collection efforts  Final asset evaluation report and recommendations approved by City and PAUSD TASK 5: VISIONING WORKSHOP Consultant will design and lead a workshop with the Stakeholder Advisory Group to develop the vision, goals and guiding principles that will inform the direction and desired outcomes of the master planning effort. Consultant will develop a decision-making process that will be used throughout the master planning effort and will present this process at the workshop for discussion and agreement. Draft Scope of Work Attachment A 4 Meetings to Include: • Workshop with City and PAUSD staff and Stakeholder Advisory Group (number tbd) Deliverables:  Workshop agenda  Memorandum outlining decision-making process  Workshop notes to include, at a minimum, the vision statement and goals TASK 6: DESIGN THINKING WORKSHOPS Consultant will apply a design thinking approach to facilitate a series of workshops with City/PAUSD staff and the Stakeholder Advisory Group. Using creativity and innovative tools, the workshops will generate facility and program concepts that will ultimately guide development of the Master Plan. Meetings to Include: • Workshops with City and PAUSD staff and Stakeholder Advisory Group (number tbd) Deliverables:  Workshop agendas  Workshop summaries  Three or more facility and program concepts for the 35 acre site  Presentation to School Board and City Council on facility and program concepts PHASE 2 (Note: Scope and compensation for Phase 2 tasks will be negotiated following the successful completion of Phase 1) TASK 7: DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS Based on the results of Tasks 2 – 6, Consultant will prepare a minimum of three and a maximum of six conceptual designs for a future Cubberley facility layout and type of programming the facility layout would support. The concepts will reflect the outcome of the asset evaluation, visioning workshop and design thinking workshops. Each conceptual design will identify the location of different program elements such as education, recreation, and wellness. Multi-purpose, flexible spaces as well as potential shared spaces will also be called out. The scenarios will be presented to the community, commissions, City Council and PAUSD for review. Meetings to Include: • Project Team Meeting • Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting • Community Meetings • Parks and Recreation Commission • City/School Liaison Committee • City Council • PAUSD Board of Education Deliverables:  Three to six conceptual designs in electronic, print and display formats  Presentation to School Board and City Council on facility and program concepts Draft Scope of Work Attachment A 5  Meeting notes TASK 8: DRAFT CUBBERLEY MASTER PLAN REPORT AND SCHEMATICS Building off the conceptual designs and subsequent feedback received (Task 7), Consultant will prepare a draft Master Plan for the 35 acre Cubberley. The draft Master Plan will include different scenarios for maintaining, modifying, and reconstructing the site and facilities, including site schematics and cost estimates to serve short, medium and long term needs of the community. Potential funding scenarios will be included. Meetings to Include: • Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting • Project Team Meeting • Parks and Recreation Commission • City/School Liaison Committee Deliverables:  Staff project review meeting  Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting agenda, presentation and summary  City and PAUSD Staff Project Review Team meeting agenda, presentation and summary  Presentation to Parks and Recreation Committee  Presentation to City/School Liaison Committee  Administrative Draft Master Plan Report Outline  Administrative Draft Master Plan Report  Public Draft Master Plan Report TASK 9: COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN REVIEW MEETING Consultant will design a community-wide review meeting to solicit feedback on the Draft Master Plan Report and schematics. Meetings to Include: • Community Master Plan review meeting (multiple meetings may be considered) Deliverables  Community Meeting agenda, presentation and summary TASK 10: CITY AND PAUSD COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS Consultant will develop a presentation and walk-through of the Draft Master Plan Report and schematics for the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and Historical Review Board for input and feed-back. Consultant will incorporate feedback received and prepare a presentation for a City Council study session. A PAUSD Board of Education will be scheduled if needed. Meetings to Include:  Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session  Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session  Architectural Review Board Study Session  Historical Review Board Study Session  City/School Liaison Meeting  City Council Study Session (if needed) Draft Scope of Work Attachment A 6  PAUSD Board of Education Study Session (if needed) Deliverables  Meeting staff reports, presentations and summaries TASK 11: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW Consultant will complete the appropriate programmatic CEQA review in parallel with Task 10 below. Consultant will prepare for and lead all public hearings associated with the CEQA process. Meetings to Include:  Project Team Meeting  Public Hearing(s)  Parks and Recreation Commission  Architectural Review Board  City Council Meeting Deliverables:  CEQA Initial Study Checklist  Administrative Draft CEQA document  Public Draft CEQA document  Response to public comments  Final CEQA document TASK 12: FINAL CUBBERLEY MASTER PLAN Based on the combined input of City Boards, Commissions, City Council and the community, Consultant and the Staff Project Team will identify the necessary revisions and update the Draft Master Plan Report to reflect the input received. The site schematics will be revised in parallel as part of this effort. This revised document will be finalized as the Revised Draft Cubberley Master Plan. This version of the document will be presented to the City’s Commissions for their review and recommendations and to City Council for adoption, along with the CEQA document prepared in Task 9. Meetings to Include:  Project Team Meeting  Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – Recommend Approval of the Master Plan  City Council Meeting  Additional City Commission meetings as needed  PAUSD Board of Education Meeting Deliverables:  Administrative draft Cubberley Master Plan  Project Team meeting agenda, presentation and summary  Parks and Recreation Commission meeting agendas, presentations and summaries  City Council meeting presentations  Board of Education meeting presentations  Final Adopted Cubberley Master Plan City of Palo Alto (ID # 8277) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/5/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Rail Program CSS Alternatives Analysis Plan, Problem Statement, Goals and Performance Measures Title: Adoption of the Community Engagement Plan, Problem Statement, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council consider recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council Rail Committee and: 1.Review the revised Community Engagement Plan (Attachment A), summary of Community Workshop #1 on May 20, 2017 (Attachment B), and summary of Community Questionnaire #1 responses (Attachment C), and 2.Adopt the revised Community Engagement Plan (Attachment A), and Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria (Attachment E) for discussion at Community Workshop #2 and to inform the development and analysis of project alternatives. NOTE: Due to potential conflicts of interest for Councilmember(s) owning real property near rail crossings, the Council will segregate the process issue (community engagement) from the policy issue (problem statement, objectives, and criteria) and will discuss the process issue first. Report Summary The City Council directed staff to prioritize the definition of a preferred solution for grade separations along the Caltrain corridor due to: longstanding concerns regarding connectivity, safety, noise, aesthetics, and circulation impacts along the corridor; AGENDA ITEM # 11 City of Palo Alto Page 2  passage of Santa Clara County Measure B in November 2016, which includes $700 million for grade separations that will be split among three jurisdictions with a total of eight crossings (four in Palo Alto);  scheduled implementation of Caltrain modernization by 2021, which will facilitate more trains per hour through Palo Alto; and  ongoing environmental review of the California High-speed Rail Project alternatives which may further increase train service through Palo Alto. As a result, the City Council’s Rail Committee has been discussing how to best seek community input at key junctures along the way. At present, Staff is seeking input on a Problem Statement to succinctly define the purpose of the project, project Objectives that will be used to help develop project Alternatives, and Evaluation Criteria that will be used to analyze project Alternatives. This approach is typically used in the context sensitive solutions (CSS) planning process and staff has proposed a community engagement plan using a suite of strategies to maximize input from the community throughout the planning process. Direction from City Council will be used to inform Community Workshop #2 on September 16, 2017 and the development and analysis of project alternatives. Background The brief discussion below summarizes past planning processes related to grade separations in Palo Alto as well as the principal characteristics of existing and planned grade crossings along the Caltrain corridor. Where more detailed information is available, links to prior staff reports are provided. Prior Rail Corridor Studies The City of Palo Alto has long discussed the need to improve circulation and connectivity along the Caltrain rail corridor, and has undertaken a number of previous planning efforts as well as offering multiple comments during the environmental review process associated with Caltrain modernization and the California High-speed Rail Project. If Council members are interested in a brief description of the Rail Corridor Study planning effort from 2013 and the more recent analysis of a trenching solution for grade separating the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings, these can be found in the form of a report to the Rail Committee which is available at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58463. The 2013 Rail Corridor Study itself can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38025 The 2014 trenching study can be found at: City of Palo Alto Page 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44211. Please note that the Discussion section below provides some additional detail on the vision and goals of the 2013 Rail Corridor Study, as well as constraints identified during the 2014 trenching study. This report also contains a summary of the status of other grade separations that are being planned by local jurisdictions along the corridor via an updated status diagram, included as Attachment F. Existing and Planned Grade Crossings in Palo Alto There are currently two grade-separated crossings for all modes at University Avenue and Embarcadero Road and two grade-separated crossings for pedestrians and bicycles at Homer Avenue and California Avenue. Two existing grade-separated crossings at Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road accommodate motor vehicles and bicyclists, but not pedestrians. There are four at-grade crossings that have been the focus of grade separation discussions: Palo Alto Ave (AKA Alma Street), Churchill Avenue, East/West Meadow Drive, and East/West Charleston Road. In addition, there have been at least two new grade-separated crossings for pedestrians and bicycles discussed in the past several years, one near Matadero Creek or Loma Verde Avenue in South Palo Alto and one at Emerson Avenue in Downtown North. Past studies have also discussed relocating pedestrian and bicycle access from Churchill Avenue one block north to Kellogg Avenue and adding a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue (to Peers Park). The Study Area map below provides the location of the existing and planned crossings (with the exception of the Seale Avenue/Peers Park concept). Figure 1. Map of the Rail Corridor Showing Existing and Planned Grade Crossings City of Palo Alto Page 4 Note: The “Planned bike/ped crossings” shown have been identified as desirable in past planning efforts, but require additional planning, design, and funding. Source: Mott McDonald, August 2017 Staff has initiated a data collection effort to inform planning for changes along the rail corridor, and the preliminary data on existing at-grade crossings was presented at Community Workshop #1 on May 20, 2017. Some of this data is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Existing Conditions at Existing At-Grade Rail Crossings Palo Alto Ave (Alma St) Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd Traffic (Average Daily) 14,700 11,400 9,300 16,000 Bicycle (Average Daily) 550 1020 900 240 Pedestrian (Average Daily) 300 270 180 140 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Palo Alto Ave (Alma St) Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd Road Transit/Bus (Average Daily) 33 7 11 45 School Bus (Average Daily) 0 64 48 20 Heavy Truck (Average Daily) 190 127 47 20 Daily Gate Closures 43 39 39 40 Avg. Seconds Gates are Closed 25-75 30-78 20-74 22-76 Collisions (2011-13) 0 13 13 11 Source: Mott McDonald, May 2017 Future Challenges As noted earlier, modernization of Caltrain (including electrification) will facilitate more train service to and through Palo Alto starting in 2021. This expanded rail service will have impacts as well as benefits, and the impacts will be exacerbated when combined with the potential addition of High Speed Rail. The most notable impact will be an increase in the number of gate closures at the existing at-grade crossings listed above. With more gate closures at greater frequencies, motorists will experience more delay and congestion at the grade crossings and at nearby intersections. Pedestrians and bicyclists will also experience more frequent delays, and the presence of the Caltrain corridor as a barrier impeding east-west connectivity in Palo Alto will be accentuated. The noise from train horns as trains approach the at-grade crossings will also increase in frequency. The Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Process The context sensitive solutions (CSS) process was raised by the City in its comments to Caltrain and the California High-speed Rail Authority, and represents good community-based planning that gathers information and input prior to making decisions. CSS, as defined by one of the leading practitioner’s website (www.contextsensitivesolutions.org), is a “collaborative, interdisciplinary, holistic approach to the development of transportation projects.” The organization further states that a CSS approach is guided by four core principles: 1. Strive towards a shared stakeholder vision to provide a basis for decisions; 2. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts; 3. Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus; City of Palo Alto Page 6 4. Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing community and natural environments. The revised Community Engagement Plan in Attachment A provides a summary of how Staff plans to involve community members and stakeholders and gather the input needed to craft a shared vision and make informed decisions in this instance. Community Workshops will be periodic plenary sessions for the wider community helping anchor the community engagement process, along with focus groups and other methods designed to provide information and receive input from as many Palo Alto residents and stakeholders as possible (see revised Community Engagement Plan – Attachment A). A Technical Advisory Group (TAC) and consultants with technical expertise will help City staff fully understand physical constraints and requirements of other agencies, which will help inform reports to the Rail Committee, PTC, and City Council Community input and technical information/analysis will also be used to inform recommendations to those bodies. Planning and Transportation Commission The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed the Community Engagement Plan, as well as the suggested Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, at their meeting on August 9, 2017. The minutes from this meeting are included as Attachment G. After a lengthy discussion regarding the Community Engagement Plan, the PTC adopted the following motion on a 4-2 vote (Alcheck, Monk against, Rosenblum absent): “Palo Alto follow a CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including the creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders.” The commissioners also offered input into the Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, which included:  Reconsider inclusion of noise and vibration and other common issues near railroads in Problem Statement.  Reduce the number of Objectives to the top four, eliminating ones that are “a given.”( A video of the Planning and Transportation Commission discussion is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp9s0vrPshY  A revised Community Engagement Plan and Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria are included as Attachments A and E. These revisions incorporate feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Rail Committee. Items marked with an asterisk (*) have been incorporated into the revised documents. City of Palo Alto Page 7 City Council Rail Committee The City Council Rail Committee discussed the Community Engagement Plan, as well as the suggested Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, at their meeting on August 16, 2017. The minutes from this meeting are included as Attachment H. After a lengthy discussion regarding the Community Engagement Plan, the Rail Committee offered the following input:  Focus Groups would be an appropriate supplement to the planned Community Workshops*  The public comment format of the Rail Committee meeting could be modified to allow for increased participation by interested stakeholders*  Staff should make efforts to open the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings to the public, if feasible, and add expertise not currently represented. The Rail Committee’s motion was recorded as follows: “Chair DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to propose adding members to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), provide additional expertise in areas not currently represented, define those roles and responsibilities, suggest potential subcommittees and to consider adding focus groups.” As discussed at the Committee meeting, the TAC was designed to obtain staff-to-staff input from other public agencies and those agencies may not be willing to provide staff or give advice freely in public meetings. As an alternative, staff is proposing to include additional agencies on the TAC such as the Palo Alto Unified School District, to structure Rail Committee meetings to allow for more citizen input/dialog, and to create additional/alternate venues for citizen advocates to meet with City staff and provide their insights about the process, available data, and decisions along the way. The Rail Committee also offered input into the Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, which included:  Problem Statement o Touch on the importance of enhanced Caltrain service at the beginning of the Problem Statement* o Describe high-speed rail as “probable,” instead of “possible( o Add “commercial areas and Stanford University” after “surrounding neighborhoods”  Objectives o Reference previous rail corridor planning work explicitly*  A revised Community Engagement Plan and Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria are included as Attachments A and E. These revisions incorporate feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Rail Committee. Items marked with an asterisk (*) have been incorporated into the revised documents. City of Palo Alto Page 8 o Break third bullet into two separate Objectives* o Delete the last three bullets from the Objectives* o Add “by eminent domain” after “right-of-way acquisitions”* o Add new Objective: “Facilitate land-use changes and station-area planning and redevelopment.” o Add new Objective regarding sustainability  Evaluation Criteria o Reduce to only two tiers* o Delete “at any single location” in second to last Evaluation Criterion o Break last Evaluation Criterion into two separate Evaluation Criteria, with one addressing the minimization of right-of-way acquisition “by eminent domain” and the other referring to funding feasibility, with the latter being a Tier 1 Evaluation Criterion* A video of the City Council Rail Committee discussion is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_kbx3QqniI Discussion To develop and evaluate alternatives, it’s important for City decision makers and the community to have a common understanding of the problem we’re trying to solve, our objectives, and ultimately the criteria we will use to develop and evaluate the alternatives. While some may find it frustrating to dwell on these points and want to simply embrace and pursue a specific solution, the adoption of a Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria will pay dividends as the community begins to evaluate trade-offs inherent in any complex capital project with the potential to affect the long term future of Palo Alto. The trade-offs don’t just relate to the physical form of improvements along the rail corridor, but also to specific engineering, financing, phasing, and construction considerations. A revised Problem Statement, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria are provided in Attachment E and are explained below. To a large extent, these suggestions derive from input received at Community Workshop #1 and the recent citizen questionnaire summarized in Attachments B and C. They remain a draft for further input and discussion at Community Workshop #2, which will begin a discussion about the development of Alternatives. A short discussion of constraints that have been or will be considered as the planning process proceeds is also included below. Problem Statement Community Questionnaire #1 asked for input on a draft Problem Statement that starts with the concept of connectivity, which was a clear focus of the vision statement in the 2013 Rail Corridor Study: City of Palo Alto Page 9 Community Questionnaire #1: “The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at-grade crossings. These challenges also create issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic and visual impacts. These will continue to get worse in the future with increases in train traffic due to Caltrain modernization (including electrification) and the possible addition of high speed rail.” 2013 Rail Corridor Study: “To create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood mixed-use centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.” Individual responses to the recent questionnaire suggested a number of edits or changes, including addressing suicide prevention, recognizing that Caltrain electrification will reduce noise and vibration, a preference for undergrounding the tracks, and a statement assuming that the High Speed Rail would be contingent on grade separations. The suggested Problem Statement in Attachment D was adjusted slightly in response to the input from the questionnaire. The revised Problem Statement in Attachment E has been modified to include feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee (changes are tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out). Objectives Attachment D also includes suggested Objectives that are derived in part from the goals and policies articulated in the 2013 Rail Corridor Study for potential consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update. These are provided below: Goal 1: Rail Improvements Should Be Constructed in a Below-grade Trench. Policy 1.1: The City’s preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade. Policy 1.2: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. Policy 1.3: When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Goal 2: Ensure the Highest Possible Safety at All Rail Crossings and Mitigate Rail Impacts on Neighborhoods, Public Facilities, Schools and Mixed-use Centers. Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain corridor should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience. This may be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the preferred choice being grade separation, if supported by technical studies. Policy 2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of the tracks, and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections from neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and services. Policy 2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of a High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods. Goal 3: Connect the East and West Portions of the City through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon Expressway. Policy 3.2: All four existing at-grade rail crossings shall remain open to vehicular traffic. Goal 4: Provide Improved Access to Parks, Recreation Facilities and Schools and Assess Future Needs for these Facilities. Policy 4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and schools within the corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities. Opportunities to increase school capacity and facility development and use should be evaluated and coordinated between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City. Goal 5: Infrastructure Should Keep Pace with Development. Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required for parks, recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded schools in order to keep pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm drainage and wastewater management should be evaluated and implemented in conjunction with development. The suggested Objectives in Attachment D differ from these suggested goals and policies by not pre-judging the below-grade trench solution. This is not meant to express a lack of interest or City of Palo Alto Page 11 support for the goal of accomplishing grade separations below grade, but simply to provide an opportunity for consideration of community objectives before alternatives are developed for analysis, which is a key tenet of the context sensitive solutions process. Also, Staff does not yet have a full understanding of the constraints that would dictate the form and cost of a below- grade alternative, as discussed further below. The suggested Objectives recognized input received from the questionnaire, which ranked suggested goals as follows: 1. Reduce congestion near at-grade crossings 2. Prioritize student safety 3. Separate motor vehicle from bicycle and pedestrian traffic 4. Deliver grade separations in a timely manner 5. Support planned Caltrain service improvements 6. Reduce unsafe driver behavior 7. Collaborate with neighboring cities and agencies 8. Keep construction period disruptions to a minimum 9. Reduce/eliminate train noise and vibrations 10. Fund project with existing funding from local sources While the questionnaire results indicate a pretty clear hierarchy of goals in descending order, Goals 1-7 were tightly arrayed and ranked quite high, with Goals 1-3 being clearly the most important. Goals 8-10 were lesser priorities with #10 (funding) being clearly the least important goal. Results suggest that the list of goals could be reduced to 1-7 or could be grouped into Tiers (1, 2, 3) in order of importance. The revised Objectives in Attachment E has been modified to include feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee (changes are tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out). Evaluation Criteria As reflected in the suggested Objectives, responses to Community Questionnaire #1 emphasized the importance of safety, and also touched on a variety of other issues including the importance of rail service, traffic circulation and signal timing, bicycle and pedestrian access, and more. Questionnaire responses ranked possible Evaluation Criteria as follows: 1. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Clear/safe passageways 2. Automobile Circulation - Reduce queue length and time 3. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Separated from auto traffic 4. East-West Connectivity - Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of travel 5. Automobile Circulation - Reduce traffic on neighborhood streets 6. Environmental Effects - Reduce noise and visibility of trains from neighborhoods City of Palo Alto Page 12 7. Transit - Support Caltrain service improvements (level boarding, platform extensions, etc.) 8. Construction Impacts - Minimize construction period disruption (detours/street closures) 9. Cost - Fund the program with available funding sources 10. Construction Impacts - Able to implement in phases Evaluation Criteria 1-3 were clearly ranked highest by respondents. Criteria 4-6 formed a tight grouping of the second most important set of criteria. Criteria 7-10 were ranked least important and well below other criteria. Grouping the criteria into Tier 1, 2, 3 might help when evaluating alternatives, using Tier 1 criteria as “must address” criteria, with Tier 2 as “would like to address” criteria, and Tier 3 as “ nice to have or bonus” criteria. As with the goals, questionnaire respondents did not feel cost was an important evaluation criteria, although this may change once more is known about project costs and available funding sources. The revised Evaluation Criteria in Attachment E has been modified to include feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee (changes are tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out). Constraints Staff does not yet have a thorough understanding of the constraints that will help define alternatives. For example, the total amount of funding that can be secured from all possible sources is undetermined. This will require additional investigation and may ultimately prove to be an important constraint. Similarly, there are technical requirements for freight and passenger rail facilities that the Staff will need to explore before having a full understanding of the physical constraints associated with grade separations. There will also be constraints associated with railway and roadway operations and a host of other issues. In CMR #6182 from October 13, 2015, which described the analysis of trenching below Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road, a number of preliminary constraints were identified (see pages nine through 14 of the document at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49398). For example, the analysis noted the following as potential constraints because they would tend to dictate the extent and cost of below-grade (trenching) alternatives considered:  The location and elevation of existing station locations  The location and depth of existing grade separated crossings  The location and depth of San Francisquito Creek City of Palo Alto Page 13  Construction specifications such as a maximum slope of 1% for freight rail tracks unless an exception is granted(( These and other issues will be explored by the City’s experts with assistance from a Technical Advisory Group made up of senior representatives from organizations and agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over aspects of the project or the project area. Based on the recommendation of the City Council Rail Committee, Staff has initiated a white paper analyzing the constraints associated with the planning, design and construction of a rail trench. This white paper will be transmitted to the City Council, as well as the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee, as soon as it is completed. Resource Impact The City included $1.9 million in the FY 2017 Capital Improvement Program in the Railroad Grade Separation project (PL-17001) for the planning, engineering, and environmental review necessary to advance grade separations in Palo Alto. As part of the Adopted FY 2018 Capital Budget, $1.0 million of this funding was reappropriated to FY 2018. Staff is currently in the process of reconciling FY2017 and reviewing the final year end expenditures for all capital projects. Based on the year-end reconciliation of expenditures, this project, along with other capital projects, will be recommended to be adjusted accordingly as part of the FY 2017 Year- End action to Council. Santa Clara County 2016 Measure B funding, administered by VTA, may be available to reimburse the City for some of these expenses. Measure B includes a total of $700 million for grade separations that will be split among three jurisdictions with a total of eight crossings (four in Palo Alto). Additional funding for grade separations may be available from state and federal sources, although some additional local funding is likely to be required. Environmental Review The requested action is intended to help define a project and alternatives that will be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is not itself a “project” requiring review under CEQA. Alternatively, the requested action falls within the categorical exemption established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 for information gathering activities. Next Steps/Timeline The Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria adopted by the City Council will be presented at Community Workshop #2, which is currently scheduled for September 16, 2017. This workshop will begin the development of grade separation alternatives for later analysis and screening. If a majority of Councilmembers wish to attend the September 16th workshop, it  The study identified a cost of approximately $1 Billion for grade separating Charleston & Meadow with a trench using a 1% slope and a cost of approximately $500 Million for the 2%slope alternative, with the main differences being the length and the need to rebuild some existing stations and grade separations if the 1% slope is required. City of Palo Alto Page 14 will be noticed as a special meeting. Councilmembers are asked to inform the Clerk if they plan to attend. Attachments: Attachment A - Connecting Palo Alto Community Engagement Plan (Revised) (PDF) Attachment B - Connecting Palo Alto Community Workshop 1 Summary (DOCX) Attachment C - Connecting Palo Alto Community Questionnaire 1 Summary (DOCX) Attachment D - Connecting Palo Alto Problem Statement and Objectives (Suggested) (PDF) Attachment E - Connecting Palo Alto Problem Statement and Objectives (Revised) (PDF) Attachment F - Status of Grade Separation Projects (PDF) Attachment G - Planning and Transportation Committee Excerpt Minutes 2017-08-09 (PDF) Attachment H: August 16, 2017 Rail Committee Draft Transcript (DOC) Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program  Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Alternatives Analysis  Citizen Engagement Plan   I. Introduction  The Palo Alto Rail Program—now called Connecting Palo Alto—is a community based process to address  long‐standing challenges associated with at‐grade crossings on the Caltrain corridor that runs through  the community.  This process will lead to project design decisions that will inform both community  aesthetics and mobility choices for many future generations.  Community understanding, input and  collaboration will be a vital part of the decision making process.  The Project Team will lead the  community engagement activities associated with Connecting Palo Alto to raise awareness, inform,  educate, gather input and connect citizens about potential rail design alternatives that can help prepare  the City for the transit landscape of the future.  The Alliance for Innovation, a coalition focused on emerging practices to transform local government in  partnership with Arizona State University and the International City/County Management Association,  has identified three types of community connections:  citizens to each other, citizens to local  government, and the local government to citizens.  The Alliance identifies the characteristics of the  connected community to include:  Citizen engagement activities are connected to what citizens perceive to be important Citizens are connected to each other and to local government through engagement activities Citizens are connected by electronic and traditional linkages that permit generation of information, consideration of alternatives and joint action Participants in various citizen engagement activities are connected to each other to expand civic capacity, activities are linked and support each other and new ventures build on previous ones Organizations in the community are connected to citizens and the local government as partners in engagement. The Alliance’s approach to citizen engagement aligns with the Context Sensitive Solutions process  identified by the Palo Alto City Council as the preferred framework by which to involve the community  and make decisions about the future of the rail corridor.   As articulated by the Mineta Institute, the four  principles of CSS include:  Strive toward a shared stakeholder vision to provide the basis for decisions Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing community values, and natural environments. In terms of citizen engagement, the CSS process calls for the integration of stakeholders into the planning  process early and continuously to ensure the project reflects the views and values of the community.   The goals of community engagement under CSS are similar to many other public participation models:  ATTACHMENT A 2       Identify stakeholders:  Identifying interested parties and evaluating their concerns will  help guide the engagement strategy.  Identify key stakeholders with the potential to  invite others to join the process.  Identify cross‐cutting areas of interest.     Build consensus:  Set a clear collaborative structure to integrate stakeholders into the  planning process and to empower them by providing a way for them to have a voice in  the process.  Establish clear rules of engagement about how various views and  perspectives will be incorporated and shared.      Engage the community to define the problem to be addressed:  It is important to engage  communities at the beginning of the planning process and reflect community values and  vision.     Integrate contextual elements:  Ensure that a community’s vision for a project  recognizes constraints and will fit into other regional plans.     Analyze alternatives for best project selection:  Stakeholder input is needed to define  the problem, develop alternative solutions, look at tradeoffs and determine  cost/benefits.    As outlined by the International Association of Public Participation, which is made up of members who  seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments,  institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest throughout the world, there is a public  involvement spectrum that can determine the level of public engagement, as well as appropriate tools  used to achieve that outcome.  It’s important to be clear on the goal for engaging the public.  Levels of  engagement include:     Inform the public with objective and balanced information.  This is a one‐way flow of  information.   Consult with the public by informing them and then requesting input.     Involve/include the public in the decision by accepting input and reflecting this input in  the choice.   Collaborate by partnering with citizens and sharing the decision‐making with them.   Empower the public by putting the final decision in their hands.    3        This Plan identifies a menu of engagement tools based on the level and type of public participation  anticipated to be needed.  It is also a living document where community engagement activities are  aligned with the Rail Program’s technical efforts and deliverables.   The Plan will be revised as  appropriate as the Connecting Palo Alto program progresses to incorporate community involvement and  ownership to the greatest extent possible.     II. Goals and Objectives    The goal of any citizen engagement effort is often twofold:   to build civic capacity and community in  general and to drive public participation to decide a project or policy.  The City hopes that Connecting  Palo Alto will do both.  The significance of the project and the already high level of community interest  presents an opportunity to expand citizen participation and partnership with the City.  The  configuration, design, and other choices that will need to be made to advance grade separations will  need a high level of community input, collaboration and ultimately, support, to be successful.      Specific objectives of the community engagement efforts include:       ‐ Provide clear, accurate and easily accessible information on the Rail Program  ‐ Facilitate communications between interested stakeholders  ‐ Create  engagement strategies for gathering input on grade separation alternatives and making  decisions  4    ‐ Identify meaningful metrics to evaluate community engagement efforts   ‐ Document community input to ensure it informs the decision making process    III. Key Stakeholders and Concerns    The Connecting Palo Alto process will bring forward input and lead to decisions that will impact a wide  range of stakeholders so the identification of key participants is essential to a successful outcome.      This Plan identifies the following participants or target audiences:  ‐ Palo Alto residents who live near or travel across the rail corridor  ‐ Regular transit riders  ‐ Senior citizens  ‐ Citizens with special needs  ‐ Low income residents  ‐ City elected officials and staff  ‐ Non‐profit organizations (i.e.  Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design and Friends of  Caltrain)  ‐ Local businesses  ‐ Local educational institutions  ‐ Local environmental advocates  ‐ Community‐based organizations  ‐ Neighboring elected officials and staff  ‐ Other members of the general public    Based on input at a May 20, 2017 Community Workshop and in accordance with findings of the Rail  Corridor Circulation Study, the City will consider multiple alternatives for grade separations to address a  number of areas of concern.  While a final “problem statement,” project objectives, and performance  measures are still being developed based on community input, the areas of concern include:    ‐ Community cohesion and connectivity generally   ‐ Safety, noise, and aesthetics along the rail corridor  ‐ Traffic congestion around at‐grade crossings  ‐ Access for pedestrians and bicyclists    ‐ Facilitating rail service along the corridor  ‐ Rail program costs  ‐ Equity between north and south Palo Alto in terms of investments and benefits  ‐ The potential for disruption and impacts during construction   IV. Engagement Strategies     The Project Team will implement a series of community engagement strategies and tools as described  below.      Communication Tools and Platforms  Throughout the community engagement of Connected Palo Alto, the Project Team will use a regular set  of communications tools and platforms to inform, consult, engage and reach decisions.  These include:    5     Stakeholder Database:  The Project Team has developed an initial stakeholder base of  interested community members, as well as subscribers to the City’s two monthly e‐newsletters  that total about 7,500 individuals.  The Team will continue to add to this database to expand  opportunities to connect with the community.   Collateral Materials:  These will include the core messages developed about the project,  mailers, facts sheets, and other community informing materials   Website Updates:  The webpage for the project at www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto  will be updated on a regular basis with the latest news and updates, links to background  documents, as well as opportunities to sign up for regular e‐newsletter updates   Social Media:  Both Nextdoor and the City’s robust social media channels will be used on a  regular basis to cross promote community meetings/events, drive traffic to survey link and help  to keep community informed and engaged.  This could also include boosted posts on Facebook  that are an economical method to broaden reach.  The Project Team may also use Open City  Hall when appropriate to solicit feedback on specific project questions or ideas.     Email Newsletter:  The Project Team plans to design an e‐newsletter to be distributed on an as‐ needed but regular basis to our stakeholder database.  The first edition is expected to be  distributed by the end of August   Press Releases, Council Comments, Public Announcements:  Announcements about upcoming  workshops, survey opportunities or other outreach activities will be included in press releases,  City Manager comments at City Council meetings and other regular communications avenues.   Advertising:  It may be appropriate to consider creating/running ads for community events or  other outreach efforts     V. Levels of Engagement    1. Elected and Appointed Bodies  Level of engagement:  Consult, Engage, Decide    The Connecting Palo Alto process includes engagement with three elected and appointed bodies:  Planning and Transportation Commission, Rail Committee and City Council. Public comments are  accepted at meetings of all three bodies, both written and verbal. All decisions related to the  Connecting Palo Alto program will be addressed transparently at each of these three bodies. Under  existing rules, an opportunity exists for the Rail Committee to allow for more unstructured public  comments and direct engagement during its meetings. The committee has the option of utilizing this  meeting structure to allow for community members who are particularly interested in a topic to  more deeply engage in the discussion and decision‐making process.     2. Community Workshops  Level of engagement:  Consult, Engage, Decide    The first Connecting Palo Alto community workshop was held at Mitchell Park Community Center on  May 20, 2017 and attended by about 150 people.  This was intended to be a “restart” of sorts  following several rail corridor studies and previous community discussions.  The Project Team  gathered feedback and contact information from participants, as well as provided necessary context  for upcoming decision points.       6    The Project Team anticipates a total of six community workshops will be needed to allow for larger  discussions, as well as dialogue in smaller group sessions.  The structure and purpose of the  meetings will be scheduled to align with project milestones including:   Identify a formal “problem statement” that captures the  purpose of Connecting Palo Alto,  as well as objectives and evaluation criteria that speak to the need for the project and  provide , set its context   Identify potential alternatives for evaluation and analysis   Explore findings of the analysis and discuss outstanding issues, including potential impacts  and mitigation     Evaluate alternatives based on evaluation criteria and select a preferred alternatives for  further refinement     The City promoted the workshop through a variety of channels including postcards, Nextdoor, social  media, local media, website content and Council announcements.      A second community workshop is scheduled for September 16, 2017 at the Palo Alto Arts Center,  and will focus on the problem statement, objectives and performance measures, and begin to define  alternatives.  The Project Team will utilize similar outreach tools to encourage participation and  attendance.    3. Focus Groups  Level of engagement:  Consult, Engage, Decide    The purpose of Focus Groups is to collect information from a small group (for instance, five to 12  participants) in a systematic and structured format. An effective focus group is designed around a  clear and specific goal. Participants interact with a facilitator who presents the participants with  questions designed to yield insight into current and/or desired results in relation to a specific topic  or issue. Focus Groups will be used throughout the Connecting Palo Alto program to facilitate tough  decision making. Focus Groups may be convened in advance of Community Workshops to help  identify potential red flags that could derail the decision‐making process.     4. Stakeholder Interviews   Level of Engagement:  Consult    The Project Team conducted an initial round of stakeholder interviews in April, May and June 2017,  in order to develop the agenda and presentations for Community Workshop #1. These interviews  also provided an opportunity for these highly‐engaged stakeholders to assist the Project Team in  developing the Community Engagement Plan and other program materials. Stakeholder Interviews  will be used through the Connecting Palo Alto program to inform the decision‐making process and  assist the project team with structuring the alternatives analysis.     5. Community Questionnaires  Level of engagement:  Inform, Consult    Surveys and questionnaires are good way to solicit input on the project through targeted questions.   The Project Team plans to conduct at least two online questionnaires  (via SurveyMonkey) and  promote participation through emails, website and social media.  The first questionnaire was sent  out on July 5, 2017 to solicit community input into aspects of the four grade crossing alternatives, as  7    well as initial reaction to a problem definition statement.  As of July 13, more than 700 individuals  had completed the survey online with 600 providing comments in the open ended question  indicating a very strong level of interest by the community.  While not a statistically valid sampling,  the high level of participation shows the importance of this issue to Palo Altans.    A second online questionnaire is expected to be distributed once more details about the impacts  and benefits of grade separation alternatives are more clearly defined.  Simple text–based surveys  may also be considered for use at community workshops and in other venues. These simple tools  release short surveys and polls to recipients’ mobile devices, which solicit reply via text messages.  Questions from software like Textizen, for example, can be added to a chain of subsequent  messages according to recipient responses. A limited amount of characters are available for  presenting inquiries and responses, and depth and length of insight tends to be superficial and  short. However, its simple module allows for a quick, timely, and cost effective exchange with  respondents.      Once there is a preferred alternative and financing options identified through the process, the  Project Team may consider potentially polling eligible voters, similar to other formal research polls  taken to determine public opinion.      Engagement Throughout Decision Making Process:        Additional Community Engagement Options:     Pop‐Up Open Houses  Level of engagement: Inform  Pop‐ups can be small tables or activities co‐located with either the site they address or events  engaging the same audience.  Pop‐up Open Houses are often viewed as fun opportunity to  participate in civic process.     Community Events  Level of engagement:  Inform  Use an existing event such as Farmer’s Market, concerts, school events, etc. to  promote/educate community about the project with booth/exhibit.     Community Initiated Meetings  Level of engagement:  Inform, Engage  Meetings organized and run by members of the community, can be supported by having issue  experts/city staff attend to provide information.     Site Visits  Level of engagement:  Inform, Consult  Invite members of the public to visit the project site to allow better visualization of alternatives.  Focus  Groups Community  Workshop PTC Rail  Committee City Council 8       21st Century Town Hall Meetings  Level of engagement:  Inform, Engage  Hold a large group meeting in person with technology facilitated platforms such as Facebook  Live.    VI. Community Engagement Metrics    The Project team will track the effectiveness of all Rail Program community engagement activities and  services through the following quantitative metrics:   o Total number of stakeholders recorded into stakeholder database  o Total number of meetings/ events related to Rail Program stakeholders logged into stakeholder  database  o Total number of inquiries recorded in stakeholder database   o Ratio of positive/negative feedback on Rail Program developments, rail separation alternatives,  and general community engagement activities and services recorded in stakeholder database  o Total number of stakeholders reached directly by collateral  o Total number of stakeholders visiting Rail Program’s webpage   o Frequency of stakeholder engagement with Rail Program’s website, social media platforms  o Total number of stakeholders reached by Rail Program surveys  o Ratio of recipients/respondents of Rail Program surveys   o Ratio of positive/negative feedback on Rail Program developments rail separation alternatives,  and general community engagement activities and services recorded in survey findings  o Attendance at public meetings    VII. Community Engagement Schedule1     Date Event Topics  May 20, 2017 Community Workshop #1 Review and discuss background,  context, problem statement,  objectives and evaluation criteria  July 2017 Community Questionnaire #1 Review problem statement, objectives  and evaluation criteria  August 2017 E‐newsletter #1    Discuss problem statement,  objectives, evaluation criteria and  upcoming Community Workshop #2  September 16, 2017 Community Workshop #2 Finalize problem statement, objectives  and evaluation criteria and begin to  develop alternatives  September 2017 E‐newsletter #2    Finalize problem statement, objectives  and evaluation criteria and begin to  develop alternatives  October 21, 2017 (tentative)    Community Workshop #3 Continue to develop alternatives  1 Please notice that this schedule will change according to project developments, needs, and milestones. 9    October 2017    Community Questionnaire #2 Continue to develop alternatives  November 2017    E‐newsletter #3    Continue to develop alternatives  November 2017‐January 2018 Focus Groups #1  Discuss Alternatives Analysis and  Selection of Preferred Alternative  December 2017 E‐newsletter #4 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and  Selection of Preferred Alternative  November 2017‐January 2018 Community Workshop #4 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and  Selection of preferred alternative  January 2018 E‐newsletter #5 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and  Selection of Preferred Alternative  February‐March 2018    Focus Groups #2  Adopt preferred alternative(s)  February‐March 2018    Community Workshop #5 Adopt preferred alternative(s)  February‐March 2018    E‐newsletter #6 Adopt preferred alternative(s)  Notes:  This schedule of events and topics are subject to change.  This summary does not include concurrent  stakeholder interviews or other engagement activities that may supplement workshops and newsletters; it also  does not include concurrent meetings of the technical advisory committee or meetings of City bodies such as the  City Council, Rail Committee, and Planning & Transportation Commission.    VIII. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)    The Project Team is working to convene a Connecting Palo Alto Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).    The TAC will provide a forum for engagement with staff from the agencies with special knowledge about  the rail corridor.  The TAC will help the Project Team and community identify the technical opportunities  and constraints for various alternatives. The TAC will not, in and of itself, be making any decisions  regarding the Connecting Palo Alto program. The first meeting of the TAC is scheduled to occur in  September and its membership is expected to include senior staff from the agencies and organizations  listed below in alphabetical order. The TAC will likely only be convened on an as‐needed basis moving  forward.   o California High‐speed Rail Authority  o Caltrain (Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board)   o Caltrans District 4 Traffic Operations  o City of Menlo Park  o City of Mountain View  o City of Palo Alto  Planning and Community Environment Department  o City of Palo Alto Public Works Department  o City of Palo Alto Utilities Department  o Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee  o Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA)  o Palo Alto Unified School District (and interested site administrators)  o Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department   o Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority  o Santa Clara Valley Water District  10    o Stanford University  o Union Pacific Railroad    Attachment B All information related to the Connecting Palo Alto Community Workshop 1 Summary can be viewed by visiting the City’s Connecting Palo Alto web page at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/railways.asp . Attachment C Responses to the Connecting Palo Alto Community Questionnaire 1 can be viewed at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/railways.asp Information specific to the questionnaire can be found under the “What are the latest updates?” section. Attachment D  Connecting Palo Alto:  Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria  August 2017 Draft for PTC and Rail Committee Discussion Purposes      Page 1 of 2  Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Problem Statement    “The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity  within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for  pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at‐grade crossings. These  rail corridor challenges also creates issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as  noise, vibration, traffic and visual impacts.  While the City of Palo Alto benefits from  Caltrain service and supports Caltrain modernization (including electrification),  some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor These will continue to get  worse in the future with increases in Caltrain service traffic due to Caltrain  modernization (including electrification) and the possible addition of high speed  rail.”      [Tracked changes show modifications to the draft problem statement included in the July  2017 citizen questionnaire and are based on responses to that questionnaire.]    Connecting Palo Alto:   Suggested Objectives*     To improve safety along the rail corridor   To reduce the traffic congestion that occurs at existing at‐grade crossings every time a train  passes by      To improve circulation and access across the rail corridor for all modes of transportation,  separating bicyclists and pedestrians from automobile traffic      To deliver grade separations and circulation improvements in a timely manner   To reduce train noise and vibrations and minimize visual changes along the rail corridor     To support Caltrain service enhancements      To minimize right‐of‐way acquisitions and local road closures     To ensure fairness in terms of the investments and improvements in north and south Palo Alto   To minimize potential impacts and disruption during construction while enabling continued  train service at all times     To maximize Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources  *Suggested objectives are loosely based on July 2017 questionnaire responses and prior studies.  These  are suggestions only, and are subject to change.  Attachment D  Connecting Palo Alto:  Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria  August 2017 Draft for PTC and Rail Committee Discussion Purposes  Page 2 of 2  Connecting Palo Alto:  Suggested Evaluation Criteria   The following evaluation criteria are suggested as a starting place to support the development  and evaluation of alternatives. These can be modified or supplemented with performance  measures or metrics based on community input and technical analyses.  Tier 1 Criteria:  Most Important  East‐West connectivity:  facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation Traffic congestion:  reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings Ped/Bike circulation:  provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic Rail operations:  support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements Tier 2 Criteria:  Also Important  Environmental impacts:  reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor Environmental impacts:  minimize visual changes along the rail corridor Local access:  maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets Tier 3 Criteria:  Somewhat Important  Construction:  minimize disruption and the duration of construction activities at any single location Cost:  minimize right‐of‐way acquisition & finance with available funding sources Attachment E  Connecting Palo Alto:  Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria  September 2017 Draft for City Council Discussion Purposes  Page 1 of 2  Tracked changes show modifications based on recommendations from the Planning and  Transportation Commission and the Rail Committee.  Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Problem Statement  “While enhanced rail transit service is important to the City of Palo Alto, tThe Caltrain  corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity within the City of  Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists,  especially at existing at‐grade crossings. The rail corridor also creates issues in surrounding  neighborhoods, such as noise, vibration, traffic, and visual impacts.  While the City of Palo  Alto benefits from Caltrain service, and supports Caltrain modernization (including  electrification), some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor will continue to get  worse in the future with increases in Caltrain service and the possible probable addition of  high speed rail.”    Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Objectives  To recognize and build off of the previous rail corridor planning work To improve safety along the rail corridor To reduce the traffic congestion that occurs at existing at‐grade crossings every time a train passes by To minimize right‐of‐way acquisitions by eminent domain and local road closures To improve circulation and access across the rail corridor for all modes of transportation, To separateing bicyclists and pedestrians from automobile traffic To deliver grade separations and circulation improvements in a timely manner To reduce train noise and vibrations and minimize visual changes along the rail corridor To support Caltrain service enhancements To minimize right‐of‐way acquisitions and local road closures To ensure fairness in terms of the investments and improvements in north and south Palo Alto To minimize potential impacts and disruption during construction while enabling continued train service at all times  To maximize Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources Attachment E  Connecting Palo Alto:  Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria  September 2017 Draft for City Council Discussion Purposes      Page 2 of 2    Connecting Palo Alto:  Suggested Evaluation Criteria     The following evaluation criteria are suggested as a starting place to support the development and  evaluation of alternatives. These can be modified or supplemented with performance measures or  metrics based on community input and technical analyses.    Tier 1 Criteria:  Most Important     East‐West connectivity:  facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation    Traffic congestion:  reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings   Ped/Bike circulation:  provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to  cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic   Rail operations:  support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements   Cost: finance with feasible funding sources    Tier 2 Criteria:  Also Important     Environmental impacts:  reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor   Environmental impacts:  minimize visual changes along the rail corridor   Local access:  maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other  destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets   Cost:  minimize right‐of‐way acquisition by eminent domain& finance with available funding  sources   Construction:  minimize disruption and the duration of construction  Tier 3 Criteria:  Somewhat Important     Construction:  minimize disruption and the duration of construction activities at any single  location   Cost:  minimize right‐of‐way acquisition & finance with available funding sources    Caltrain Corridor Grade Separation Schedule, Estimates, & Alignment Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program South San Francisco Linden Avenue San Bruno Scott Street Burlingame Broadway & Broadway Stn. San Mateo 25th Avenue & Hillsdale Stn. Mountain View Rengstor Ave Mountain View Castro St. & Transit Cntr. Sunnyvale Mary Ave High-speed Rail San José-San Francisco Caltrain Electrification San Francisco 16th St. & Railyard $160-200M $310-390M $250M Location Estimated Schedule Vertical Alignment of RailroadCost Estimate Hybrid Hybrid Under Consideration Under Consideration At Grade Unknown N/A N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown $45M $120M At Grade Under Consideration Under Consideration Under Consideration At Grade: 1 xing Hybrid: 3 xings Below Grade At Grade $180M Redwood City Whipple Ave Menlo ParkRavenswood Ave & Others Palo Alto Pending Outcome of CSS 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown Planning LEGEND Prepared By: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Date Prepared: August 2017 Environmental/Design Construction Vertical Alignment Alternative Selected by City CouncilSchedule Unknown Beyond Milestone Final Design Complete; Remaining Schedule Unknown _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Excerpt Minutes 2 August 9, 2017 3 Council Chambers 4 250 Hamilton Avenue 5 6:00 PM 6 7 Study Session 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 9 Action Items 10 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 11 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 12 1.Recommendations Regarding a Suggested Problem Statement, Objectives and13 Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade14 Separation Alternatives15 16 Chair Alcheck: I'd like to move on then with our first action item, Item Number 2, which is the 17 railroad grade separation item. 18 19 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Great. Thank you, Chair, Members of the 20 Commission, My name is Joshuah Mello. I am the Chief Transportation Official with the City of 21 Palo Alto. This evening I'll be giving a brief presentation on the Connecting Palo Alto Rail 22 Program and presenting some [unintelligible] problem statement, objectives, and evaluation 23 criteria for this program moving forward. 24 25 ATTACHMENT G _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Alright, thank you for allowing me to present tonight. I'm going to kick it off by just going 1 through a brief recap of the existing conditions along the Caltrain corridor in Palo Alto. The 2 Caltrain corridor is roughly four miles long and runs roughly from the northwest to the 3 southeast of the City. This study is looking at the entire rail corridor all of the existing grade 4 crossings as well as existing grade separations. We're starting very broad and the intent is to 5 narrow down as we move forward so we're starting very broad looking at the entire corridor. 6 This is a map that we developed of the study area that shows the existing at grade crossings 7 which are where roadways are at the same grade as the railroad as well as grade separated 8 crossings which have the roadway and/or a bike/pedestrian path separated from the rail 9 corridor. 10 11 We currently have four at grade railroad crossings at Palo Alto Avenue also known as (aka) 12 Alma Street, Churchill Avenue, East and West Meadow Drive, and East and West Charleston 13 Road. You can see here the modes are a little bit different. The primary mode of 14 transportation is a little bit different on each grade crossing. Charleston Road carries a lot more 15 motor vehicles while Churchill Avenue carries more bicycles and Palo Alto Avenue actually has a 16 higher rate of pedestrian traffic. You can also see there is a significant amount of truck traffic at 17 Palo Alto Avenue and the delay in the number of gate openings varies by grade crossing as well. 18 There will be a lot more data collected as we move through this process. This is just to give you 19 a quick overview of our current grade crossings. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 We have done a little bit of work as a community on the rail corridor prior to this project kicking 2 off. Notably back in 2013 City Council adopted the 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. This was 3 commissioned in 2010 and it was ultimately adopted in 2013. It was developed by a 17 4 member task force comprised of community members and it focused on the rail corridor 5 circulation, connectivity, land use as well as urban design and public facilities. And this was a 6 very broad look at the rail corridor and it did not just look… it didn't get too far into detail on 7 grade crossing alternatives and it was more of a big picture look at land use and transportation 8 components along the corridor. 9 10 In 2014 staff and Council commissioned the Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study 11 and this is what I would call a feasibility analysis. This was a study done by an engineering firm 12 to look at what ifs. If we were to grade separate at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston what 13 would the impacts be of different alternative configurations of those grade separations? So 14 they looked at traditional bridge over crossings, trenching the railroad, and other variations and 15 identified what the extents of those projects would be and what some of the property impacts 16 could potentially be. This was not a preferred alternative identified from the community. This 17 was a feasibility analysis of looking at what if these certain types of crossings were constructed. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. During budget discussions for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2021 Capital Improvement Program 1 (CIP) we were able to secure $1.9 million in the CIP to begin work on our railroad grade 2 separations. And at that time Council ranked that, this project, as the highest priority project 3 for the City as a whole not just in the transportation realm. So this is a very high profile, high 4 priority project as you know for our community. Shortly thereafter we released a request for 5 proposal (RFP) for a consultant services for rail program management and we selected a team 6 to move forward within August of 2016. That fall, this is fall of last year, Santa Clara County 7 voters approved Measure B which is a transportation sales tax which will run for 30 years. $700 8 million of that funding has been allocated to building grade separations in Palo Alto, Mountain 9 View, and Sunnyvale. There are a total of eight grade crossings that this money will be directed 10 towards in those three communities. And we're currently working with Santa Clara Valley 11 Transportation Authority (VTA) to develop an implementation plan which will hopefully enable 12 the region to construct all eight of those grade separations within that 30 year tax timeframe. 13 14 Finally you’ll hear a lot about this this evening, but one of our directives from City Council was 15 to move forward with a context sensitive solutions/alternatives analysis process. We formally 16 kicked that off in March and I’ll talk a little bit more about what CS is… Context Sensitive 17 Solutions (CSS) is, but we were we've been moving very deliberately and very slowly on this and 18 this is the first check in of many with you and the Rail Committee and City Council as we move 19 along those CSS/alternatives analysis process. So I'm not sure that all of you are familiar with 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. what CSS is, back in the old days highway engineers primarily state Departments of 1 Transportation (DOT) would sit in their office in the capital city start work on a project without 2 ever consulting the community. They had standard details for highway widenings, freeways, 3 they would often endanger the environment, impact communities, fail to consult with 4 community members and neighborhood organizations and so as a result there was a lot of 5 negative reaction to some of the projects that DOTs, particular state DOTs moved through the 6 planning and design process. 7 8 So shortly after the National Environmental Policy Act was adopted back in the 1960’s a new 9 way of thinking about projects was devised and this was piloted by some of the state DOTs. 10 New Jersey DOT was one of the early front runners in this process and it became known as CSS 11 because it thinks about the context of the project. One of the key tenants is to have continual 12 community involvement and instead of approaching a project with the solution front loaded at 13 the beginning and then defending your recommended solution to the community the goal of 14 CSS is to work collaboratively with the community and first identify what the problem is that 15 you're trying to solve. So the problem that you ultimately end up addressing may not be the 16 one that you identified or would typically identify at the beginning of the process. There's also 17 a very clear decision making process in CSS. Traditionally large roadway projects and other 18 infrastructure projects a lot of the decisions are made in back rooms without community 19 consultation and without the community being involved in a transparent decision making 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. process. So CSS is a transparent collaborative process that there's a step by step process that 1 you follow and the step that we're at this evening is the problem statement objectives and 2 evaluation criteria step. So we're really going to talk a lot about what the problem is that we're 3 trying to solve this evening. A lot of us going into this project assumed that we knew what the 4 problem was and what the problem is, but in talking in the community we have a draft problem 5 statement that may not be what we thought we would have walking into this project. 6 7 The principles that we're proposing to follow on this trip that we’re going to take with this 8 project are very similar to what's espoused in the CSS process and we've built on the principles 9 from CSS. One of the things that we've really struggled with is this needs to be a flexible 10 process. So we're trying to tape take steps forward, but at the same time we need to be ready 11 to adapt the process and we don't know where we're going to, where this whole community 12 engagement and community decision making process is going to take us. So what we 13 ultimately decided and with the support of the Rail Committee we decided to hold a 14 community workshop, go over some of the background information with the community, do a 15 community questionnaire, develop a draft problem statement, some objectives, and some 16 evaluation criteria and then visit with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the 17 Rail Committee, City Council and then go back to the community again in order to finalize that 18 problem statement, objectives, and evaluation criteria. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So as I said we're very early in the process. This is a chart that shows kind of the five steps that 1 we see. Where we're standing today we see five steps moving forward and we're currently in 2 stage one which is the problem definition and evaluation framework. As I said we're very early 3 in the process and this is designed to be a flexible process and an adaptable process and I think 4 you'll be able to help us as we move through this process adapt and make changes in order to 5 make sure that we are making decisions at the right level, talking about the right things, and 6 looking at the right alternatives and the right options. 7 8 So our work to date which I said started back in March prior to that the Rail Committee was 9 reconvened in December of 2015. It's met basically monthly. There was a break from 10 September 2016 to March 2017. The Rail Committee charter and the guiding principles were 11 updated by City Council in April 2017. And then as I said since March of 2017 staff and the Rail 12 Committee have been primarily focused on moving forward with this CSS alternatives analysis 13 process. And we spent a lot of time with the Rail Committee trying to figure out how to get this 14 moving and what the next step should be in the process. 15 16 And one of the very first things we did was we invited 15 members of the community into the 17 Downtown Library across the street and myself and some of my other staff members we sat 18 down and we conducted interviews with these stakeholders. And we asked them about the 19 previous studies, we asked them about what a CSS analysis alternatives analysis process should 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. look like, we also asked about their opinion on problem, what the problem is. We tried to avoid 1 starting a discussion about solutions and alternatives because we think that's going to come 2 later and it really needs to come later after we decide as community what problem we're trying 3 to solve and what some of the objectives are. 4 5 So some of the key takeaways from these stakeholder interviews are early on we were as staff 6 we were not fully aware of how important the prior rail corridor studies are to the community 7 and how much work went into particularly the 2013 study so that was something we quickly 8 changed course on and got up to speed on the outcome and the process that went into that 9 study. There was also a little bit of confusion around the trenching study that was done in 10 2014. Some members of the community felt that that was a some type of alternative that 11 already been adopted by City Council and that there had already better an alternatives analysis 12 process when in reality as I mentioned earlier that was really just a feasibility study to look at 13 what some of the impacts would be of different alternatives. 14 15 There's also and you'll hear a lot about this tonight there's some different opinions on what a 16 CSS process looks like. There is a there are some folks who want to use the community 17 workshops that we've been holding as a “stakeholder group” where we'll make decisions at 18 these community workshops and we'll invite the entire community in to help participate. And 19 then there's another group of folks who would rather see a formal stakeholder group organized 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that would help manage those CSS process. As staff we believe that those are both consistent 1 with the principles of CSS; however, I think ultimately it'll be up to City Council to decide 2 whether to continue moving forward with a community workshop format or to convene a 3 formal stakeholder group. 4 5 There was also some concern from the stakeholders about presupposing solutions. So there 6 was a little bit of discussion about the trench option versus some more traditional options. And 7 the cost of the trench is really undetermined and it's really hard to start to evaluate the 8 different alternatives without getting a better handle on cost and impacts. And then we also 9 learned that safety and visual impacts are very important. There were a couple of stakeholders 10 who were very concerned about what the visual impacts of some of these alternatives could be 11 to their communities and their neighborhoods. 12 13 After conducting the stakeholder interviews we convened a community workshop on May 20th 14 at Mitchell Park Community Center. This was a Saturday. We had we started at 10:00 a.m., had 15 great turnout. We had 130 attendees. The morning was focused on background information a 16 lot of similar information that's presented in your packet and that I'm presenting to you this 17 evening. And then we talked about what the existing conditions and the future conditions will 18 look like with Caltrain electrification as well as the potential for high speed rail service and 19 additional trains along the corridor. Then we broke for lunch, continued the discussion over 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. lunch and in the afternoon we started to delve into the problem definition. So we asked folks 1 in your opinion what problem should we be trying to solve? What are some of the issues that 2 you encounter along the rail corridor? And we also discussed the objectives and the evaluation 3 criteria. 4 5 One cool thing that we were able to do during the workshop was real time polling using 6 smartphones. And we ask people questions like is this time of day a good time for you to meet, 7 did you like the Saturday meeting, what's the best way to keep in touch with you? This was not 8 a scientific poll, but it was a good way to keep people involved and active in the conversation. 9 We did learn a lot about people's communication preferences and there was generally support 10 for the Saturday midday format of that day. 11 12 We took a little bit of a break over the summer while Council was at recess, but we did not 13 want to lose touch with the community and we did not want them to feel as though work had 14 stopped and that their attendance on May 20th was in vain. So we developed a community 15 questionnaire with the assistance of the Rail Committee and this community questionnaire was 16 intended to do two things. It was to maintain community involvement throughout the summer, 17 but we also wanted to we wanted the community participate in the drafting of the problem 18 statement, the objectives, the evaluation criteria that we developed after Community 19 Workshop 1 with the community during that workshop on May 20th. So we emailed out the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. community questionnaire to 444 recipients on July 5th. We also advertised it I believe on 1 Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, all of the other social media outlets that we have access to. We 2 received 791 unique responses in I think the two week period that we had the survey posted. 3 And 98 percent of the people who started the questionnaire finished the questionnaire which is 4 pretty impressive. It was a fairly detailed questionnaire with some pretty intense questions. 5 6 So we were able to use the conversations that we had on May 20th with the community at 7 Mitchell Park as well as the feedback that we got on the questionnaire and the stakeholder 8 interviews that we conducted prior to the workshop on May 20th to develop a draft problem 9 statement for your consideration. I can read it if you'd like. If not we can talk about it during 10 the question and answer (Q&A) session. It's presented on this slide as well as in your staff 11 report. We also developed a series of objectives and these would be goals that we would strive 12 for as we developed alternatives and move through this process. And then finally we 13 developed a set of draft evaluation criteria and typically evaluation criteria is used in a 14 alternatives evaluation matrix. So we would assign some type of scoring mechanism for each of 15 these evaluation criteria and working with the community we would develop alternatives, 16 different types of grade crossing solutions, and each one of those alternatives would be 17 evaluated against this objective criteria. And that would be one component of the alternatives 18 analysis that would help us narrow down the alternatives and eventually get to a preferred 19 alternative that we would advance into preliminary engineering, environmental, and design. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And with that next steps: we’ll be making the same presentation, almost the same presentation 2 of course with your input included following this meeting, we’ll be going to Rail Committee on 3 August 16th, so next Wednesday, and then we'll be following that up with a City Council 4 meeting on August 28th. We're also looking to convene the Technical Advisory Committee 5 (TAC) which would be a staff a committee of staff members from various agencies that would 6 have a stake in these projects. And this committee would primarily be used to look at technical 7 issues around some of the alternatives and some of the potential solutions. We’re also looking 8 to convene a Community Workshop Number 2 on September 16th. We would present the 9 outcome of the PTC, Rail Committee, and City Council meetings at that public meeting which 10 will be at the Arts Center Auditorium and September 16th is also a Saturday. And then 11 tentatively we have a Community Workshop 3 scheduled for October 21st where we hope to 12 start to delve into the development of some of the alternatives that we will analyze through 13 this alternatives analysis process. So this evening we are recommending that the PTC review 14 the attached community engagement plan, summary of Community Workshop Number 1 on 15 May 20th, and summary of questionnaire responses and provide input to the City Council on 16 the draft problem statement, project objectives, and evaluation criteria for discussion at 17 Community Workshop Number 2 and to inform the development and screening of grade 18 separation alternatives. And with that that concludes my presentation. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Mr. Chair maybe I can just say a few words before we go to 1 the public comment. I’m Hillary Gitelman, the Director, and I just wanted to thank Josh. This 2 project really has the potential to be a second full time job for Josh. It's already been quite a bit 3 of work and there's a lot more on the horizon. I also noticed in the presentation that our slides 4 there didn't quite match the text in Attachment D. I think it's just because we have to 5 paraphrase on the PowerPoint slide so Attachment D is really where you'll find the suggested 6 language for the problem statement objectives and criteria that we'd like your input on this 7 evening. Also one of our objectives this evening is to determine which of you are or I should 8 say get the September 16th date on your radar screen. We would really invite the Planning and 9 Transportation Commissioners to attend on the 16th, that's a Saturday, for the next workshop. 10 And if you could let us know in the next week or so which of you are planning to attend we’ll 11 have to notice it as a special meeting if we have more than a quorum of Planning to be there. 12 Of course you don't have to attend, but I think if this is going to be such a kind of high profile 13 project and of such interest to the community that some of you may wish to participate. With 14 that we suggest that you take some public comment and then we're happy to answer your 15 questions and get deeper into these issues. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I would recommend that staff circulates an email to the 18 Commissioners in the coming days to determine who will be in attendance to that meeting and 19 then they can consult their calendars. Alright, I am going to open the floor to our speakers. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. You’ll have five minutes to speak and I’ll call up the person and then the next person so that 1 you know you’re up. Our first speaker tonight is Stephen Rosenblum followed by Nadia Naik. 2 3 Stephen Rosenblum: Hi, I'm Stephen Rosenblum. I live near the California Avenue train station. 4 I’ve lived in Palo Alto since 1985 and I've been following the whole rail process since the time 5 that high speed rail proposed coming here and running their trains through Palo Alto on four 6 tracks. A lot of things have happened since then. I've campaigned throughout that time for 7 grade separation and preferably underground, but I know that's not the subject. The solution is 8 not what we're talking about today, but we all realize that this decision or the decisions that we 9 make about the rail configuration and the street configuration will affect the way Palo Alto 10 looks for the next hundred years probably. So it's a decision that we have to make with great 11 care and not just looking at the bottom line. I think we have to look at the quality of life that 12 residents will have as a result. And so we need to look at how we want Palo Alto to look in the 13 future, how we want people to get across the tracks in the future, and how to ensure that 14 people are safe; that there's no opportunities for collisions between trains and people and cars 15 and bicycles. 16 17 The process has been well begun by the City Council and particularly with the appointment of 18 the Rail Committee and the selection of CSS as a process for gathering input from the 19 community. At this point the main issue is the recommendation of the process that will be 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. used for CSS. And I would strongly urge you to recommend to the Rail Committee and the 1 Council that we try to seek the widest possible community input at the beginning rather than 2 what I would consider the broken process by which high speed rail pretended to gather 3 community input and then did with they wanted to in the end and just create a lot of acrimony. 4 So I suggest that we add as Nadia Naik has proposed shared stakeholder meetings to the CSS 5 process in order to be sure that we're gathering the widest possible input from stakeholders 6 right at the beginning. So I would hope that this would be what would be recommended to the 7 Council. Thank you very much. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nadia Naik followed by Sara Armstrong. 10 11 Nadia Naik: Good evening everyone, I’m Nadia Naik. I'm a resident of Old Palo Alto and I'm also 12 co-founder of a group… it's ok. I'm also co-founder of a group called CARRD, it’s Californians 13 Advocating Responsible Rail Design. We were the group of citizen advocates that poked some 14 holes in some of the high speed rail groups data. So that's kind of how we became activists 15 with the train. 16 17 I wanted to really praise Hillary and Josh. I think they've been doing a tremendous amount of 18 work and it really has been a lot of work. Part of the reason that this is coming to you tonight is 19 we had originally as a City tried to hire a city manager, a rail project manager, excuse me to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. follow this project and in they weren’t able to get somebody and instead they ended up getting 1 a consultant that will be helping Josh and Hillary and their team. So they are now having to sort 2 manage the work that's being contracted out to them which makes it tough. It also is exactly 3 the same reason why we need more, we need to have a dedicated citizen stakeholder group. I 4 think it provides the je ne sais quoi that the people who live here are able to explain frankly and 5 it just it's hard to explain to people who don't live in the City and who are consultants why hey, 6 that would never fly or you can't do this. 7 8 The CSS process isn’t your classic process. It's also not magic, right? I don't mean to say that 9 this is going to make it easy if we follow this process, but specifically what it does is you usually 10 have an entire project team which would be a dedicated stakeholder team, staff, the TAC and 11 everybody gets together and then decides what is the exact problem we're trying to solve. And 12 it may seem obvious, we need grade separations, but in some cases it's not. What if we have to 13 close one and open another one, right? Once you’ve all decided the exact problems you’re 14 trying to solve you then say well wait before we come up with a new solutions we're going to 15 come up with criteria to measure those things. And then once you've done all of that upfront 16 work you then kind of go back and start to deliberate. 17 18 And so frankly part of the reason I can't stand here today and tell you oh, you should do this, 19 this, and this is because we're not actually been able to have the real conversation of what is 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the problem we're trying to solve. The May meeting that we had was a great into for the 1 community, but it didn't for example show what are going to be the future conditions in 20 2 years that might indicate hey, we have a bigger problem in South Palo Alto than North Palo Alto 3 which might actually change our process a bit. So all of those things if we were able to all get in 4 a room with citizens who can really focus the time to get through this data would really be able 5 to help figure out what that process would be. Because in the absence of that staff is having to 6 say well we'd like to have these community meetings and let's just see and that makes it a little 7 too open ended and loosey-goosey and really leaves it open for the classic Palo Alto process 8 which would go on and on. So when you do a good CSS process you keep going back to what 9 you're trying to measure, what you agreed upon, and how do you then deliberate through 10 those things. 11 12 Frankly the other thing is that citizens can help you question assumptions. A classic example on 13 the corridor for example is the issue of freight. Part of the thing that dictates how expensive 14 these grade separations are or how much flexibility we have deals with freight on the corridor. 15 An engineer that would be hired by the City would naturally say freight exists therefore I will 16 pencil out according to that, but citizens would be like well, can we push on that? What's 17 happening? They might pull in the fact that hey, the Dumbarton rail corridor is out there and 18 they're looking there's a possibility that you could run freight on the Dumbarton rail. There's 19 other alternatives, right? And this is the kind of good thinking that happens when you can get 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. in a room with everybody, but otherwise it would be difficult for staff or even for the 1 consultants to come in and say hey City of Palo Alto you guys should even consider booting 2 freight off the corridor. It would be very politically untenable and frankly hard for them, but a 3 stakeholder group can come out and make those bigger statements, right? I think all of those 4 things is the reason why you need to have a dedicated stakeholder group. 5 6 Lastly I will just say if we're not going to have a dedicated stakeholder group that's ok, but then 7 we're not doing CSS and you should lose that name. And the reason is when high speed rail 8 was having the issue on the corridor we were able to convince the high speed rail folks to 9 create the peninsula rail program and follow a CSS process. They hired Bruce Fukuji, some of 10 you may know him. He did a great job, but ultimately it failed and the reason it failed was not 11 because Bruce did bad work. He did great work, but because the decision makers ignored 12 everything that was going on. There was no buy in and the people who participated were not 13 actually involved in any decisions. If we do that now we're telling Palo Altoans sure you're 14 welcome to come and give your feedback and then in the end they're not actually part of the 15 problem solving and they're not actually part of the decision making and that would be terrible. 16 It would be disastrous and I think you would have a lot of repercussions and we might actually 17 lose funding because of it. It would slow everything down and as you probably know we're 18 trying to get some Measure B money to actually make all this happen. So I want to thank you 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. all for your consideration today and I really think a dedicated stakeholder group is the way to 1 go. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sara Armstrong followed by Arthur Keller. 4 5 Sara Armstrong: I have some handouts for you guys. Just going to follow on to what Nadia just 6 said and appreciate the work that's been done. I've been involved in this for almost 10 years, 7 but the proposed process is not what we would call a CSS. It's missing several key elements 8 including the establishment of a stakeholder committee or what we would prefer to call a 9 program team that’s comprised of community members, City staff, domain expert consultants, 10 and transportation agency representatives. Some people might argue that that's a good thing. 11 Stakeholders those are the ones who drive a stake through the heart of your project, right? 12 There's plenty of examples that we could probably point to to say that there’s some truth in 13 that. And that's why we're not just arguing for a stakeholder group, but one that would engage 14 in a highly structured collaborative empowered decision making process that's been specifically 15 designed for complex transportation projects where we lack obvious an obvious solution that 16 meets basic community goals and can be paid for. 17 18 The years that we've spent on this corridor and the experience with previous grade separations 19 has convinced us that finding a consensus solution that improves our city will require out of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. box thinking. Some assumptions, presumptions, and requirements will have to go and some 1 reconceptualization of the problem will have to happen. This will require a dedicated group of 2 people who can go deep and to bring the public along the journey. Today's environmental 3 review process is used to justify choices rather than help design a project from the beginning 4 that reflects the issues and opportunities of existing conditions. Its multi-tiered project 5 approval process can sometimes help screen out poor proposals, but it often means multiple 6 rounds of very shallow review. In some cases a project will be bogged down by when someone 7 raises an issue at the last minute or other times projects fly through that actually could have 8 used much more input and you can probably think of examples of those. 9 10 We appreciate the transparency and wonderful community involvement that the Brown Act 11 gives us, but it can also create an unhealthy power dynamic between decision makers and the 12 people that you represent. Staff members have to deal with multiple objectives on from 13 multiple different bodies, but a team that is doing a deep review can result in a better project 14 that that saves time and money and avoids the pitfalls that you're going to hear about. 15 Thoughtful and creative responses simply take time. Having people join the process later is 16 problematic and a thorough systematic approach that surfaces potential issues early and 17 establishes common facts is really vital. Unhealthy dynamics between experts and community 18 members can arise when everyone isn't part of the same team and a transparent process and 19 staff or consultants can sometimes be several steps ahead of the community when it comes to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the technical information and this can also create as was mentioned with the corridor trench 1 study a sense that choices have already been made. 2 3 The current way of doing things tends to emphasize the concrete part of the plan and other 4 aspects are relegated to mitigations and become afterthoughts instead of an integral part of 5 the plan. And the goals as an example that the staff presented there are a good start, but they 6 really only scratch the surface of what we need. Each criterion has to be vetted by the public 7 and the agencies responsible with a full understanding of the tradeoffs and costs. And each 8 criterion has to be formulated in very concrete measurable objectives. One example, reduce 9 congestion verses maximum 95th percentile queue times during peak travel, right? We have to 10 be able to measure these things. Goals should be from the community and from transportation 11 agencies the City might want to specify capacity for the number of crosstown traffic and they 12 should be beyond the concrete the capacity numbers may be about people traveling corridor 13 and not in one specific mode. Emergency services may have their own requirements and might 14 require certain crossings to be open to their vehicles. The presumptions, assumptions, and 15 requirements need to be explicitly laid out and then validated as Nadia mentioned and 16 sometimes questioning these requirements leads to breakthroughs. 17 18 Nadia mentioned an example about the great separations accommodating diesel and freight. 19 Another would be the clearance levels that drive really high costs for some of the alternatives. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. The grade level that the train has to go on also drives costs. There are current examples on our 1 own corridor where trains pass through tunnels in San Francisco much smaller than the [dinette 2 mentions] that we're currently looking at. Those are just really in the weeds details. We need 3 to put together a team that can do the deep dive and analysis and it has to include people from 4 the community. We can do this old style, but I don't want to be back here in 10 years having 5 the same conversations that we had almost 10 years ago about involving the community in a 6 meaningful way. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is Arthur Keller followed by Elizabeth Alexis. 9 10 Arthur Keller: Thank you. So I would like to make an observation. Many years ago I went to 11 college and I had Boston College and he had this sign over his desk and he said why is there not 12 enough never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it over? And my 13 corollary to that that I added is but there's actually rarely an opportunity to do it over. And I 14 think that this process is being done in such a manner that it's not taking the time to do it right 15 and I actually if it doesn't work I hope that in 10 years we can do it over, but I don't think we'll 16 ever get a chance to do it over. This is our one shot to do it. 17 18 And I think that if you think about public participation there’s a balance between narrow and 19 deep and broad and shallow. The public participation that is proposed in this document is 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. broad and shallow. And the stakeholder group that the previous speakers have talked about is 1 includes a process that is narrow and deep and I think that that's critical. You actually need 2 both and if we don't have a narrow and deep process where you have people who are 3 representing the community who are engaged the community who provide deep input from 4 the community and participate in the process deeply then you only essentially are paying lip 5 service to the public and getting them to talk about situations in which the public actually 6 doesn't really understand and is dealing with a low information environment. And so that's 7 why I think it that I associate myself with the previous speaker’s remarks. 8 9 Also in terms of thinks, think about this you have this TAC; so let me give you an example, you 10 have the Safe Routes To Schools effort which is a joint effort between the City and the School 11 District. Do they belong on the TAC? Maybe, maybe not. Do they belong if there's a 12 stakeholder group? Certainly having representatives on the stakeholder group makes sense. 13 So there is participation like that that are interesting and worthwhile because they are proper 14 stakeholders. Our schools are stakeholders to the effort. They may not provide technical input 15 to the effort, but they’re certainly interest in terms of commuter traffic for the schools so I 16 think that that's interesting. In terms of for example the Palo Alto Transportation Management 17 Association (TMA) that's representing Downtown. What about the rest of the businesses in the 18 City? What about the businesses in the Stanford Research Park (SRP)? Are we expecting 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Stanford University to represent the businesses in the SRP or are they only representing the 1 interests of people get commuting to Stanford? 2 3 So I think that this is why we really need a stakeholder group that really thinks about this 4 broadly. I don't think the TMA has any particular expertise in the technical aspects of this the 5 way that Caltrain or Union Pacific Railroad would, but they are stakeholders. So I think that you 6 need to think in terms of a stakeholder group that has stakeholders that are basically people 7 being involved in a deep way repeatedly meeting frequently coordinating with staff 8 coordinating with the TAC and really providing input to the process and I think that that's 9 critical. So I think that is why we really need to have this and I can't emphasize it enough, a 10 stakeholder group as part of CSS because that is the essence of a CSS process, not just 11 [unintelligible]. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our last speaker is Elizabeth Alexis. If anybody else wishes to speak 14 please hand a speaker card to staff. Thank you. 15 16 Elizabeth Alexis: Good evening, my name is Elizabeth Alexis and I'm also a member of CARRD 17 along with Sara and Nadia. I do want to just emphasize what Nadia spoke about and Sara spoke 18 about. We are unaware of any CSS approach that's ever been done that did not include a 19 permanent specifics and we don't want to use the word stakeholder, we really don't, program 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. team. It's just an integral part of this that you have a set of people from these different 1 perspectives and different knowledge bases who go deep into something. So what I would like 2 to do is give you kind of make this process a little bit concrete. Like what would this actually 3 look like? We have a lot of mumbo jumbo words, but what would it actually look like? 4 5 So the first step would be to carefully construct a program team. There would be several 6 members of the community who might represent different neighborhoods or the school 7 community or senior citizens. There would be key City of Palo Alto staff. There would be 8 people from Transportation, from Engineering, definitely from Utilities. All projects like this 9 always include a lot of utility relocation and complications. There would be consultant experts 10 who would, you know, somebody on all the historic assets, somebody on hydrology, somebody 11 on traffic engineering. There would be people who might be sometimes part of the group and 12 maybe part of a subgroup on financing and ways that we can raise money. There might be City 13 Council members or Commission members who would participate in that side. You'd have 14 people from bike and pedestrian aspects. You'd have design people and then you'd have these 15 this group of people who staff has talked about being on a Technical Advisory Commission 16 [Note-Committee], but we would see them as part of the broader program team: Caltrain, VTA, 17 freight, maybe even somebody from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) which is set some of 18 the rules that we're dealing with. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Then you would start to have probably in this context we would see a series of sort of 1 educational workshops, kind of a teach in. We did have a teach in in 2009. We think this is a 2 good beginning step based upon sort of the initial work that's been done. You'd have 3 something to learn about the requirements for cars: the grades, the slopes, the clearance 4 levels, people, car… bicycles are different. Walking is different. Americans with Disabilities Act 5 (ADA) is different. Slopes/widths, all of that. You learn some… everybody would learn some 6 basic traffic engineering enough so that you could be a constructive member and suggestions 7 and start to see the complications with some of the things that people throw out. 8 9 You'd have something on railroad engineering understanding the one percent, two percent, 10 why you have these things. You might have a session on you’d start to get into fuzzier things 11 like what does it mean to have cohesion in a community or what creates barriers, because it's 12 not just physical things, right? I mean if you're actually in Palo Alto a lot of the barrier that the 13 rail corridor creates is not the physical tracks it's the fact that then the school districts become 14 based upon not having kids crossing tracks and then that creates divisions and separation. 15 You'd have something on hydrology because whatever we do anything that goes down into the 16 ground is going to have some a big impact on hydrology we know that. You might have 17 something on the ins and outs of eminent domain so we could get some facts established. We 18 hear a lot of people talking we can't take any houses or we should just buy up the houses oh my 19 God and it would be useful for people to understand what's actually involved with that because 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. all the while you're trying to compile this list of facts and assumptions and you're going back to 1 your list of requirements that you would have created. 2 3 I've handed out this is something from Caltrain and high speed rail are trying to work together 4 to figure out how they're going to share the corridor. And they're using basically a context 5 sensitive framework. There are some issues because they haven't actually validated some of 6 their own constraints, but this is we thought a pretty good example of how this would work. So 7 as you're going into this then you start to go into the existing conditions, right? This is the this 8 and you'd start work on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sections. You define 9 and development the requirements and go back and forth. You’d settle on questions that the 10 broader community must answer. Then you would hopefully at that point be able to start 11 looking at alternatives which go beyond just thinking about the concrete. I mean at the end of 12 the day we're trying to get something that is a hundred year project as you said. I mean at this 13 point now we're saying it's CSS, but it's not CSS. We do think it is worth doing a group which I 14 know everyone is terrified of and this is not pie in the sky thinking. This really could happen. 15 It's not that hard. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you very much. I don't have any other speaker cards, but I’ll leave it 18 open in case anybody else shows up. What I would like to do is give the Commissioners an 19 opportunity to discuss anything, their questions for staff or comments on this item. I would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. encourage the Commission to open their packets to Page 226 and 227 so that they have the 1 suggested problem statement and the suggested evaluation criteria available to them so that as 2 you speak you can make sure to at least touch upon these items and give our feedback to the 3 staff. And then we'll see where we go. Would anybody like to begin? Absolutely, go ahead 4 Commissioner [Note-Vice Chair Waldfogel]. 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Just before we launch into this and thank you for the 7 presentations and I'd like to thank the public for showing up. What are the definitive deadlines 8 for decision making on this? I mean do we have any… is time our friend or our enemy as we go 9 through this process? 10 11 Mr. Mello: So the last page in your… this for this agenda item is a schedule that shows where 12 we are in comparison to other grade separations that are in the planning or design process 13 along the peninsula as well as the high speed rail and the Caltrain electrification project. There 14 are no hard and fast deadlines, but we are in jeopardy of falling very far behind our peer cities 15 along the peninsula. Mountain View is much further along in the planning process and the 16 Measure B the $700 million in Measure B funding will be allocated over the 30 year period 17 through an implementation plan that's going to be developed by VTA at the beginning of 2018. 18 They're working on an RFP for that now and what they're going to look at is where each of the 19 three cities Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale are in their planning and design process 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. for those eight grade crossings. So there are no hard and fast deadlines, but we do need to 1 think about where we lie in comparison to other cities that we’re vying for funding against. 2 3 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, I'll probably come back to that because I think I'd like to know what 4 we have to have on that date certain in 2018, but we can come back. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don't we if we don’t mind, why don’t start on this end and make our 7 way down? 8 9 Commissioner Summa: Ok, so thank you very much staff and welcome back to those of you 10 who were on vacation or on paternity leave. And I'd like to start out by saying that I'm not an 11 expert on CSS. I heard about it at the rail the community meeting for the first time, but I've 12 been very taken by some of the emails and speakers tonight and also my own reading of this. I 13 don't think we can take something that's so complicated that is such a huge infrastructure 14 project that's going to last for such a long time and that people have such differing levels of 15 information about and expectations for and rush it. And I am very worried about a process that 16 doesn't involve resident stakeholders. I agree that we have to have all the people with 17 technical expertise involved and other local agencies, but I and I'm sorry that all of this is so will 18 create so much work for staff. But I don't know how else to do something like this; it's a huge 19 amount of money and it's potentially a huge impact on people even taking people's homes. It's 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. not something I feel we can rush or do incorrectly. And I would really feel more comfortable 1 with the kind of stakeholder group or project team, program team that the women of CARRD 2 recommended. They've been going at rail stuff for such a long time. So that's the first thing. 3 4 Community meetings a really great, but they also don't have the same kind of flexibility that a 5 stakeholder group would have. They're kind of orchestrated and they're not as spontaneous. 6 They don't allow people to just kind of brainstorm because of the number of people there and 7 that staff has sort of a scripted approach to those kinds of things so those are really great to 8 get… give people updates in larger groups, but I don't think it takes in any way the place of a 9 stakeholder group. 10 11 And then I also feel that there as we move along we're going to learn more about high speed 12 rail and their expectations. It's now seems like they want more than the blended system. They 13 want extra rails; maybe there'll be three or four tracks. So there's a lot of huge moving parts 14 that are going to be changing constantly throughout the process that we have to respond to. 15 Even Dumbarton rail, questions about if we can do something about freight that it's a regional 16 thing and so in general terms. I think we got off to a great start, but I think we should really 17 take a step back and have a proper program team that is going to be devoted to getting us to 18 where we need to be with this. So those are my general thoughts on this program, the staff 19 report, and having been informed by the comments and emails from the public. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Go ahead. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: I just want to thank you Mr. Mello for the background on how we arrived 4 historically with this CSS program and the evolution. Could you just put that into context here 5 and why a stakeholder group wasn't considered or was it considered and how we arrived at 6 going this route in the first place? 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, let me see if I can take a stab at that and then Josh can pile on. First let me 9 say I think that the City Council of course will get your recommendation, any Motion you make 10 tonight as well as the minutes from your meeting and I'm sure that they will be interested in 11 your thoughts on this question of the stakeholder committee. So I welcome you all to make 12 your feelings known based on the comments you've heard tonight. I think I would agree with 13 Commissioner Summa that this is a super complex set of issues we're talking about and by no 14 means do we want to rush this. I mean we have to take the time it's going to take to 15 thoroughly vet all of the issues, all of the constraints, there are going to be tradeoffs here that 16 are going to be difficult to make and the community has to be fully involved. 17 18 So the way we put the community engagement plan together with our team is to look at some 19 of the it's kind of a tool box of techniques that we thought we could use to engage with the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. community and kind of in a in multi-direction so to educate and inform about what some of the 1 issues and constraints are, but also to get input and to make decisions with the community as 2 part of the process. And so you see that there are a number of different tools in there. One of 3 them is these big community workshops. We were delighted at the turnout we had at the first 4 workshop 130 people. I think we’ll get hopefully more at the September workshop. And one of 5 the reasons we didn't come out of the gate suggesting a task force is that we thought that that 6 was such a positive force that it showed such a level of interest in this community that that 7 number of people want to come out on a sunny Saturday and spend their time getting 8 educated and participating in this process. 9 10 So I think even if the Council were to say we want to do a task force or a stakeholder group we 11 would want to continue those larger forums and not rely just on 16 people in a room or 22 12 people in a room to filter the input and do the analysis. We want to keep engaging with as 13 many members of the community who want to as part of this process. So those are just our 14 thoughts. I think ultimately the Council is going to have to decide this issue of the structure. 15 We all want to get to the same place which is a fully informed decision making process that is as 16 expeditious as possible without being rushed or taken too lightly. 17 18 Mr. Mello: And I would just add a couple points. Convening a stakeholder group could lead 19 some of the other folks who are not appointed to that committee to feel left out of the process 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and we might lose some interest from some of the folks that were willing to come out to the 1 bigger meeting. And our ultimate intent was to the reason we asked some of the questions we 2 did using the real time polling about what's the best way to communicate with you, how often 3 do you want to be to receive emails and phone calls and newsletters was we wanted to keep 4 those people engaged. So we didn't want to just have a community workshop with 130 5 attendees and then have a second community workshop with 70 different people. We want to 6 bring those people along for this whole project and that would be our defacto stakeholder 7 group is this larger self-selected community group that would be open and inclusive to anybody 8 who wanted to participate; that was our thinking. 9 10 There could also be some schedule impacts if we were to move forward with appointing a 11 stakeholder committee. That appointment process could take up to three to six months to get 12 that committee up and running. But I know you did mention that you think we shouldn't be 13 bound by any type of schedule for a project this large we should take our time and do it the 14 right way so that may not be a concern for you that added time it would be needed to appoint 15 that committee. 16 17 Commissioner Monk: I appreciate that input and that further complicates the issue in that you 18 pointed out some interesting ideas in that it would possibly alienate a portion of the 19 community if they weren't a part of this proposed stakeholder group and how to account for 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that level of interest that you've seen and will probably continue to see rise. So I thank you for 1 your comments on that. I think this discussion is primarily about the process and how do we 2 engage the citizens and staff and this Commission to an effective outcome. 3 4 In looking at the plan that was presented in our package I thought it was quite comprehensive 5 and seemed to cover everything that you would expect. Of course I’m not an expert and in 6 hearing the speakers tonight it makes me want to learn a little bit more, review the materials 7 that were presented, and see what holes we might be missing and take a little bit of a deeper 8 dive in comparing what is being advocated by the folks here tonight versus what we have in our 9 packet. But just looking at what was presented to us in the packet it actually seemed a little bit 10 overkill in a way. Again, we know the City doesn’t have a full understanding of all of the 11 constraints yet we're doing a full blown study. We're also doing so many different types of 12 studies with the community groups and the questionnaires where people who are responding 13 might be living closer to an area and that area is going to be a greater priority to them. So 14 there's a lot of information that needs to get sorted out in order to really have a reliable study. 15 There's things like that that I would be a little bit concerned about. I would just direct the staff 16 to when moving forward on this plan if that's the decision to determine which options are 17 preferred of the engagement strategies so that staff is in charge of that effort rather than the 18 contracting group that you're working with. It's is it Circle Point? Is that who you’re working 19 with? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And also with the schedule that's at Page 25 I know you're also doing stakeholder interviews 2 and workshops and all these other things so just looking at the total amount of effort being 3 spent on it just kind of streamline it would be my feedback on all those different pieces that are 4 going to be working together. And maybe you don't know the answer to this one, but the 5 survey answers differed from the community workshop where the community workshop had 6 East Meadow as the highest concern and on the questionnaire it was Churchill. Are there 7 strategies for rectifying those different outcomes and the different types of tools that were 8 used to get the information? 9 10 Mr. Mello: So this is going to be a very complex analysis process. There's going to be qualitative 11 and quantitative measures that we're going to need to use and I think every time we talk to 12 somebody different we'll hear different priorities. And it's going to be our job and the larger 13 community and Council’s job to distill all that into something that's legible and allows us to get 14 to a preferred alternative. I don't think we can we're ever going to hear the same answer twice 15 about what the priority is for a particular grade crossing or which grade crossing is a priority. I 16 think we can start to move towards a community consensus and that's the goal of this, but it's 17 going to be a very complex conversation and there's going be a lot of different opinions 18 throughout this process. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: I guess the only thing I'd add is this is why some of us got into the planning 1 business. It's really complicated. Everyone's going to have a different perspective and a 2 different set of priorities here. I think our hope is that we can collectively analyze and vet a 3 series of alternatives and at the end of the day end up with something that may not be perfect 4 from everybody's perspective, but which can be acceptable from everybody's perspective and 5 really reflect the kind of collective wisdom of this community. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: So to that I would just ask that it be made obvious where a certain 8 crossing received a great number of support, but that was because most people that lived 9 within a half a mile were the ones that responded to it. So just please have a really thorough 10 presentation of that data because I think that would be important to know that it's rated that 11 way because the majority of people around it voted for it, if that makes sense? And I think that 12 was something that I had to flip through and do my own analysis on. So just having that type of 13 detail that we can keep track of because it will be complicated will be helpful going forward. 14 15 Mr. Mello: If I could just interject so as we get into the real hard core decision making part of 16 this there's going to be a lot more analysis in front of you and in front of the Rail Committee 17 and the community and Council. Really tonight we're just talking about the very early stages of 18 this, but I don't want folks to glean from what's presented tonight that we're not going to dive 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. really deep into the particulars about what's happening out there and what some of the 1 constraints are and what the technical opportunities are for each of these crossings. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: If you want we can do a couple rounds. [Unintelligible]. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, why don’t I pass this along and next round come back to my other 6 issues. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. So let me dive in. It's funny that you mention that about the 9 planning business because I feel the same way. I think what drew me to land use law was sort 10 of the immense and powerful result of what takes place when people make decisions in this 11 area. 12 13 So I'd like to start with the problem statement. The rail corridor also creates issues in 14 surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic, and visual impacts and while the 15 City of Palo Alto benefits from Caltrain service and supports Caltrain modernization including 16 electrification some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor will continue to get worse 17 in the future with the increases in Caltrain service and the possible addition of high speed rail. 18 So I get this is a very general problem statement I think. I'm on the Page 226 and 227. I'm 19 going to focus most of my comments on those two pages. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 I think there's a lot of reasons why… I think there's a lot of ways to address the safety of the 2 corridor. And well I guess it's just not clear to me that it's a certainty that this will get worse 3 with increased service. And I just want to make that point because my hope is that the 4 continued modernization of Caltrain will actually improve safety. I imagine that if we were 5 really wanted to grapple with safety concerns at our crossings we could come up with solutions 6 that had nothing to do with changing the actual physical elevation of our grade crossing. And 7 so I think there… I think the, I wonder if the problem statement is sort of missing the mark in 8 that the real question is, the real problem is are the benefits and consequences of changing the 9 physical nature of the rail worth it? But I don't know maybe this is the way you write that. I 10 just think to some extent the real problem here is that there is going to be a very difficult 11 decision that it's going to be very costly, it's going to require a tremendous amount of 12 coordination to enact a change and I think the question is, is that change worth it? And I 13 believe whether it's a stakeholder group or a much a very publicly involved staff led and 14 community leader led process that will be the heart of the question is are the options worth it? 15 I see your light on, go ahead. 16 17 Mr. Mello: Do you think quantifying the problem a little bit in the problem statement might 18 help address that? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Let me ask you a question (interrupted) 1 2 Mr. Mello: Like being a little less broad and actually putting in some… using some analysis to 3 determine what some of the specific… 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Maybe. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about how to author this statement, 6 but I did wonder if you if Palo Alto didn't support Caltrain modification I mean what relevance is 7 that? Whether we support it or not does it change this the question at hand? So I guess what 8 I'm trying to say is it’s not it’s… this isn't this is a good summary I guess. I just we're hearing 9 tonight about from people and we heard we had a letter from former Council Member Pat Burt 10 and got emails people talking about stakeholder group. My concern moving tonight is that 11 there is this impression that somehow if you didn't involve a stakeholder group you get it 12 wrong. I don't think that we should operate under that premise. We haven't even started the 13 process so to suggest that errors could be made that were so fundamental that no matter what 14 answer you come up with that it’s going to be the wrong one I think is dangerous and I think 15 what we should be focusing on right now is well what is the question. And I think that by 16 identifying the question more specifically by laying it out a little bit more specifically people will 17 approach how to design the process differently. So it's very open ended right now and it's not 18 entirely clear. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Tonight we heard someone say something about diverting freight. I'm not entirely sure that 1 that would ever be under the purview of Palo Alto leadership's decision making. Maybe it is. 2 I’m doubtful. I don't actually know enough to answer that question myself, but the notion that 3 Palo Alto could make a decision about whether freight runs down Caltrain’s tracks in the 4 absence of all the other stakeholders and when I say stakeholders I mean the other 5 communities and the regional… My point is is that there are issues like noise, vibration, and 6 traffic, and visual impacts and this is not about solving all the problems related to living near a 7 train. And I want to and I'm afraid that that somehow that we can… I don't know that we be 8 able to solve all the problems related to living next to a train and I don't know that we should 9 be trying to. I think we really need to focus this. 10 11 I think there's one benefit to us being sort of late to the party which is that we can see to some 12 extent what our neighbors are doing and how they did it. I don't think that would justify 13 somehow slowing down our process, but anyways so let me jump in to some of the other 14 comments. I think that the question about citizen engagement I think this is… I have not I spent 15 time also reviewing CSS. I did not find in my review this sentiment that you should refrain from 16 using that terminology because you haven't suggested using a stakeholder group. Again I think 17 that's I don't think that's the case at least in my review. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I think one of the things that I think I walk away from and I'm using a federal definition here, 1 but to me CSS in general and I'm really happy to see that we're adopting those principles and 2 this process. I think in general what we're looking to do is employ very meaningful continuous 3 and early public involvement, stakeholder involvement. And I think one of the one of the 4 points I'd like to make tonight is that there is a tradeoff, right, with the citizen with each citizen 5 engagement model. And I would argue that with our Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) process 6 which we used effectively in the Comp Plan process there is a lot more community ownership, 7 but there's also a more drawn out process. And I think it focuses more on philosophical 8 questions than technical issues. It lends itself to a more philosophical discussion than a 9 technical discussion. I think that's appropriate when you're talking about a Comp Plan which is 10 philosophical in nature. What do you want this city to look like? It's a very abstract question. I 11 think this is an abstract question. I think that may be a problem. I think this question needs to 12 be less abstract so that people understand that there's extremely technical issues here. And 13 that's why I think using a process that more heavily relied on experts, Planning staff, PTC, and 14 Council is more appropriate for where specifically because we have to deal with technical 15 details like budgeting, value capture scenarios, feasibility analysis. 16 17 I also want to suggest that stakeholder group presents an interesting issue which is conflict of 18 Interest. We always when we review projects we have to determine whether or not a 19 Commissioner is potentially conflicted out of discussing an item because they live too close to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. it. How would we put together a stakeholder group if that had to review potentially the 1 purchasing of homes if half the stakeholder group or one or it doesn't how many represented 2 potential homeowners? How do that are, that would be susceptible to it's… There is anyways 3 I'll say that about the stakeholder group that I think that this is a very difficult decision and 4 there will be winners and losers from the as perceived by the various individuals in our 5 community. And I think that no matter what this is going to be very controversial. That said I 6 don't necessarily think a stakeholder group is the right solution and so I wouldn't recommend 7 that to Council. 8 9 That said I would recommend that the approach adopted and articulated in your staff report is 10 an appropriate one and that we approach that in a very sincere and meaningful way. This is the 11 first, tonight was the first time in I think over a year I think that I've heard someone say Palo 12 Alto process with a negative, in a negative way. And I think that and I mention that because I 13 think we've come a long way. I think under our current staff leadership I think we've come a 14 long way from the days when people had very little predictability and felt inconsistently 15 inconsistent approaches. So I actually would very much welcome our current version of the 16 Palo Alto process in this because great examples of Palo Alto process the current version is 17 initial studies of potential impacts way before we would get to an Environmental Impact Report 18 (EIR) for example. I mean I think the we are doing, I think the staff and I would say the PTC has 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. participated in a process that is really attempting to create meaningful depth, narrow, deep 1 community engagement. 2 3 Ok, that's the bulk of my comments on this item. I think I'll let everybody else comment and if 4 anybody would like to take a second chance at this we can do multiple rounds. And then at the 5 conclusion I hope we can provide some a recommendation to City Council when they get this. 6 Go ahead, Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Let's see, I need to organize some thoughts here. I have to 9 say I’ve talked to maybe a half a dozen experts on this topic and I've gotten a lease and they all 10 know the answer on what should happen it just turns out they're all different. So I understand 11 how complicated this issue is. 12 13 One of the things that I'm… well let me just lay out a couple things I'm worried about. One is 14 you said 2018 and that's let's call that about a year away, 17-18 months. In my experience 15 that's two blinks of city time and it strikes me that if you really have to have something that's 16 reviewable by another agency that we really ought to start drafting it yesterday. So I'm just 17 looking for some commentary on what we think we have to have by whatever that date is. I 18 don’t know if it's early or late 2018, but where do we need to be in terms of the thoroughness 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. of our understanding and our plan? Could we have a plan with five different options or what's 1 our objective relative to that? 2 3 Mr. Mello: There's no defined deadline, but the implementation plan that VTA will be 4 developing in early 2018 is going to look at where each of the three communities are with their 5 8, the 8 different grade crossings that are identified for the Measure B funding. So I can't 6 predict what the impacts would be, but if we were to push this out we could end up behind one 7 of the other communities, one of the other grade crossings, we may not. We may all end up in 8 the same place and it may just be based on a more objective prioritization. But the bottom line 9 is there's a 30 year timeline for this sales tax so one of those eight grade crossings will be built 10 in year 2025, 2028 chances are so that could end up being one of our grade crossings. 11 12 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So you're saying that these will actually be sequenced it's we can’t all say 13 start our grade crossings in 2023? 14 15 Mr. Mello: yeah, the $700 million is not enough to build all eight grade separations so they'll 16 have to be federal funding and other funding identified and the implementation plan is going to 17 be a programmatic look at how to deliver those eight over the 30 year period. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So I'm actually this is a really key point and let me just be clear on this. 1 So what we're saying is Caltrain will be electrified by I think it's 2021 and at that point based on 2 this funding schedule we're looking at 10 years of often uncrossable tracks because of dwell 3 times on the, on higher train service. Is that correct? 4 5 Mr. Mello: We will experience the impacts of increased train service well before we're able to 6 deliver our grade separations. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so we're in and how many… Well, ok we probably don't know how 9 many years of that pain that we're anticipating, but it looks like we're already teed up for that. 10 And if you mean in other realms if I knew that I had a deadline in 2018 I mean I would have 11 some work in my back pocket that I was ready to that I was ready to go with. So I mean are you 12 in a place where kind of regardless of what process we recommend today you'll be able to 13 participate or depending on what happens and how these processes go will you perhaps have 14 to walk in in early 2018 and say hey, we're not ready yet? 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Maybe I can jump onto that. I mean our hope is in mid-September at that 17 community workshop to tee up a discussion of what the range of alternatives are. I mean like 18 what are the options here? We have for grade crossings. We've looked at trenching; we've 19 looked at other solutions. What are the options that are on the table? And through the fall and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. early 2018 try and refine that list so there's a finite number of choices that we’re analyzing and 1 be able to let VTA know that we're making progress. When they're drafting their 2 implementation plan they know that we're starting to narrow down to a series of choices that 3 are being analyzed in terms of their tradeoffs (interrupted) 4 5 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I guess I’m am not clear on what the deliverable is to them because for 6 example the pricing the financing workshop doesn't come until some indeterminate time in the 7 future which I would assume is probably early next year. So it seems like some of these early 8 discussions would be without even budgetary costing estimates or… 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I think we want a conversation with the community about what should be 11 analyzed before we start analyzing in a way so really the range of alternatives then we'll have to 12 get into what the relative costs would be, what the impacts would be vis-à-vis traffic, property 13 takings. I mean some of that testing was done with the study that Josh mentioned from 2014, 14 but there's a lot more of that kind of exploration that would need to happen and we can't do 15 that for an infinite number of alternatives and options. So we're hoping that the community 16 process will help us start narrowing down to a finite list of options for that kind of analysis and 17 the implementation plan that VTA prepares concurrent with that will recognize that we're 18 putting a good faith effort into working with our community to refine a list of options to get to 19 one or a couple, but that we’re serious about. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, let me let me switch gears. So I've been looking at some of the 2 history of this and I actually briefly liaised to the Rail Corridor Task Force when I was in the 3 Utilities Commission so I think I went to those meetings in two thousand… probably 2011. Give 4 or take. And it feels like some of these alternatives have already been fairly thoroughly vetted 5 and explored. I see years and years of City policy outlining vertical alignment. I mean there are 6 some pretty clear statements deprecating elevated vertical alignments going back at least to 7 2010. There's pretty clear preferences for below grade rail alignment again going back to 2010, 8 reiterated in I think 2014, may be reiterated in 2017. And I'm a little puzzled by the idea that 9 we're now pushing the reset button on all those years of work. I mean all the studies, the task 10 forces, Council resolutions, I mean we seems like we've made some decisions and maybe we 11 don't agree with those decisions. I mean some of the list is easy and I think the problem 12 statement really ought to be how do we pay for the choices that we want, but it kind of feels 13 like there really three viable choices or something or and that it would be pretty quick to 14 identify those three viable choices and price them. I'm just kind of curious why I mean do, 15 where are we on a process like that if we're aiming for 2018? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: Well I guess I hope you're right that it's obvious that there are three viable 18 choices and that when we get together as a community on September 16th it’s that clear. My 19 expectation is although there's been a lot of thought given to this corridor and a clear 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. preference expressed by the community in any number of forums about a below grade solution 1 that it that will be a little more complicated than that particularly as we start learning about 2 cost and constraints, the impacts on existing grade crossings, and other aspects of our life 3 around this train that bisects our community. 4 5 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, yeah. I would just hope that we understand that pretty well. I mean 6 I’ll just make one last comment on this round which is I mean we have a little bit of a history of 7 choosing the shiny object and then deciding a couple years later that we can't do it. I mean we 8 just went through a case of that with the ped/bike bridge over 101. We made a choice and 9 then as we got into design and bidding we discovered that that choice wouldn’t work. And 10 especially with something where we're relying on it sounds like a smorgasbord of funding 11 sources over a 30 year period. All this feels a little… the degree of difficulty of this dive is not 2 12 or 3 it's 8 or 11. It's the backward triple twist and I mean how are we even if with whatever 13 process we go through how will we make people sort of understand that whatever happens in 14 this process may or may not happen depending on other moving parts, other funding issues 15 that come up 6, 8, 10 years from now? 16 17 Mr. Mello: Well I think we're at a really key moment here with the approval of Measure B and 18 the backing of VTA and the tentative backing of Caltrain. Today we've had great conversations 19 with them about grade separations. I think our goal here is to move directly into a preliminary 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. design and the environmental analysis immediately upon adoption of a preferred alternative. 1 So our goal is to not have this gap between phases. We want to get moving. We want to keep 2 moving until we have significant progress and we're able to secure the funding that we need 3 get it in the transportation improvement program, identify funding sources, work with the State 4 and VTA and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). So I think we're at a real 5 watershed moment here for grade separations in Palo Alto and I don't think we have to worry 6 about assuming that things continue on the course that they're on right now. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, well then if we need to sell bonds I hope we can sell them this year. 9 Anyhow I will I may have some other questions, but I'll pass this along. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, well I guess we're doing the problem statement as well as sort of the 12 structure so just a couple comments on that. As I read this I first started with Attachment D so 13 that I could actually see where it was and then went back and looked at where it was before. 14 So first thing is I would salute the workshops. They worked hard, they gave good input. I 15 thought they clarified it pretty well, particularly the prioritization which I’ll talk about first. The 16 suggested objectives I kind of did a line below those and after about the fourth one I said that's 17 probably the basics and again this is without any prompts just so I did it on my own. And things 18 like reducing noise and vibration as Commissioner [Note-Chair Alcheck] mentioned I mean 19 that's probably not a great objective because you can't get rid of that. So I would rather see 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. these objectives sort of condensed a little bit because of course there can be sub-points and so 1 on as we see in the Comp Plan. 2 3 And then a few of them I put in the margins is this apple pie? So stuff that support Caltrain’s 4 service enhancements it's not like we have a choice; they're coming through our town, right? 5 So that's kind of apple pie. And fairness in terms of the investments improvements in North 6 and South Palo Alto, sure, but we really need to optimize for where the bigger problems are 7 rather than just take sort of a friendly statement there. So I felt that was kind of an apple pie 8 one too. And then the ones below that are kind of what I call best practices. I’m not sure those 9 are really objectives at all. You don't want to disrupt things if you don't have to during 10 construction and funding is funding. So I'm not sure why that actually even needs to be listed 11 here. 12 13 And back up on the problem statement I think part of what you might have been saying 14 Commissioner [Note-Chair] Alcheck is that it's not just a problem, but there might be an 15 opportunity here. Not to put work words in your mouth, but this isn't just a problem. This is 16 they're coming through so what can we do now? This is actually what can we do here to make 17 this thing better? Not unlike when we were going to redo the golf course and we said well if we 18 moved it over here we create ten and a half acres in Palo Alto. So that's a little bit of what the 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. positive view of the problem statement can be is how can we make our town even better, 1 which is what we're all trying to do every week. 2 3 I think that that said there's a hundred percent certainty that this congestion is going to get 4 worse. So I wouldn’t agree with a previous statement on that because there's just going to be a 5 lot more trains coming through and a lot of people taking trains. So the congestion is the core 6 aspect of the core problem statement and then the visual is definitely an aspect of it because 7 you have these choices to make. So I’d rather see the problem statement a little bit more 8 focused on how can we make the best choices from whatever the numbers of options are 9 because that's what it's about including no choice. We can just sit there and let it happen 10 although they might widen the tracks and we’d have to address that. So you might have a 11 status quo and some other options and kind of focus a little more on that because I think this 12 thing needs maybe shortening, but also beefing up in terms of the impact. It’s just a little bit 13 vanilla now in terms of what's really in front of us for the next few years as we sort this thing. 14 So that would be overall my comments on that. 15 16 On the structure I guess I'm not yet hearing that there's very much of a downside to what we’ll 17 call the complete CSS process. I mean I heard one comment that the stakeholder folks first of 18 all if I heard you correctly that’s anyone who wants to be a stakeholder, which is great for the 19 Palo Alto process. They want to come in and they want to spend their he said Saturday 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. afternoons working on this stuff, fantastic. And that they might be offended if they weren't in 1 the stakeholder they weren't in the kind of other stakeholders group I’ll call it, I don't think they 2 would because they're still getting their input from their perspective. 3 4 That's different than the sort of what I'll call the expert stakeholder group. And the very fact 5 that the shareholder group that is here now is anyone I think could kind of argue for why you 6 need the other shareholder group because those are really the experts. If you're talking 7 hydrologists and engineers and people that can really provide input on well, if you do the 8 trenching here you’re going to have these problems that's not something that my neighbor is 9 going to come up with if he's not a hydrological engineer. So the document that was presented 10 by Ms. Naik talked about having both, the stakeholders led if you want to call it that or 11 stakeholder component of experts and the type of outreach that you're already doing which is 12 excellent. So I guess again I'm not seeing any downside of going with this process and I see 13 some upside by having these experts involved because it's such a significant thing for Palo Alto. 14 And if we can keep from making some mistakes or do some tweaks because we've got some 15 experts who are really a stakeholder group I think that's worth the investment. Maybe a little 16 bit more management, but you're going to be managing a lot of process and people anyway. So 17 that's kind of where I come on on that one at this point. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I don't know how many of these hydrologists are going to want to work free which is another 1 issue. Is this a volunteer or are these actually a series of consultants that's beyond our purview 2 at this point. But the investment level and the impact for what folks have correctly been calling 3 a hundred years I think is worth the investment in the full process as I understand it right now. 4 And people can speak, can continue to educate me if I’m incorrect on that. So I’ll hold there for 5 now. Thank you. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So members of the community and potential stakeholders 8 thank you very much for attending and for your presentations and thank you very much for 9 staff for your presentation. Congratulations again to Josh for the newborn. So send us out, 10 send out some pictures. 11 12 So the I think that this aspect of the stakeholders group is very important. I believe that we 13 should solicit actively very quickly the attention and participation of the major stakeholders 14 group. We should identify them, promptly send out the messages, request their attention, and 15 propose some framework for their work. I cannot imagine that this project of this magnitude, 16 this will be a big project, it will change neighborhoods for many years from now so I have no 17 doubts about this. I cannot imagine that some groups are left out or maybe their voice is if they 18 are key stakeholders is at the same level of my voice, right? I think that their voice should be 19 prioritized over mine. So in terms of recommendation my recommendation is please build very 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. quickly a stakeholder group. Identify them, invite them to a meetings, propose the framework, 1 and incorporate into the process. 2 3 In terms of the problem statement I think that this problem statement should be written from 4 scratch. And then probably stakeholder team it should be the first task of the of the 5 stakeholder team when it's created. I also agree with some comments that some of the 6 objectives are very obvious here and then pre-much should be removed from the objective lists 7 because it's a normal mistake of writing objectives that people are writing issues that are not 8 really relevant, they are obvious, they bring the no value. And also when you build a schedule 9 like this there is always a value in identifying risks and tracking those risks down. Also 10 assumptions; assumptions, issues, dependencies they all fall into the categories of the risk. 11 That's a typical tool of the of any project management. And also some items that are in scope 12 and out of scope. When teams work on projects of this scale if they create agreement of this 13 set of the values from the beginning the rest is a pretty much about the execution, but I think 14 that you will get lots of help from the stakeholders group because I think that you can approach 15 this issues in in a variety of different ways. And I'm sure that they will provide the value in here. 16 17 There is one more comment. I think that there should be a permanent presence of a 18 Commissioner or maybe even two at those meetings because there will be lots of meetings. So 19 this is something that we ask Jon about making sure that we are embedded, the Commissioners 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. are embedded at various initiatives and this is very big one so probably there should be even 1 two of the Commissioners either rotating or being present at various meetings and observing 2 the process and bringing the live comments from each of this meeting. 3 4 Otherwise I think that those would exhaust my comment. I would be interested in those three 5 options that my colleague Asher mentioned. So I never heard about them so if somebody can 6 share them at this meeting I would be interested what they are. Thank you. 7 8 Commissioner Lauing: There are three options, but nobody agrees on what the three are. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: That’s fine. Just tell us what the options are (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Alcheck: I thought you said there were six. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: I haven’t heard them, right? But (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Hold on, I do want to say something. I would like to discourage a discussion of 17 those options tonight and the reason why is because… yeah, it's not… I agree with you actually 18 that the premise of your question really is you don't even really know, we haven't really 19 stepped into this yet. As a Commission we don't many of us probably are unfamiliar with what 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this group that Asher, Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel mentioned earlier has done 1 which is a really fair point. We are so early in this process that many of us on this Commission 2 have not significant familiarity with what we’re the totality of what we're talking about. But I 3 wanted to I don't want to spend too much time especially I don't want staff to spend too much 4 time getting into that because that's the whole point of the process that we're trying to design. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, but with the whole respect, right? Sorry for interrupting, right? 7 This is very simple thing, right? I mean I'd like to just have somebody disclose these options, 8 right? If somebody can take this as an action item forward an email to us with this what was 9 developed earlier on, right, so it's not a private knowledge of (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Alcheck: No, that’s fine. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Vice-Chair Waldfogel just tell and we will all know and it's a normal 14 question. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, do you want to respond that real quick? 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I'm getting a little confused by the description of three options. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: I know. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: But we did include links in the report to the prior Rail Corridor Study which is 3 worth a read. I mean it's really well done and trenching analysis that Josh talked about which 4 looked at a below grade trench solution for Meadow, Charleston, and Churchill and there are a 5 couple different options studied in there. So it's a little more complex than three options, but 6 there's a lot of information available and there are links provided in the staff report. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: More importantly I want to suggest that I think we don't have our attorney here 9 today, but I think discussing the options and even referencing potential preferences would be 10 highly damaging to the whole notion of the process that we're trying to discuss here and so the 11 whole notion of PTC being involved in this in some point means that we participate in a process 12 that we don't really step in to making statements tonight about specific options. Ok, why don't 13 we do one more round if that’s alright? I would encourage us to be as concise as possible. I 14 have typically have a problem with that myself so I know that, but let's try to be concise 15 because we've got a big agenda tonight or a big topic tonight and I'd like us to get to it soon. So 16 go ahead, please Commissioner. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: Ok, so appreciated many of the comments of my colleagues and 19 specifically with regards to the problem statement maybe being too boilerplate or general and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that some of the objectives don't really need to be there I mean. But I wanted to ask after the 1 other cities using the CSS process with the what many feel to be an integral or essential part of 2 it a stakeholder group? The other cities, do we know that? 3 4 Mr. Mello: They're all doing it a little bit differently. They're generally just following more of a 5 traditional alternatives analysis process where their city councils are making the bulk of the 6 decisions. I mean CSS is a is more of a spectrum. It's more of a philosophy than this clear cut. 7 There's thousands of papers on what CSS is and every agency does a little bit different so I don't 8 know if they're intending to use CSS, but I've been following some of the work in our adjacent 9 communities and it's it seems to be more of a traditional alternatives development alternatives 10 analysis process. They're not starting necessarily with a problem statement and starting as 11 broadly as we are. 12 13 Commissioner Summa: And the Rail Corridor Taskforce that I guess it was disbanded and you 14 guys started it up again. How, who is on that? Is I think that's what… 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Well there was a Rail Corridor Taskforce that generated the report in 2013 that 17 we linked to in the staff report. I think Josh was referring to the Rail Committee of the City 18 Council. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa: Oh, ok. I was confused. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: That was reestablished. 3 4 Commissioner Summa: Ok, I (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: And that consists of four Council Members. 7 8 Commissioner Summa: Ok, and then so I'm also kind of confused how this is all going to fit 9 together I think timing wise and how to prioritize that. But I do I just I think I made myself clear 10 earlier, but I do think it's very important for the city staff not to have the full weight of this on 11 their shoulders and that's why a stakeholder group is of residents and then the technical 12 experts I think will be so important. And I think the one of the speakers made an analogy to not 13 wanting to go down this the road of high speed rail which people are not very happy with the 14 lack of transparency and feeling that they didn't get what, they're not going to get what they 15 voted for and that they didn't understand enough. So I just want to make it really clear that I 16 think it would be a great help to staff to have really devoted citizens to take some of the wait 17 and in addition to the community meetings. So that would be my… Yeah, I think that's enough 18 for now. Thanks. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: I'll try to be succinct, but probably won't happen so apologies in advance. 1 I also just want to acknowledge and thank all of the members of the community for coming out 2 and speaking tonight. I think you shared a really deep understanding and presentation of the 3 issues. There was a lot of new information to us and maybe to staff as well. It's apparent that 4 there's deep concern from the community and a lot of work went into presenting to us tonight 5 and I just want to acknowledge that. I thank you for all the materials that you brought to us 6 tonight and all the words that you shared. 7 8 I'm not sure that going with this approach is a trade off to the shareholder citizen engagement 9 type model which is the closest model would be like what we did with the CAC. And that was 10 what I think Chair Alcheck was alluding to earlie when he was referring to the distinction 11 between the philosophical and the technical issues. So I am still trying to flesh out my thoughts 12 on that, but I am concerned about falling behind and risking losing any Measure B funding. I 13 saw that we're already behind our neighboring cities. I think that the planning and design 14 process timing is critical and we're competing with our neighboring cities for funding so just 15 balancing that out would make me lean towards going with what's been proposed by staff. 16 17 I did like what Commissioner Lauing said about what opportunities this can lead towards. And 18 I'm wondering with the increase in train service that's anticipated are there going to be any 19 connections or thought put into connections for office workers, anything along those lines? I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. don't know that we've looked at opportunities can come from this so that might be something 1 to explore and something to present to Council. I'm sure those are the types of things that at a 2 higher level they'd want to hear from. 3 4 If you just give me a moment I want to quickly look at my notes. A lot of questions were 5 answered that I had so I have a lot of different things on here… Ok, did anyone here talk about 6 the value capture? Did you mention that? Is there any comment that you want to make on 7 what would happen if a corridor was trenched and there were any possibility to build it on top 8 of it? Has there any been discussion on that? 9 10 Mr. Mello: That would be something that would be analyzed when we move into the 11 alternatives analysis phase of this project. That could very well be one of the alternatives that 12 we decided to analyze. 13 14 Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I’ll try to make my responses quick. I'm glad you asked that question about 17 our neighboring cities. I love to know what our neighbors are doing and I typically ask that 18 question and I didn't tonight and I'm glad you did. It doesn't necessarily mean we should 19 always copy them, but it is I'm always curious to know. I think that it sounds for those who feel 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that a CSS that the CSS approach requires a stakeholder group then I think the more 1 appropriate description of the approach staff is suggesting would be like a hybrid of what our 2 neighbors are doing with significantly more a stronger amount of community engagement. But 3 I think that what staff’s proposed actually is a lot greater than that. I mean this is one of the 4 most sort of just the approach of creating the criteria and not identifying the options at the 5 outset of the process I find to be one that is essentially inviting the community to participate in 6 a really unique way. As we as somebody mentioned tonight there have been options that have 7 been investigated and I think one of the, look one of the issues that is again, I think this boils 8 down to this will become a very difficult decision for the community to make because we even 9 if you're not familiar with the options I think our report was sufficient enough to know that the 10 options have some significant costs. And it's always difficult to make a decision that has such 11 significant costs. 12 13 I do want to also suggest that I'm glad you brought up the bike/pedestrian bridge. 14 Commissioner Gardias were you a part of the Commission when we did the pageant show? I'll 15 tell you something that was what fun that was. I mean I was a young Commissioner, right? But 16 we had this thrilling design pageant they architects and design teams I don't know 50 I don’t 17 how many presented to a small community group and then those people selected their finalists 18 and then the… you weren’t part of that. So then and then the Commission the seven of us got 19 to have a four way competition between four design firms and then we picked our what we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. thought was gorgeous and anyways the result is there's no bike/pedestrian bridge. And I 1 thought that process was magnificent. I really did at the time. I thought it was so amazing and, 2 but at what cost, right? How did that process affect the result and to what extent was the 3 resulting inaction unavoidable because of the process? 4 5 If look I think we've heard a lot of commentary. If the issues are so clear, if there are six experts 6 that have six different opinions then we're going to need to have a decision making group that 7 can make that decision and there's really one body that can do that. I would not suggest that 8 we start from where the Rail Corridor Study left off seven years ago. I think that staff’s effort to 9 basically it's sort of two, it’s two, there's two elements here. It's there's an education; I think 10 that going through the process with a lot of public engagement will educate everybody and also 11 potentially provide meaningful feedback. And I think the most important thing that I’d like to 12 say right now is at our meetings we host the public to make comments. And I would strongly 13 suggest to every individual in this City that they're the opinion of one member of this 14 community is not more valuable than another member of this community. But that doesn't, 15 but just because the process is driven in a PTC led format does not necessarily mean that our 16 opinions are more important than community member’s opinions. And so again I don't think 17 anybody on this Commission will participate in this process and not appreciate the significance 18 of the issues. And I think that I will reiterate this because the next part here is to make a 19 Motion to recommend a process and criteria and a draft problem statement to City Council. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And my last comment will be that while I really appreciated the work of the citizen advisory 2 group on the Comp Plan I do think that there is a tremendous flaw involved in citizen advisory 3 groups which is to say that they are so demanding of time that by their very nature they 4 alienate a tremendous number of individuals in our community whose perspectives are 5 important and meaningful, but who will never have the time to participate in such a group. 6 And while that's a tradeoff they could come to certain meetings and communicate their input I 7 would much prefer a process that was City led that really encouraged a sort of an informative 8 reach out and then invited the bulk of our community to participate in this decision making 9 process. Because number one, I think that's what the City Council will need to make this 10 decision to insulate them so that they make the decision that the community supports. 11 Because I don't think that anybody would be satisfied with the with an option supported by 25 12 members that didn't necessarily represent the community at whole. So again, I think this has to 13 be a community wide involvement process and I think that staff’s recommendation gets it right. 14 Again I don’t think it's worth spending too much time and I hope we can get a Motion going 15 that supports some elements of this and then we can make our, we can move on and make a 16 recommendation to Council and move on. 17 18 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Let's see, couple things, so on this one I think I'm 19 inclined I mean the people in the room have spent the most time on rail issues are the two 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. women from CARRD who can explain all 3 of the 12 possible corridor options or 17 or whatever 1 the number is so I'm slightly inclined to defer to their view. I mean I think that the engagement 2 that's described in the report is all important. I see this as kind of inner rings and outer rings of 3 engagement, but it's important. I think the critical thing is we have to get through this pretty 4 expeditiously and we just have to figure out how to use all the tools at our disposal. 5 6 I do have one request and you can tell me if this is an appropriate add to the problem 7 statement, but can we add something about mitigation during the interim period between 8 when electrification and the number of trains increases and when we get to a permanent 9 solution? I mean is there anything we can do? For example, should we be budgeting money to 10 widen the Embarcadero underpass right now? Because that’s a passageway that we know is 11 available or is accessible to us. I mean I'm not saying that's the right answer. I'm not trying to 12 tee it up as a proposal, but I would just like a really quick study of that done as part of this 13 scope if that's appropriate. 14 15 Mr. Mello: I think that could be done and I think an appropriate place for that might be the 16 objectives. So an additional objective that is to mitigate the impacts of additional rail service 17 prior to major infrastructure investments or something to that effect. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah and if that's appropriate I would just love to see something like that 1 included in this because I'm really worried about 2020 to 2030 based on this discussion. I 2 wasn't before and you've really got my attention. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: I think the start has been made or has been excellent by staff, great 5 work. As I said I think that the stakeholders group from the neighborhoods as I’ll call them is 6 very effective. And when we did the Parks Master Plan when I was over there it was 7 extraordinarily over a couple years affective to get that kind of input. Different from the other 8 kind of stakeholder’s group that was sort of expert, not in the way that you guys need it in 9 terms of the technology, but when we had some bird experts really telling us how we needed 10 to get the stuff written correctly that was better than just two or three people that like birds. 11 No disrespect to any of those four people that I just mentioned it’s just helped us a lot. So I 12 would I like the start. I totally love leaving it open and not talking about options right now. 13 That's part of what the this group has they do. With respect to us sort of improving or codifying 14 a problem statement I think we're had very collegial discussion the inputs to the problem 15 statement that maybe is enough for you to distill because there wasn't any diametrically 16 opposed stuff there. It’s just a lot of good collegial comments on how that might be improved. 17 So that's all that I would say at this point on that and then move on. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Gardias: When writing objectives it would be nice to differentiate between Palo 1 Alto objectives and Caltrain objectives. And just wanted briefly make a reference to this what 2 Mike was saying. Actually I was part of the second meeting when pretty much we were 3 selecting one of the four bridge options, pedestrian options over 101. I wasn't part of the first 4 meeting, but his comment led me to repeat the recommendation that I made over there and I 5 also made the same recommendation over at the couple of other meetings although now it 6 may be too late to incorporate one, but I think that this is this keeps coming again and again 7 and again. How to extract if we have a project like this the question is how to extract the best 8 talent and knowledge and proposals to make solution. And I advocating that Kingdom of Saudi 9 Arabia (KSA) resolved this problem like 30 years ago already. They were doing this very 10 cheaply, frequently, and you can just I would recommend again to Palo Alto to pretty much 11 follow the footsteps of that country. And then if we have projects of this size pretty much 12 create a competition send the invitation to the students of U.C. Berkeley Department of 13 Architecture. They will do it for $20,000. We’ll have plenty of different solutions to choose 14 from and options will come available to us at any time. So that's in reference to a pretty much 15 how we can move quickly and select good or solicit good options for projects of this size. Thank 16 you. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, at this time I'm going to make a Motion that... Oh, sorry. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: I was going to make a Motion. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Well I’m going to beat you to it. At this 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: The Chair is going to beat the Commissioners to making a Motion? 5 6 MOTION 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I'm just going to propose a Motion real quick. I'm going to suggest that we 9 move to have staff include the themes discussed tonight about the suggested problem 10 statement and the suggested objectives and incorporate some of the comments that we made 11 in their rewrite of that as they move it towards Council and adopt the process and recommend 12 that Council adopt the process as outlined in the staff report. And I say that I will welcome 13 Commissioner proposed amendments to that so that we can… Anyways so do I have a second 14 to that Motion? 15 16 SECOND 17 18 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I’ll second that Motion. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Before we take a vote I want to invite anyone to make any 1 amendments or to offer any amendments to that. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: So I'll just comment on your Motion first of all as I just said I’m not sure 4 we have to codify the first part of that. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I agree. I was actually I was following your lead in suggesting that staff have the 7 liberty to incorporate some of our comments in their revision to the problem statement and 8 objectives. I think Asher’s comment about mitigated efforts could easily be incorporated into 9 objectives. I think staff got that. And I think that I don't think that anybody proposed really any 10 specific language to the problem statement, but the sort of feedback I think will instruct them 11 and hopefully when they move it forward that they will incorporate that feedback was my 12 suggestion in this. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: So that wouldn't have to be in your Motion then. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: I’m, well I’ve not, I’m making a Motion and the purpose of the statement 17 regarding those elements was to suggest that I'm not moving to recommend that Council 18 consider this version of the problem statement. What I'm suggesting is that staff incorporate 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. our feedback to the problem statement, objectives, and evaluation criteria in when they bring it 1 to Council and then recommend the process that staff outlined in their packet. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: So to me it seems like you're motioning two different things. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: No, I think there's (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: But we if (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Alcheck: I think this issue here, the statement, the objectives, and the criteria are one 10 element of our discussion tonight and the second element of our discussion is whether the staff 11 recommended approach the way it is or as many of our members in the community suggested 12 and some of the Commissioner Members suggested a stakeholder groups should be 13 incorporated. What I would like to do is sort of put on the table what we discussed tonight and 14 then give someone an opportunity to make a Friendly or Unfriendly Amendment about the 15 stakeholder groups so that Council could in theory understand where the Commission stood on 16 that specific item. Does that makes sense? Is it… I guess my question is is it… 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: So… 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: How is there an issue that you have with the… 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: Well, yeah because I would make a different kind of Motion entirely 3 relative to going (Interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Would you like to make a Substitute Motion? 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, that’d be fine. That’s I was trying to make it simpler and just have 8 you do something else, but [unintelligible]. So I (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Alcheck: I’m inviting a Substitute Motion. 11 12 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: I would suggest that here's the Motion as I've written it up. That Palo 15 Alto follow a full CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including creation of an 16 expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: So just so I’m clear before I ask for a second you're using a term of art that I think 19 is defined, the CSS. I'm a little concerned about that, but I think that you are a little bit more 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. explicit about your request to have an expert group which I am assuming does not necessarily 1 mean made up of residents. And then my second question is the second group that you just 2 mentioned is that what are you referring to the stakeholder group as a member a group of like 3 the CAC? I'm just trying to get clarity here before we I call for a second. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Consistent with my comments earlier the existing stakeholder group of 6 citizens (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Is two separate groups. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Terrific and needs to stay and I want to make sure that we stay that in 11 the Motion. So I put that in the Motion. We need an additional one as was suggested by the 12 document from a [unintelligible] to have this expert stakeholder group. So those are the two 13 things that I'm covering. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, sorry; one more question. What stakeholder group that's in existence are 16 you referring to? 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: The one that they were already worked with for the workshops. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: That’s still together? 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: It's not only together, but they want to continue it is what Josh said. 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: It's just a series of community workshops with people participating as self-5 selecting their participation. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, you're not you don’t mean an appointed stakeholder group? 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Could we get a second on that? 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Sure. Are there any seconds to this Motion? 16 17 Commissioner Summa: I will second it if you make it clear that it's a stakeholder group made up 18 of devoted residents and also the experts that staff already identified as part of the TAC. 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Because you didn't specify residents and my goal is to get residents involved in a stakeholder 1 group. So if you… 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, but that means you have to write it. 4 5 Commissioner Summa: You want me to write it? 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Because that's a complicated add to whatever (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Summa: I'll make a suggestion that you add just add the word made up of 10 residents and experts that staff has already recommended as the TAC. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: But doesn't that leave out new experts that they would find? 13 14 Commissioner Summa: No, they're going to appoint a stakeholder group made up of residents 15 and the already identified TAC and hone that down. The idea is to get residents involved with 16 technical experts and in addition they have I think identified 7,500 people that through various 17 through the committee community meeting and through the [what you might call it] the 18 survey, thank you. Have already that's the group that they were referring to. They want to 19 keep those people engaged and those people can be maybe can be engaged on that level of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. occasional community meeting or a written comment or survey, but we also want a stakeholder 1 group that can just go to work, dive down made up of residents and technical experts. So 2 (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok [unintelligible] hold on a second. I'm going to interrupt for a second because 5 I my I could be wrong, but I feel like we're talking about two very different things. When we are 6 when it's when you refer to a stakeholder that's like a term of… that refers to anybody that has 7 sort of an interest in the matter in a variety of ways. But I think when Commissioner Summa is 8 talking about a stakeholder group she's referring to a community a team that's identified and 9 then throughout the length of the process is essentially tasked with doing the work. And I'm 10 confused and I'm only asking this question because you referred to staff’s stakeholder group. 11 And I think staff’s stakeholder group is the community. They keep reaching out to the 12 community to participate in the engagement schedule, but there isn't a specific list of 13 stakeholders that is exclusive. And so is that, am I right? 14 15 Ms. Gitelman: If I can make a an observation it seems to me that the Commission is heading 16 towards a Motion that basically is the staff recommendation with the addition of a citizen task 17 force made up of residents and experts some of which are already identified on this TAC. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Is that what your Motion is? A taskforce? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. I've read these documents on CSS this long seven page memo and 2 that process which is an established process is what from what I'm hearing is what we should 3 follow. That doesn't mean that we should do anything different with the workshops with 4 citizens and that should continue because it's a very valuable. I’ve seen that for 10 years in the 5 City. So all we're doing is we're doing what I call the full CSS process which incorporates that 6 and that was not in the original staff recommendation so. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: And I just think there's a lot of interpretation about what the full CSS process is. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Right, that’s my concern. 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: If we can just say I mean you have to tell me if you think this is where you're 13 headed, but that the recommendation would be the staff recommendation with the addition of 14 a citizen task force made up of residents and technical experts. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Is that your Motion? 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: I think (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: She’s suggesting you not use CSS because unfortunately it's not an agreed on, 1 we’ve demonstrated tonight that there's some confusion here about that term. And so I think 2 the question is: are you interested in a task force that's appoint, appointed, would be the right 3 word? Identified and appointed in addition to the staff (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: I'm not sure what's wrong with the language of full CSS practice. 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: I think the staff disagrees that it's a mandated part of the full CSS to have a task 8 force. Now a task force can be part of a CSS, but I don't think it… I mean I haven't gone through 9 [unintelligible] through the handouts that we’ve received this evening so it would just be 10 helpful for us to understand what it is you're asking for and using that terminology. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Do you want staff to interpret your Motion or would you like (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: Well for example in the document we got from former Mayor Burt he 15 notes essential differences between the nationally recognized full CSS best practice and the 16 staff proposal. 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: And again I don't with all due respect to the comments we received, I don't think 19 it's quite that clear that CSS must include any specific type of community task force or group. I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. hear that you want to make that recommendation and I think that is a great idea. I think the 1 Council will be very receptive to your suggestion. I'm just suggesting let's make it a little more 2 clear what it is exactly that you want. Is it a citizen a group of a stakeholder group made up of 3 residents? 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: It's consistent with the comments in the in the letters and the speakers 6 that it would be very beneficial to have important technical expertise to advise all along the 7 way. And that can be negotiated exactly who those people are. I certainly don't have the 8 expertise to define that. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Alright, so for the sake of clarity it's the staff report inclusive of his task force 11 that is (interrupted) 12 13 Ms. Gitelman: With technical expertise. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Diverse. With technical expertise (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Summa: Can I jump in? I would recommend that we use almost Commissioner 18 Lauing’s wording. We take out the word full, but if we want to acknowledge it we staff 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. recommendations we want to follow the CSS process with a resident stakeholder group that 1 will work with the TAC. Do you like that? 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, although the resident group could be technical too so I don’t know. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: May I weigh in on the Motion? 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Hold on a second. Let me just ask staff. From a process standpoint I have a 8 Motion on the floor which got a second. I have a Substitute Motion which may or may not have 9 a second. How do I… I would like to operate in an organized fashion. I understand that people 10 would like to reword Motions. My preference here would be that if this Motion as worded isn't 11 sufficient to receive the second maybe somebody else make a Substitute Motion and then we 12 see if that get a second. Are you comfortable with that? 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: If I understand Commissioner Summa is trying to achieve the clarity that will 15 allow her second of the Substitute Motion to stand. So that (interrupted) 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so then why don’t we leave it to the two of you for a minute to communicate 18 this so that the two of you can get on the same page so that we can have sort of follow the 19 process and I appreciate that you want to jump. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, no that’s fine. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: If this doesn't work then you can offer your [unintelligible] in a second. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: You have to read it with the amendment or I 'm sorry, the clarification. 6 What I first said was a follow a full which you're taking out CSS process for evaluation of rail 7 grade separation including creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with 8 neighborhood stakeholders. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 11 12 SECOND FOR SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Summa: I think that's clear staff, don’t you? [Ok], I’ll second. 15 16 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. I have a Substitute Motion on the floor. I'm going to propose an 19 amendment which you can treat as unfriendly if you wish. My amendment would be to not 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. require a task force or stakeholder group as you've defined it and to proceed with the staff 1 suggested approach. Do you accept that amendment? 2 3 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILED 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: No, that’s a 180. 6 7 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so let’s treat that as an Unfriendly Amendment. As I'm going to (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Monk: May I offer an (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Should I just speak to the Motion for a minute? [Unintelligible] 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Hold on I’ve got to (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, Doria seconded. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: I just have to see if I have a second of my Unfriendly Amendment. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Sorry. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Does anybody wish to second my Unfriendly Amendment? 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Monk: I second it. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so we're going to quickly vote on (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry; I just need to chime in. I don't believe that this is along the 12 rules. 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: Excuse me. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Yes exactly. So I (interrupted) 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: If I can (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Gardias: Need to this is not along the Robert’s Rules. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: I’m trying (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Go ahead. 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. I think that the amendment is really a restatement of the original 7 Motion. So I think the Commission should vote on the Substitute Motion by Commissioner 8 Lauing seconded by Commissioner Summa, once that's resolved you'll know whether the 9 Substitute Motion or the original Motion is going to be the opinion of the Commission. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, that's fair actually. We can treat the fact that there is a original Motion on 12 the floor as sufficient enough to determine this... 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: May offer an amendment? 17 18 Chair Alcheck: You may. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: I don't have the language parsed out, but instead of the language around 1 it creating a task force (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Hold on, hold on a second. I’m sorry, what was that? 4 5 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: I’m just looking at your rules to find out the procedures for 6 amending a Substitute Motion so I need a minute on that if you want to explore that. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: It’s already been amended by Commissioner Summa, correct? 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: No. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: No. No, no. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: There was a second. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: Ok. My head is spinning. 17 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: She just worked to clarify the language, but then we went back to pretty 1 much the original language and then she seconded it. So it's just a straightforward Substitute 2 Motion. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, we can give staff… the only, I'm only attempting to give the Commission an 5 opportunity to sort of identify where people stand on that on this on the Substitute 6 Amendment [Note-Amendment to Substitute Motion?] you have and I think staff’s suggestion 7 that having a amend, having a proposed Motion and a Substitute Motion actually does that 8 without having to make the suggestion amendment that I suggested. So why don’t we give 9 them another minute to determine whether amendments are even permitted and then we can 10 vote on it. And I'll give you a chance to speak to your Motion before we vote. 11 12 Commissioner Monk: Can I just ask the staff a question then? 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: So I'm hearing two different concepts coming together and I'm wondering 17 if it's possible to just broaden the TAC to encompass the key stakeholders that have been 18 omitted such as the Safe Routes to School as Arthur Keller had mentioned, such as the CARRD 19 stakeholders, other key folks and therefore maybe it would just obliterate the need for having a 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. completely independent task force. I think the problem that I have in supporting the Motion 1 right now is that it doesn't let staff have time to digest all of the information that was presented 2 tonight that might be incorporated into a deeper dive of on the CSS plan. So I'm not inclined to 3 support it right now without having staff heading a deeper dive into what was presented 4 tonight. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: So staff that is a question for you. Is that something that could, can the 9 TAC be broadened so as to sort of address the concerns of the key stakeholders without… 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: Well, I think that might be one of the potential outcomes of the Motion that's on 12 the floor, of the Substitute Motion. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I’d like to I want to give I want to defer to our process so I want to give this 15 Substitute Motion an opportunity to be voted on and then you can speak to your Motion and 16 we can vote on it and then excuse me, we can vote on it, you can speak to your Motion and I’ll 17 give an opportunity to people who dissented to speak as well. So are you guys comfortable 18 voting on this Motion? Does anybody need clarity on what we're voting on? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: Please repeat the Motion. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Is Jonathan done with his research? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I'm assuming you're withdrawing your offer your decision to voice and 7 amendment so it's probably moot. She's not going to try to amend your Substitute Motion. So 8 (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Monk: I was just trying to get clarity on what is trying to be achieved within the 11 Motion and whether or not that's already being achieved or can separately be achieved with 12 the existing plans around the TAC by broadening that committee to include these stakeholders. 13 Does that make sense Commissioner? 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: I know. Me too. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, so… 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Well why don't… 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Did you want to hear it again? 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Yes, please. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, so that Palo Alto the Motion [Note-Substitute] is that Palo Alto follow 8 a we don't say full anymore. The CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including 9 creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders or 10 stakeholder workshops if you prefer. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Alright, we have (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: We have the second already. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, we have a Motion [Note-Substitute] on the floor. I would like to ask 17 Commissioners who are in favor to raise their hand and say aye. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: I thought we're going to speak to the Motion and then get any dissents. 1 It’s very simple (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Alcheck: You speak to your dissent after it takes place. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Pardon me? 6 7 Chair Alcheck: People speak to their dissent after they've (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: Not if their opposed to an intended vote against it and want to… 10 11 Chair Alcheck: No, no, no. Typically can help me out here? 12 13 Mr. Lait: So the Substitute Motion has been made, seconded so the maker can speak to that 14 Motion as well as the seconder. There is debate, vote. Anybody who votes against it has an 15 opportunity to speak their dissenting views. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Alright. So I'm going to give you the opportunity to speak to your Motion and 18 the seconder may speak to their Motion and then we’ll vote. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: Very simply it's very high stakes. There is no reason not to do this 1 because it just adds a risk. No reason to take that risk. I haven't heard any substantive 2 downside at all to beefing up the expertise and I've heard a lot of upside from our ex-mayor 3 and very informed consultants. So we should use all the expertise we can get to surface and 4 vet all the options and optimize for the best decision. 5 6 Commissioner Summa: I’m good. I think I've made it clear that I think the process would be 7 made more transparent and with the participation of residents and that it would help staff. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, if anybody would like, are you suggesting I have to host a debate on this? 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: If somebody wants to say something. 12 13 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I mean if there's an opportunity for people to speak to the Motion. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Would anybody else like to speak to the Motion? I will provide an opportunity 16 for anybody to speak to the dissent, speak to their dissent if they wish. Ok, seeing none I'm 17 going to host the vote then. All of those in favor of supporting the Motion on the floor, the 18 Substitute Motion on the floor please raise your hand and say aye. Ok, we have four ayes. All 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. those opposed? Two. Ok, the Motion passed, the Substitute Motion passes 4-2. Would you 1 like to speak to your dissent? Commissioner Monk. 2 3 MOTION PASSED (4-2-1, Chair Alcheck and Commissioner Monk against, Commissioner 4 Rosenblum absent) 5 6 Commissioner Monk: I find the Motion convoluted in that there seems to already be an existing 7 TAC and so I don't know what this additional group that is being proposed in the Motion is 8 doing what functionally. So it just wasn't clear to me. I'd prefer to see staff look at what was 9 presented tonight by the citizens that came and spoke on this and perhaps come back and 10 determine if there's any changes that need to be made to the CSS plan based on what we 11 learned tonight. And my recommendation would be just to broaden the TAC to add the key 12 stakeholders and the folks that were here tonight. My concern is that in having a separate 13 group that we would be excluding the broader community that Director Gitelman referred to 14 earlier and I think that is something that I would be concerned about if we just had a select 15 group to represent the whole of the community. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'll speak to my dissent as well. The reason why I don't support this Motion is 18 because I don't I would I would like to communicate that I don't think that a community 19 stakeholder group should be appointed to participate in this process in the way that the CAC 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. was developed to run the Comp Plan process. I also want to suggest that I am going to accept 1 some responsibility here tonight because I think that the reason why it's so important for 2 example to be really clear in our Motions and I wish I could have done something about it is 3 because this is a perfect example where I don't believe that the CSS “method” is a universally 4 agreed upon uniform set of rules. And I think that the greatest and the clearest evidence of 5 that is the fact that staff disagrees with individuals in this room about whether or not a 6 stakeholder group has to be incorporated. I also think that the Motion is problematic because 7 it doesn't clearly define the group that you would like to appoint as a stakeholder group in the 8 way that I believe the members of this community some of them have communicated to us. So 9 I'm not entirely sure that this Motion reflects for example the letter that Pat Burt suggested to 10 you which is that a group of community members be chosen to lead this effort. 11 12 Finally, I think the justification for not supporting that process would be that it is very time 13 intense. Not only would the group have to be chosen which could take several months if not 14 half a year. Then the process of engaging that group to meet and run their own process could 15 take a significantly long time, which again I think it would be problematic because we are 16 behind the curve and we need to get we need to focus on the technical issues at hand here and 17 have community input on those technical issues as quickly as possible. Ok, is anybody else 18 interested in speaking at this time about the Motion? If not… 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Commissioner [Note-Chair] Alcheck I’d just like to con… I mean first of all thank 1 you for your work. I recognize this got a little messy at the end, but we appreciate the work to 2 come up with a Motion and we’ll convey that to the Rail Committee and the Council. Also I was 3 hoping that you would allow us based on the comments we got this evening about the problem 4 statement and objectives to summarize your thoughts in our staff report to the Council. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, yeah. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: So they have the benefit of that and that if the Chair would like to appoint a 9 representative to come on August 28th you can that representative can amplify and clarify 10 anything additional they want to add. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, thank you for mentioning that. It sort of slipped through the cracks here. 13 It wasn’t included in the Motion the notion of incorporating some of the themes that although 14 the maker the Motion had suggested that you guys appreciated those comments and I 15 assume… Do you feel like I need to make a Motion to suggest? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: I think we can do that without a Motion as long as that we have the sense of the 18 Commission that that's where you're comfortable. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Ok, well and when this is going up to staff? 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: It goes to the Council on August 28th. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok, well it's very fitting because Commissioner Lauing is our representative to 5 City Council in August and so our maker of our Motion will be present hopefully at the August 6 meeting because he's already lined up to do it. So barring any issue with your attendance at 7 that meeting if there is an issue we can choose somebody else, but I think actually this works 8 out really well. Ok, sorry that that was a little messy. Let's take a five minute break and get 9 right into Item Number 3 and 4. 10 Commission Action: Motion: Have Staff Include Themes Discussed Tonight About the 11 Suggested Problem Statement and Objectives and Incorporate Comments Made in 12 Their Re-write as it Moves Toward Council Process as Outlined in the Staff Report 13 (Motion Chair Alcheck, Second Vice-chair Waldfogel). Substitute Motion: Palo Alto 14 follow a CSS Process for Evaluation of Rail Grade Separation Including the Creation of 15 a Dedicated Expert Stakeholder Group in Parallel with Neighborhood Stakeholders. 16 (Substitute Motion: Commissioner Lauing, Second Commissioner Summa) Substitute 17 Motion Passed 4-2 (Alcheck, Monk against, Rosenblum absent) 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7 Commissioner Ed Lauing 8 Commissioner Susan Monk 9 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10 Commissioner Doria Summa 11 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34 CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT Page 1 of 72 Special Meeting Wednesday, August 16, 2017 Chairperson DuBois called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: DuBois (Chair), Filseth, Fine, Scharff arrived at 8:02. A.M. Absent: Oral Communications Chair DuBois: (Inaudible) Nadia Naik: Good morning everyone. Nadia Naik from CAARD and Friend of Caltrain at the moment. I’m here to reiterate what Adina has been talking about, which is that they are doing the presentations for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. There’s a couple of meetings coming up but notably, there’s nothing in Palo Alto and so I really would urge you guys to see if there’s a way that they could come present to the full Council. They are presenting everywhere in San Mateo County but not for us and as you guys know, Dumb Barton Rail Corridor actually has a huge effect on traffic in Palo Alto. I think it’s a big deal and so I would urge you guys to think about maybe putting that on and trying to get them into City Council. I know it tight but they are trying to move very, very quickly with this. They want decisions within the next month or two. We’re hoping to be able to dive into some more of the details. Some of the things that are – so it’s good that they started the report but there are some things that need to be tweaked. For example, they’re looking at being able to have bus and rail but they would them illuminate the bikes, which kind of doesn’t make sense because bikes don’t take up a lot of space. So, I think there needs to be some tweaking but overall, it’s excellent that there’s a study but I think you guys are going to want to dive into those details. Thank you. Chair DuBois: (Inaudible) ATTACHMENT H TRANSCRIPT Page 2 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: I’ll provide more information on the Dumbarton study under the next agenda item. Chair DuBois: Our next speaker is Roland Lebrun. Roland Lebrun: Thank you and good morning and I absolutely second everything Nadia said one hundred percent. The reason I am addressing you today is to give you a heads up about a letter that you are going to be receiving from me hopefully next week, which essentially is going to echo what I say to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the PAC. That is, we look at what’s happening in (inaudible) – at what Caltrain’s plans are and there is absolutely no way they are going to be able to handle the demands that we are going to have on the system. Especially, as you know, what Google is doing in the Sunnyvale area and actually, it is going to hit Mountain View because slap bang in the middle between Mountain View and various above. So, the proposal is that we are going to double the length of every single baby bullet platform to 1,400-feet and of the City’s one in Palo Alto. Now Diridon, we tackled this over six months ago so we’re coming – we have nine platforms at grade and hopefully, we are going to have two underground platforms, also the same length, which will have the same capacity as the nine at grade platforms. We’re done with Mountain View and so far, the reception has been good. Sunnyvale, I think knows what’s coming and then now, I want to talk about Palo Alto and talk about some of the opportunities here. Essentially, it’s a 1,400-foot platform, it’s four tracks so that you can pass and traffic can go through. We don’t block the line like they do in some San Mateo County cities and it starts off by branching off the line for about 800-feet so that you branch off pretty close to maximum speed. You now have your 1,400-foot platforms and another 800-feet at the end so that the total thing is 3,000-feet but since you are looking at grade separations, it gives you an opportunity here with Alma. If you start forking between the bridge and Alma, you will have four tracks at Alma and then the situation is that there is no such thing as a grade crossing with four tracks; you get automatic grade separation. In terms of funding, the opportunity that you have is not just the $700 million that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has for grade separation but you can also use some of the $300 million because you are increase line capacity; which is what those $300 million (inaudible). So, there will be a letter over to you with more details and what the opportunities are in Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Our last speaker is Richard Brand. TRANSCRIPT Page 3 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Richard Brand: Good morning, Richard Brand, 281 Addison and it’s good to see everybody again. I – since the last meeting there was an announcement that was made by High Speed Rail that they have to tunnel 14-miles to get through Pacheco Pass which this didn’t come up before. I just want to make the Committee, if you are not aware of it, that that’s the case and it’s – I don’t know Nadia, it’s about $1.3 billion for – anyway, it’s a very expensive tunneling project. I think that if they are going to go ahead and do that just to get into San Jose directly, rather than over the Altamont Pass as you’ve heard me talk about. I think they ought to have money for us to actually pay for grade separations and I don’t know how – I’ll have to think about how we might address that but San Mateo County got funded for some of their grade separation requests from High Speed Rail and that’s something that – I know we’re going to get into that in the other agenda item but I am just putting it out there as something new. Maybe we go back and request High Speed Rail representatives to come back in again. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Alright thank you. Agenda Review and Staff Update 1. Receive and Review Rail Program Briefing Paper From June-July 2017. Chair DuBois: We’ll proceed to Item Number 1, a review of the rail program. Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Sure, good morning Chair and members of the Committee. I’m Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official with the City of Palo Alto. Included in your packet is a Rail Program briefing paper which covers the period from June 15th to August 2nd and provided you with an update on all the activities that transpired over that period. Item 1 was the planning for Community Workshop Number 2 and I’ll talk a little bit more about those in our presentation on the next steps for the program. However, it is important to note that this workshop will be held on September 16th at the Palo Alto Art Center auditorium. It will have a similar time frame as the previous workshop on May 20th, which was 10 AM to 2 PM with a lunch provided during a break period. I’ll talk more about the programming of that workshop later in my presentation. Item Number 2, we’ve also tentatively penciled in a Community Workshop Number 2 or Number 3, excuse me, for October 21st; also at the Community Art Center auditorium. Number 3 in the briefing packet is an update on the community questionnaire. You remember the meeting that the Rail Committee held prior to summer break, we discussed doing a community questionnaire in order to solicit input on the problem statement, the objectives, and the evaluation TRANSCRIPT Page 4 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 criteria. The questionnaire was extremely successful. We had almost 800 unique responses to the questionnaire and got some incredible feedback on the problem statement, the objectives, and the evaluation criteria. That feedback has been incorporated into the presentation that you’ll see later on, on those components of the program. Item 4 in the briefing paper is an update on a Measure B Caltrain Grade Separation Program meeting that City Staff had with VTA Staff on August 2nd. This was a very productive meeting, we learned a lot about their approach to the Measure B Caltrain Grade Separation Program. Some key take away from that meeting is that VTA is working on a Request for Proposals (RFP) currently to complete an implementation study to determine how to best allocate that funding and construct all eighth-grade separation over the 30-year tax time frame. We will be involved in the preparation of that RFP and I will assume that we will be able to provide comment. Their goal is to kick that off in early 2018 and they were excited to see that we were making progress on our planning efforts. They also seemed open to discussing some creative ways to utilize the grade separation funding. They seem open to closing grade crossings, redirecting some funding to maybe some more expensive grade separations and they also seemed open to changing the language that we are concerned about. We are still in discussions with them and they haven’t made that change yet. The final program guidelines are going to the VTA Board on September 7th so that’s our last chance to get this language changed. The language that I am referring to is, funds will be allocated to the most cost- effective grade separation alternatives. We feel like this may preclude communities from adding local funding and other funding sources that do something that may be more expensive but in the community interest. We’ve recommended some changes to that language. They would more specifically call out the cost-effective use of Measure B funds and that would leave open other alternatives that may bring some additional funding to the table. We have talked to Staff from Sunnyvale and Mountain View and Sunnyvale concurs with that change. I have not heard back from Mountain View yet but we have asked VTA Staff to make that change before this September 7th meeting to the program guidelines. Item number five in your briefing packet is an update on the Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study. I’ve also attached a presentation that was delivered when they announced that the draft plan was released. I’ll be attending a stakeholder meeting at Menlo Park City Hall this afternoon, which is all of the agency representatives that are involved in the Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study. I’ll be able to provide further information after I attend that meeting. Our speaker, Nadia Naik, did mention that there are some public meetings that are also scheduled. We’ve also reached out, at the request of the Chairman, to invite SamTrans here to present on the study and they have TRANSCRIPT Page 5 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 agreed tentatively to attend the September Rail Committee meeting; if you are all interested in having them present. The public comment period is open until the end of September so we fully expect that we’ll be drafting a letter after we receive some input from you. I think we can wait until after the presentation from Staff before we start drafting that letter, we do have until the end of September to submit comments. Item Number 6, recently San Gabriel – in the San Gabriel Valley and southern California a trench – a railroad trench was opened and this Committee asked for some information on that so I’ve included a budget. It was a little hard tracking down any kind of project fact sheet or any information for the specific project but I was able to determine that it was a 1.4-mile long trench. The total budget was $312.7 million and they separated several roadways using the trench. They did an interesting thing which creates a Joint Powers Board (JPB) just to construct these grade separations and what’s included in your packet is actually the 2018 budget for that JPB. It has some pretty detailed information on the funding sources and the total budget and some photos of the project. This was really the only information that I could track down without actually calling somebody from the JPB. If you would like additional information, I can do that and see if they have any kind of project fact sheet or update specifically on the trench project. Then finally in the briefing paper, we have the latest expenditures from our consultant team attached and I will say that we had a little bit of a reset over the summer with our approach to the Rail Program. Starting this summer Staff has taken more of a leading role in the management of this program and we’re using our consulting team strategically for technical support and community engagement support when needed but going forward, you’ll see Staff play a larger role in this process. That’s why the briefing paper was actually prepared by Staff this month. So, with that, any questions on the briefing paper, I’ll be glad to answer. Chair DuBois: Any questions? So, we do have some members of the public so maybe we should have them speak quickly and then go back to questions. So, on Item 1 we have Richard Brand, followed by Elizabeth Alexis. Richard Brand: Richard Brand, I applaud that Joshuah – you’ve done a good job here in this report and I especially like it – it was brief to the point and covered a lot of the things that needed to be covered. Once again, I thank you for that good work. One of the things about the Dumbarton thing is included in here in the meeting and I’ll be at that meeting tonight and I invited Joe Simitian to come too. Is that we – it’s true, we have no representation from VTA going to this at all. I’m glad that our City is taking that option to go. I wondered if we can get our old colleague Mark Berman TRANSCRIPT Page 6 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 involved in this too. It might be something that the Committee would do, to send a letter to Mark and say hey Mark, I need a little help here, because it’s a regional issue. It’s not just San Mateo County issue so I just offer that as a thought. I think the Committee ought to consider sending a note to Mark. Thanks Chair DuBois: Thank you. Elizabeth Alexis to be followed by Roland Lebrun. Elizabeth Alexis: Good morning. I want to talk about the VTA piece also. I think while we are making progress, I think we really need to push for reset of the VTA entire approach, I mean on two different levels. I think they have now sort of said that this isn’t just like a bike project grant program where a couple of good projects will rise to the top. That yes, you need to do everything but they are still talking about a 30-year time horizon and that’s just not the time horizon that Caltrain is going to be on. Transbay Terminal is going to open sometime between 2025 and 2030, Caltrain demand, just from that alone, will double. The number of people who live in Palo Alto who take the train will probably triple just based upon an analysis that we’ve done with sort of similar towns. The same kind of things will happen in Sunnyvale though and will happen in Mountain View and even before then. I mean we see eight trains for Caltrain in not that distant future and we would see ten trains for Caltrain by 2025. No major – during the peak hours, no grade crossing will effectively be open after that time period or one of the Cities will stand in the way of the expansion of Caltrain and the option is gridlock on 101; more people going there. I mean whatever we do, it’s a bad situation and the entire County needs to mobilize behind this idea that this needs to get done. I’ve heard well, it’s a 30-year tax measure, well I mean you borrow against the sales tax. I mean the $700 million that they have is in 2017 dollars are ready. They’ve already assumed that it’s sort of borrowed and right now interest rates are low and they might not be low in the future. I mean we need to reset this as something where everybody’s major – I mean we need Sunnyvale stuff to get done, we need Mountain View stuff to get done. This idea of pitting everybody against each other, they should simply allocate it out, divided up by the number of grade crossings per City and then let the Cities allocate across their own – make their plans. No one is going to be wasting money, I mean everybody’s projects are going to cost more than their prorated share of the money, everybody. So, everybody will have to come up with the difference. So, there’s the incentive to do that and we need to make this where we all understand that we are all in this together, instead of some kind of composition. We do not benefit – I mean, we will have a time pressure of this – of Caltrain’s expansion; the Cities will have that but quite frankly, the TRANSCRIPT Page 7 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 other Cities also – they need to have some planning time. We have heard this competition and that we’re falling behind. I know the situations in all those Cities, they are not going to benefit either by rushing their programs through. Chair DuBois: Thank you. Next speaker is Roland and then our last speaker is Adina Levin. Roland Lebrun: So, that was a perfect segue into my public comment, right? We know there is this massive problem, it was right there, we’re not seeing any answers in governing and business plans. That’s why we decided to take the matter into our own hands and we also know that we are specifically speaking the entire (inaudible) will not get grade separated. So regardless of what we do in Santa Clara County, you’re going to get stuck but we do have an opportunity that if they don’t get their act together (inaudible) the road, is to actually start taking trains up the mountain rail and address the congestion that way. So, half of the traffic will be going across the bay and the rest will be going to San Francisco. Anyway, I want to talk about what’s going on with Dumbarton Rail and I think Nadia already brought up one of the problems. The figures they gave us last night, that they need 65-feet for the trains, are totally incorrect. That’s four tracks and we’re only going to have two tracks and they only need 35-feet, which means there is plenty of room left for peds and bikes trail. I put a post on Adina’s blog last night that actually gives the references directly from the Caltrain Standards and how the calculations were arrived at so that’s point Number 1. We also – I don’t know if you know what (inaudible) is or what the deal with Union City is? Union City is what blew up the entire Dumbarton Rail last time because they want $400 million to reroute Ace and Capital Corridor to Union City but we’re safe from the beginning; we don’t need this; I mean this is just a boondoggle. All we need is (inaudible) which is where BART and the tracks intersect so you can transfer from Capital Corridor and Ace right there at (inaudible).It’s not going to be an infestation, it’s just going to be a pure transfer station. There is $130 million right there in (inaudible) that (inaudible) approved for this. So, last night we are hearing from Caltrain oh, the $130 million is not all for (inaudible). We are saying this over and over again over there at SamTrans, this has to stop, we’ve got to get rid of these people because they keep ripping us off. The $12.5 million (inaudible) Metro Lane cost, well look at what’s there, ok? They are not red, they are still gray just like they were in Metro Lane days; the money is gone. The $125 million bridge loan, while we are waiting for the FGA to come through, that money is also gone and it just goes on and on; it’s got to stop. Now going back to Dumbarton Rail, one thing they are not even considering is a tunnel; it’s not TRANSCRIPT Page 8 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 even on the map. If we tunnel, we will be able to grade separate both Willow and University. Just think about that – for that – what that would do for us; (inaudible). I think that’s it for now but we’re going to go out there tonight and I strongly encourage you to go to East Palo Alto and listen to what’s going on. My take on this is we’re going to have to ask Facebook to basically take over the entire thing and just get the job done. We’re never going to get anything done with SamTrans. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Ok, and our last speaker is Adina Levin. Adina Levin: Morning Council Members. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain and here to piggy back on what Mr. Lebrun said about the Dumbarton Corridor. While we’re not done pouring through their several hundred-page reports, the fact that this is ambitious and it’s talking about ridership on the level of the mid-twenty thousand to thirty thousand is good. That’s really different from what came out a decade ago, which wouldn’t have been worth investment and this is worth investment but there’s also a lot of specifics in there that are worth a lot of attention. There are near term bus improvements that make eminent sense and could be done tomorrow, which is great but some of the issues in there in terms of how do you use bus and rail together seem really perplexing in terms of how you would actually run a transit system. The fact that it’s multi-modal, great, but how they work together is kind of odd. The – having buses and rail use the right of way and crowding out the bikes, the data that came to Palo Alto from Stanford on the general use permit showing twenty to thirty percent bike mode share within five miles when you have good connections. That could suck up twenty to thirty percent of the drivers between Redwood City and Facebook if that was done and it’s basically ignored because the Metropolitan Transportation Commission model doesn’t forecast bikes and therefore you can’t forecast bikes; that needs attention. The proposed improvements not only for – there’s a – it looks like there’s about $800 million in freewayizing 84 in there, with the hope that it will improve the traffic but if you have drivers coming up, they still need to get off of 101 and how much extra room is there on Willow hill towards 101 or University hill towards 101? None, so will that actually just move the bottleneck? That’s needs a lot of attention for the amount money towards the amount of value. Lastly, even though there are all kinds of details in there that need to be hashed out, it’s good to see the funding in the expenditure plan for RM-3 and if somebody made a call, it’s time to make a call again because that expenditure plan is in flux. There are political issues in Sacramento causing people to be fighting over what’s in there and so talking to Marc Berman and Mullen and Hill and anybody else TRANSCRIPT Page 9 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 you have relationships with, let’s keep the money in, figure out what to do with it and pay a lot of attention towards making it good. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Alright so back to the Committee, does anybody have questions? Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I do. Chair DuBois: I do too but go ahead. Mayor Scharff: I think that the change – oh yeah sure. So, the change in the language if we get it and I guess Mountain View hasn’t weighed in, is that it? The practical differences of the language are the language we’re suggesting allows us to do a trench if the trench is cost effective. Is that roughly the difference? Mr. Mello: The language that we’re requesting would give communities more flexibility to add additional funding on top of Measure B for something that maybe more expensive like a trench. Mayor Scharff: So, it’s basically adding the – is that we – it basically allows us to take whatever the low-cost alternative is, add any money to it and do, as opposed to not getting the money because it’s not cost effective. Mr. Mello: The current language makes it sound as though VTA will judge the projects based on the total cost when they measure the cost effectiveness. Not the most – not the cost effectiveness of the Measure B funding and you know, using Measure B funding to leverage local funding and other funding is actually more cost effective than just picking a lower cost alternative. Mayor Scharff: So, Mountain View people tell me that they are pretty much done. That they’re ready to go, they are looking for the funding and they are hoping to get the funding to fund the whole thing and move forward with their grade separations. Sunnyvale tells me they are going to have – do you know their (inaudible) because I think they said something to me like they are basically planning on two meetings and then just moving forward. Mr. Mello: I have a table and I’ll talk more about that later but their ready – they are going to have preferred alternatives identified by early 2018 and then they are going to move into design. TRANSCRIPT Page 10 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: I mean it seems like both Sunnyvale and Mountain View are going to get their grade separations and that they are moving really quickly and that seems to be the facts on the ground. Have we had any discussions with VTA? I mean do we have any commitment at all about – the whole 30- year thing really concerns me as well and I think it concerns the speakers. I was – do we have any sense at all of what they are thinking on that stuff? Mr. Mello: We know that they want to build all eight grade separations. We know that the horizon for the sales tax is 30-years. Mayor Scharff: Are they talking about bonding or are they not… Mr. Mello: They have not talked about bonding recently. That was a question we continue to ask through the holding Measure B development process. I would assume that they are still talking about that; their financial folks but we haven’t heard an update on that recently. Mayor Scharff: Then in terms of the trench over at San Gabriel, the relevance to us is that it shows what a trench might cost or does it not really have any relevance? I mean we don’t – we did some preliminary estimates of what a trench would cost. I remember us having our consultants look at that but do we think – what do we think the relevance to that is frankly, to our own trench numbers and what would it take for us to actually get – to get some context around what a trench would cost; those kinds of information. What are the constraints on building a trench and what’s that going to take for the City? Mr. Mello: So, we provided the information on the San Gabriel trench at the request of Committee Members. I do not know enough about the project to know how relevant it is to our trench discussions. We can look into that and get some more information on that project if that’s something you’re interested in. Mayor Scharff: No, no, I… Mr. Mello: As far… Mayor Scharff: … if it has no relevance, I have no interest. What I am interested in knowing what it would cost to build a trench in Palo Alto. So, my question is – I mean if it does have relevance, I want you to look into it but if it’s really not that helpful then I want to know what it would take to TRANSCRIPT Page 11 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 get good numbers or at least starting to get some handle on a range of numbers or where we are on that. Mr. Mello: We’re planning to start the development of alternative at the September 16th community workshop number two. You know very—in quick order, upon starting the alternatives development we’ll start putting together some planning level cost estimates to get that kind of a magnitude of cost for things like a trench, a standard overcrossing, and an under crossing. I think September or October we’ll start to get a hand on what the order of magnitude is. Mayor Scharff: So, there’s the over crossing but as – do we have any issues – does VTA have any issues with an over cross? That’s an elevated track, right? I know (inaudible), it’s an overpass and then we have the underpass and then we have the trench. I mean is there any other options? Mr. Mello: I think there could be a whole host of different options. Mayor Scharff: Like what? I can’t think of any. Mr. Mello: Closure, a hybrid which is raising the rail a little bit and lowering the road a little bit. It’s also going to depend on the location of the overcrossing and under crossings. How do we interface with Alma Street? Do we sever the connection with Alma Street or do we raise or lower the intersection? I think there’s going to be a pretty significant number of – you know in our universe of alternatives before we start to narrow down. We’ll start to have this discussion pretty intensively in September and October and I think we can narrow them down relatively quickly when you start looking at costs and constraints. Chair DuBois: I had a couple quick questions. The Art Center Auditorium, is that the space in the back? Mr. Mello: Yes. Chair DuBois: So, are we concerned that it’s not large enough? I mean the first meeting there was – probably wouldn’t have fit in there. Mr. Mello: Yeah, there are 180 seats available and we’re going to use the courtyard as well for activities; the weather should be good. TRANSCRIPT Page 12 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: Ok, I guess we don’t have a choice for this next meeting but the third meeting – again, I’m just concerned that it’s not a big enough space. Mr. Mello: Yeah, we’re very limited on the space that’s available. We tried and tried to get the Mitchell Park room again. Chair DuBois: So, even in October? Mr. Mello: Yeah, there was very little availability for Saturdays. Chair DuBois: Is there any other spaces larger than the Art Center? Cubberley? Mr. Mello: Claudia helped secure the space. I don’t know if you have any more information, Claudia? I don’t think there’s a space large enough at any other location. Claudia Keith, Chief Communications Officer: We do have the Art Center which holds 180 and the October dates, we had originally had a late October date for Mitchell Park and then when we changed dates, it was tough to find a place. We’ve looked at other venues that are not public facilities like the Elks Club and things like that but it does have a cost. I think the Art Center, we’ve had some large gatherings there and we do have the court yard which it should be nice weather so at least in terms of activities –we can search for the October date and see… Chair DuBois: Yeah, I am just – again, if we can get to September and if it’s standing room only, we may not have enough time to adjust. Ms. Keith: I mean the El Palo Alto room definitely holds more, for sure. Chair DuBois: Yeah and I know we did the Sustainability Summit in the multi-purpose room in the schools so there might be some other options like that. So, I’m glad to hear about the conversation with VTA and funding. Is there’s recognition that Measure B funds aren’t going to cover all these grade seps? Mr. Mello: Yes, and I think the enroll mentation plan is going to look at what other potential funding sources there are. I think they’ll look at a high level at what a package could be for the whole eight. You know VTA does have the ability to program other federal funding through their TIP. TRANSCRIPT Page 13 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: So, they can help us with that or we could do that ourselves as well, right? Look for other sources of funding? Mr. Mello: Yes. Chair DuBois: Ok. I’m glad to hear that we’ve got SamTrans committed and I guess we’ll talk about that at the end of this meeting. The San Gabriel trench, I guess I found it very interesting. The part that I found relevant was again, the funding plan and looking at how they put together a bunch of funding sources. I guess we’ll talk about it at the next item but one of my concerns is that this isn’t a linear process and we should really probably start to talk about a funding strategy sooner rather than later. They – just looking at it pretty quickly, they – it looks like they had 35 percent funds from State grants, forty percent came from the MTA and 25 percent were federal and local together but the idea that JPB—to assemble all these funding sources, looks like a pretty big effort. That is something that we haven’t even started to talk about. Then the last one, again I appreciated this report and the Staff taking more of leading role. I noticed that seventy- two percent of the funds on the circulation study has been spent. When are we expecting to get that study? Mr. Mello: They are working on a modeling of the scenarios right now and soon as they’re in a legible format – the output is in a legible format, we’re going to have a meeting with them and put together a draft report on the findings. Chair DuBois: Is that going to be used at the next public meeting, to… Mr. Mello: That’s the goal, yes. Chair DuBois: Ok. I mean if it’s not ready, it seems like that’s pretty important information to start to look at alternative impacts and… Mr. Mello: Yeah, they started modeling immediately after the last Rail – after the time period for comments on the scenarios expired, we directed them to begin modeling those scenarios. Chair DuBois: Cool, I guess that was it so thank you. Yep, Adrian? Council Member Fine: Thank you and thanks for this report. A few things, so I actually agree with Council Member DuBois about the JPB. I thought it was TRANSCRIPT Page 14 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 interesting so one was the organization they used. The other things were kind of that they were looking at multiple trenches in multiple areas and they had a pretty nice project plan for (inaudible) showing where they were in the works. I think Sunnyvale does a good job of that too. With regard to VTA, so do I understand that you correctly that there are multiple agencies helping VTA write an RPF to study how disperse the funds? Mr. Mello: VTA is authoring the RFP and we will have input into the scope and we already gave them some opinion on the time line but the project will be managed by VTA in consultation with Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Caltrain. Council Member Fine: So, do they not have established ways of dispersing funds likes this? Mr. Mello: They – you know a lot of their funding projects have different criteria and different grant – they use completive grants for a lot of the programs like Go Bag and TFCA and some other funding streams. This is a little bit different and I think they recognize – well, it’s a little bit different because they’re – they’ve to date committed to delivering all eight grade separations. So, to do a completive process would not work because you wouldn’t be able to strategize about how – what the funding package looks like for all eight so I think this is a different animal when it comes to all the different funding programs. Council Member Fine: Yeah, I mean I guess I would just echo what some of the public speakers said, like this seemed like a public County Wide Measure and as you mentioned, there’s an opportunity here for each local municipality to leverage their own matching funds and VTA should be looking at that bottom line. What can we do to help? I mean should we contact the VTA Board? Mr. Mello: I think we need that language changed before it goes to the Board on September 7th and we have the example – the recommended language in the briefing report. James Keene, City Manager: Can I jump in? (Inaudible) my questions were going to be (inaudible). I’m sorry guys, I didn’t wear the Staff uniform today the blue shirt, the dark jacket, and the jeans and I really apologize for being out of uniform. I agree with what Elizabeth was saying, I mean first of all it seems absurd that we would be thinking about trying to do this without funding for it at all. I mean over a 30-year period if we have $27 and the TRANSCRIPT Page 15 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 elasticity of sales tax over that period of time. Even there’s an equity issue about really who is paying and who is benefiting. I mean is this completely open and up for debate or is it – are we able to get that commitment in some way because without, I really think we’re at risk. I think it’s very difficult for us to be doing any near-term planning on gap funding if we don’t know what and when (inaudible) is going to be available. Mr. Mello: I think a lot of this discussion will occur in the development of the implementation plan because they are going to look at what the bigger funding package is, can they deliver all eight with their existing funding sources, do they need to bond? I think we need to stay on top of – you know we need to make sure that the scope includes things like – that would need – be needed to do an analysis of whether bonding will work and those types of tools. Mr. Keene: I just think we need to die on this hill honestly. I mean the – or else the … Council Member Fine: I think that’s my question, for now, thank you. Chair DuBois: Alright, let’s move on to Item Number 2. NO ACTION TAKEN. Action Items 2. Recommendations Regarding a Suggested Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives. Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: So, in the interest of allowing all of the Committee Members to participate in the maximum amount of discussion, we’ve broken this into two separate discussions – two separate presentations. The first on the process, the Context Sensitive Solutions Process and then the second part of the presentation and discussion will be on the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria. Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Mr. Mello: Council Member Filseth is going to participate in the first part of the discussion which is the process and then he’ll recuse himself for the TRANSCRIPT Page 16 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 second part of the discussion, which is the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria. Do you want to… Council Member Filseth: In advice of the City Attorney it’s because I live within 500-feet of one of the grade separations and that I’m conflicted. Chair DuBois: Are we going to be talking about specific grade seps or are we talking about overall objectives? Molly Stump, City Attorney: Is it helpful if I chime in? Good morning, City Attorney, Molly Stump. So, the conflict rules include a set of rules on real property proximity to significant projects or events. The problem statement talks about the four grade crossings in a way that takes them on as a group and talks about beginning and decisions making process on potential projects and the grade separations. Council Member Filseth does own real property quite proximate to one of the crossings. Council Member Fine asked whether the public generally exception would apply here? It does not because that exception means that it – to qualify for that, the decision at issue needs to effect twenty-five percent or more of property in substantially the same way. While the grade separations solutions at the four crossings will affect all Palo Altans and in fact, people throughout the region who travel to Palo Alto, it does not affect them all in the same way. Both in terms of short term construction and long-term solutions of the properties that are very proximate to the crossing will be affected in a more intense and quite distinct way from others who may live further away who will also have some effects but not similar effects. Mayor Scharff: So, Molly it did strike me that the Alma crossing where Council Member Filseth lives close to is actually very different and distinct from the other three crossings and the issues facing it. I actually was wondering if we could segregate out the other three? Do a problem statement for them and then have a discussion to see if we want the same problem statement for Alma because Alma actually is a completely different animal in the way the whole thing looks and so that would work for me. Ms. Stump: We certainly looked at that segregation role and again, for those who aren’t familiar, that allows a decision to be broken into pieces and taken separately to narrow the recusal but there are some specific requirements to use that rule. We don’t think that we have access to it under the currently defined process at this time, although hopefully at some point we will. What it requires is that the piece that – where the conflict lies, which in this case TRANSCRIPT Page 17 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 is the Alma Street crossing that’s close to Council Member Filseth’s real property, it has to be able to be addressed in a way that is not linked in any way to the remaining items that the Council Member would participate in. It can’t be linked in terms of money, timing, engineering, policy; it has to be completely separable. It very well may be that at some point in this process one or all four of the crossings are separated out to be considered in a distinct way but right now, at this early stage as we read the report, we really are talking about them as a group and there are potentially some trade-offs and exchanges to be made in terms of priority and approach. Where a decision on one will impact the decision on another and given that situation, it can’t be separate at this time. Chair DuBois: Can you just clarify, is Council Member Filseth going to participate in any overall objectives and criteria that are at a high level? Ms. Stump: So, certainly Council Member Filseth has participated thus far on the rail policy statement. That is at such a high level that we think that works. There are some procedural items in terms of how the City is going to tackle this conversation that we’ve been able to say, those really don’t have to do with a specific potential option at the crossings and then that – the problem statement then actually does. Mr. Mello: Yeah, we have broken the presentation into the first part will cover the process, including a discussion of how decisions will be made and then the second part we’ll delve into the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria. Chair DuBois: It just seems like the criteria and objectives were totally general, there were nothing specific grade crossings. I guess we could take this up from any future meetings. Ms. Stump: I think we all are sensitive to wanting to maximize participation while making sure that we follow the ethic rules. I think as the process works its way forward, the Staff and Council can be mindful of what ways to frame these items that come before the Committee and the Council to allow that. Council Member Filseth: Council Member Scharff’s point or Mayor Scharff’s point, you know the Alma Street crossing is such a different beast than all the rest of these and essentially all the discussion that we’ve had dating back to 2010 has been how do we deal with rail between San Antonio Road TRANSCRIPT Page 18 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 and at the very, very north part of University? Everybody assumes that basically there’s not that much to be done with the Alma Street crossing, it’s not the most critical one anyway. All the issues related to cross town traffic and so forth associated with the entire rationale for doing grade separations don’t apply at the Alma Street crossing. So, it seems ridiculous that the Alma Street crossing should be dragging around policy on how Palo Alto deals with grade separations. Ms. Stump: So, I may be then that in this process as it moves forward in the near term, there can be some priority on defining that approach to that crossing in some way that’s distinct but remember it needs to be distinct in terms of budget and funding availability. In other words, there – for FPPC purposes it can’t be the case that the funding and the timing of one say approaches on the mid and south Palo Alto crossings are in substance linked or traded off against. If that’s the case, then they are not separate for conflict purposes but if the conversation is framed in a way that focuses earlier on, on separating out that, then I think we would get sooner to this place where we really did have this separation and then there would be the ability to participate in the other crossing discussions. Mayor Scharff: I think that’s a good question that you frame it that way is that I agree completely with Council Member Filseth and that all of the tough issues here relate to the other three crossings and I almost think we could segregate that crossing out. I mean we’re probably not going to be grade separating that one on the same time frame. That may be the 30-year grade separation, is the one down there. The other three are hopefully much sooner so I’m wondering what that segregation would look like and obviously we’re not going to solve that today but the question is, what would you need from the Committee and the Council to segregate this in a way that would allow Council Member Filseth to participate? Obviously, that’s not necessarily the goal but my gut sense is that the Alma Street crossing is so different than the others and in terms of funding, timing and all that, that I think that that’s the way it would go. We need to obviously have that discussion and decided and obviously, we wouldn’t just be doing it for you, I think it just falls that way. So, the question is if we have those votes and we have the discussion at Council, how do we segregate it out and we should do that earlier. If we’re not going to segregate that out, I think Council Member Filseth should know that as well. So, how do we do that, that’s really the questions? Ms. Stump: Well, we certainly know what the conflict rules are, their settled and what they require. What we don’t know is how this conversation is going TRANSCRIPT Page 19 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 to progress so if that’s the Committee and the Council and the community’s intention to address that issue and separate it completely in terms of – so that it’s not linked or related to the other set of decisions in timing, budget, engineering, policy. Then we can support that as a Staff, we can get there and then we’ll be in a situation where we can use that rule. Council Member Filseth: Let me ask a – maybe this is the same thing but slightly different (inaudible) so it’s slightly different but how we define the problem, does that make a difference because if we define the problem as by 2025 Caltrain is going to be running ten trains an hour in both directions and it’s going to be impossible to get my car from one side of Palo Alto to the other. If we define that as the problem, the Alma crossing is irrelevant to that issue so if we define that as the problem, then can I un-recuse? Ms. Stump: We’ll need to look at the rest of the decisions and see if we’ve achieved – if we’ve met that legal standard of having the – any approach at Alma not be linked to the rest of the crossings. So, for example, if there’s a substantial question that the community and the Council needs to grapple with about other types of improvements at Alma, are those prioritized for budget and timing purposes first or behind other crossings. Then I think for FPBC purposes, they are going to say that those decisions are not fully separate. That one, in fact, depends on the other and so then they would say that that’s standard for separation is not met. If… Council Member Filseth: Even that can’t be totally a black and white thing because I mean you could make an argument that if we decide to declare Alma Street a quiet zone, then that’s going to take a certain amount of money and digging a trench in South Palo Alto, that’s going to take a certain amount of money so it’s all money so it must be connected, well that’s ridiculous too. So, how do we differentiate that? Chair DuBois: I’d like to suggest that we just have this conversation after this meeting. I think – I don’t see us changing the decision for this particular meeting and then we should work this out before the next meeting. Mayor Scharff: I agree completely with that. I think the only difference is if we have to give direction to Staff to ask what that would look like and what decisions we need to make. I mean right now I don’t know how we make that decision without us making decisions about how we break it up. I mean I think I need a Staff report or something that says, you’d have to take it this way, you’d have to make these decisions, you’d have to – the TRANSCRIPT Page 20 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 community would have to look at it this way. I mean I don’t see how we could have – I don’t see how you can get to what you need and Council Member Filseth can get what he needs without Staff telling us what we need the decisions to look like from this Committee and this Council because it’s how we phrase it whether or not he’s recused. I mean we could just say we’re not dealing with the Alma Street crossing. We’re not going to grade sep or we’re not looking at it. It’s a separate path and separate track, I’m not sure – I’m not say – advocating that or thinking about it but that would be a decision that would seem to allow him to participate or we can say we’re going to look at Alma but it’s a different and then you would have to tell us what that looks like. Am I wrong on that? Ms. Stump: I think we do need to work our way forward but I hope that I’ve been clear about the standard. For example, if there’s a common pot of money that is available for all of these projects, simply declaring that the Alma Street project is separate is not going to meet the standard. Mr. Keene: It seems to be that if you were going to have any more of this particular conversation, at a minimum it should take place at the end of this process discussion because I think that there are some implications for the process discussion even based upon these kinds of conflict issues. Chair DuBois: Ok, so why don’t we go ahead with the Staff presentation. Mr. Mello: Great, so as I mentioned earlier we’ve broken this presentation into two parts. The first will cover the Context Sensitive Solutions Process. As you know there’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not to have a Stakeholder Committee as part of this Context Sensitive Solution Process. Back in the spring prior to our May 20th community workshop, we presented you with this table that shows kind of the five steps – you know five decisions that need to be made moving along this process at the top; process milestones. In order to move this forward, we decided to come to you and recommend that we just move forward with stage one of this, which was to create a community engagement plan and host the first community workshop with a goal of getting to a problem definition, objectives and evaluation criteria decision point. We’re currently at that point today. We went to Planning and Transportation Commission August 9th and we are bringing this forward to you today on August 16th. Then we are planning to go to City Council but there is a little bit of a change on this. We were originally going to City Council on August 28th, it’s not September 5th. That has been moved forward a week and then finally we’re hoping to go back to TRANSCRIPT Page 21 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the community for community workshop two on September 16th. We do believe that the process that we’re following adheres to the Context Sensitive Solution principles. This is from a report documenting a successful Context Sensitive Solution processes. Just take a step back, Context Sensitive Solutions came out – and it’s a solution so highway departments were really struggling with how to integrate transportation facilities into existing communities. Particularly after the adoption of NEBA back in the 1960’s and historically they had just used cookie cutter for highway designs and plowed through existing communities and neighborhoods. Some pretty cutting-edge Department of Transportation (DOT) started to deliver project that were context sensitive so sensitive to the context that they are located in. Those became known as Context Sensitive Solutions and then a whole group of academics and others started to look at how those projects were delivered and found some commonalities in how those projects were delivered. That became the so-called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Process but ultimately, you know CSS is judged on the context – how well a project fits into its context. Does it enhance the community? Does it create barriers? Is it in harmony with the surround community? Does it solve community problem or is it just addressing something that somebody – a bureaucrat in a DOT decided that was the problem? So, that the origin of CSS so out of all those studies and kind of forensic audits of how these projects were delivered, some principles were developed. The principles are really around continuous engagement of the community. Thinking about the context of where the project is located. Every single neighborhood is different, every single context is different so a cookie cutter highway design or a grade separation design is not going to work in harmony with every community; every community is different. One of the key components of Context Sensitive Solutions is transparency, so continuing communication and collaboration with the community. You don’t come to the community after a decision has been made in a back room and say this is the alternatives that we’ve developed, what do you think? That’s the design and the defend model where you – engineers and others sit in a room and they think they know what’s best for the community, develop a solution and come out and present it. Have a faux public hearing where they take comments from the community and then go back and come back with something that is very similar. This is a totally different process under CSS, it’s much more transparent. We’ve brought those principles into our Rail Program. Our goals – kind of our principles that we’re operating under here and these are not formal principles but this has what’s come out of the discussion of the Rail Committee and Council and other in the past is that we’re going to build on the work that was done from the prior two Rail Corridor Studies. We’re going to set the context at the beginning, which is what the point where at today, TRANSCRIPT Page 22 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 define the problem and then define the measures of success. We fully expect this process to evolve. We’ve said this over and over again throughout the spring and this year that we’re not locking ourselves into a process early on because as we have discussion and as we continually involve the community in this decision-making process, I think we may end up somewhere that we’re all not expecting and we need to be ready to adapt. Then our current process is to use broad based community workshop, establish Commissions and Committees and elected bodies for decision making. We don’t currently have a stakeholder group created just for this program. On the top is a flow chart that shows our current decision-making process, which takes somewhere – for each decision it would take somewhere around two months and that’s being somewhat ambitious. It takes about four weeks for us to prepare for a community meeting. The shortest time that we can prepare for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Rail Committee is about two weeks and that’s agenda preparation and preparing materials. For more complex decisions, you know there could be a two-week period of meeting preparation in advance of that so it could be up to four weeks for each of those Committees. Fortunately, we’re able to use a lot of the same materials for PTC and Rail Committee. City Council agendas are you know, we start work on those five weeks in advance of the City Council meetings so it shouldn’t be taken lightly when we add other steps and we – these decisions are going to take a long time to make. If we were to add a stakeholder group, at the bottom we’re estimating that that would add another two weeks to potentially four weeks to the process every time we want to make a decision. So, that doesn’t sound like a lot but cumulatively when we make multiple decisions throughout this process, we could be adding months to the decision-making process and the entire alternatives development process. This does not include – we’re anticipating that if a stakeholder group was convened, it could take three to six months to get that group up and running, which would put us in a holding patterning pattern for three to six months. Then you add any additional weeks that it would take to prepare for the stake holder group meetings and we’re looking at a several months push back of the schedule ultimately. To put that in context, this is a chart that we developed that shows where are peer Cities along the peninsula are as far as grade separation; as well as the schedule of Caltrain electrification and High Speed Rail. Since the report was prepared we got more information on Sunnyvale so I super imposed a green bar there and the red line represents when Sunnyvale will be complete with their alternatives analysis and they’ll have preferred alternatives selected. Mountain View already has preferred alternatives and they have final design actually for Rengstorf Avenue. So, they are ready to go to construction on that project and they have a preferred alternative identified for the Castro TRANSCRIPT Page 23 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Street grade crossing. So, if we were to push back—and we’re currently on schedule if we continue along a path that we’re on, it will – it is ambitious and we will need to maintain schedule but we are hoping to have alternatives identified at the same time Sunnyvale has alternatives developed. This jives very well with VTA’s plans to begin work on their implementation study because then all three communities will have a pretty clear picture as to where they are in the process when VTA begins the implementation study. We’ll be on equal footing with Sunnyvale and somewhat equal footing with Mountain View, which is farther along in both Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. We did go to PTC last week and we made a very similar presentation to them. At the end of the discussion they passed a motion that read Palo Alto will follow a CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including the creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders. So, they did recommend to Council that a stakeholder group be convened in order to execute those Context Sensitive Solutions Process. With that, our Staff recommendation in regard to this section of the presentation is to review the attached community engagement plan, which is Attachment A. Then provide a recommendation to the City Council on the CSS decision making process. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I guess let me know if you want to speak about both and I’ll keep your card for the second discussion. Alright, so the first two speakers that I have are Nadia Naik and Elizabeth Alexis. Do you want to speak on CSS? Nadia Naik: Good morning everyone. I appreciate Josh’s presentation, thank you, Josh. This slide, which wasn’t actually included in our packet but it was sort of an add on which is super helpful, I think is missing a lot of decision points. So, I think we’re getting to what in my public comment described that we need to flush out the process more but I don’t see the kinds of stuff that you’ve got to tackle ready that’s looking at having Caltrain, High Speed Rail, Water District, all these people being involved. Where are all those decision points in terms of where their feedback is? I think what’s important to lay here for people to understand the process and not feel blindsided is that it doesn’t matter what you do, stake holders or not, expanding attack or not, you need to the layout that these are all the things that we’re going to discuss. This is how we’re going to input those people and these are the ones making decisions. When does the City Council make a decision? When is PTC making a decision? You guys asked last time that PTC review stuff, what exactly is their role? What exactly is going to be the TAC’s role and how is the community input – is there going to be an actual decision from the community at these large community meetings? In the end, are you TRANSCRIPT Page 24 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 going to do thumbs up or thumbs down on do we even look at taking people’s homes or not? Do we look at a trench or not? I mean those things – those important decision points, those are kind of the tree diagram of alternatives that you guys are looking for that need to be flushed out in order for this to make sense. Otherwise, you’re really not spelling out the process. You’re going through some of the motions, you’ve got some great terminology going but we’re not quite there yet. So, I would just say that that’s something that you guys need to look at and I’d like to speak again on the other topic as well. Thank you. Chair DuBois: I am going to start using a timer because we have so many speakers. Elizabeth Alexis: Ok. Oh, I see, I won’t take that personally. First, I want to just – Nadia sent a letter yesterday that was kind of – if you’re going to go ahead and have a Technical Advisory Committee, one way to kind of split the baby is just added some people – members of the community there and do the matrix to see that we have different expertise covered, different neighborhoods covered. I mean especially if you’re going to have all Council Members or PTC Members who live near a crossing not there. I mean it’s absolutely essential that you have people who actually understand those places as part of that process. The second thing is CSS is this sort of complete transparency thing so any Technical Advisory Committee meeting should be open to the public. I mean they should be – people should be able to go to whatever they want. I mean this is in addition to the big public meetings. I mean you’d rather have people be bored than feel left out, even if there’s nothing actually exciting happening in the room. Just going back to this idea on the decision making, so we keep talking about this idea that you have to start with this giant list, which you amend and keep sort of a life; assumptions, presumptions, and requirements. There’s an additional feature to that which is really the decisions to be made and the decision to be made is not just community ones, like are we comfortable with eminent domain or do we want to do all of them or whatever else. There are other ones that are—like one of the things that drove the high cost of the trench was this thought that you had to have a 24 ½-foot clearance for Caltrain, which you may or may not really need to have. That you need to have additional 8-foot clearance under a creek for VTA, which or the Valley Water, which I’m not sure if you actually need that much. There are other agencies which actually would meet the deciders on some critical assumptions that drive cost. So, you really have to have this list of all the different decisions and you just – this is a list that lives and who makes those decisions. So, even a Technical Advisory Committee, I mean we were talking about who does it really report TRANSCRIPT Page 25 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 too? Is it Staff or Council and we’re like no, it’s not anyone person. For each decision that’s being made, it reports to that decision maker. So that is – that’s part of this and that just needs to be explicit. I mean we should be having at the back of these 333-page reports, I mean we could really go for 600 pages but there should be an ongoing list of assumptions, presumptions, requirements where we keep moving things up and down. As well as the decision to be made and who’s going to make them and when do they need to be made? Are these decision that needs to be made sooner or later? Thank you. Chair DuBois: Next speaker is Roland Lebrun. Did you want to speak to the process? Roland Lebrun: No, I don’t want to speak on the CSS, I want to speak on what Josh talked about just now about what’s going on and how it relates to you and how to address the issues with the FPPC. Chair DuBois: Oh, the recusal issue? Ok Roland Lebrun: Roland: The FPPC is serious business. I don’t know if you know [Roseanne Fowl], she’s been there twice. The second time around she got a $5,000 fine. The Chairman of the Caltrain Board right now is a Council Member in Redwood City and he’s currently under investigation. He’s about to get another investigation because of his interest in the building on Townsend Street, which is less than 400-feet from 4th and Kings station and directly in the path of the Caltrain downtown extension. So now I want to talk about Mountain View and Sunnyvale and how that relates to you and come up with some solutions. In Mountain View, essentially what they are doing is they are closing Castro and Moffett. That’s essentially like if you here where to close University at the station, it’s serious business but this grade separation is really part of the building of the station – I mean a massive station (inaudible). My (inaudible) over there is to have the VTA on one side of Castro and Moffett and then Bay Corridor platforms will be on the other side. One of the Council Members has to recuse himself because he’s got a nice property which is less than 500-feet away from that so I’ll come back to that in Palo Alto in a minute. In Sunnyvale, they are grade separating Mary, which is like you’re three separations and they are also going to grade separate Sunnyvale. That again is going to be part of this big – you know let’s do a station and let’s have this massive concourse for bikes and peds and whatever. So, moving onto Palo Alto, Alma, as you say, is a completely different animal and as I mentioned during public comment, if TRANSCRIPT Page 26 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 you are going to go ahead and have this massive bullet station at that point in time, Alma now becomes part of basically the redesign of Palo Alto. Potentially what you are doing with the pedestrian underpass and everything else and the other three are going to be a lot more like Mary. Now the key in Sunnyvale is that you’ve got to go to the website and see what they are doing; it really is first class. They have – they had the first presentation on Mary and they are showing eight different alternatives which are totally focused on adjacent property impacts. You can tell right at the end which one they are going to go for, it’s called a jug handle, it’s really creative and then they are going to have a complete separate discussion about Sunnyvale next week. So, my advice to you is watch what they are doing because I think they are on the right track. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Next speaker is Richard Brand; do you want to speak to this topic? Richard Brand: Yes. Chair DuBois: Do you want to speak to the other topic as well? Mr. Brand: I’ll differ because I haven’t seen the presentation yet because it had to be broken up this way and that’s unfortunate. Yes, I’ll hold that open but I will try to be brief. A couple things, I did consult with at least one PTC Committee Member who asked me some questions about this. That Member had known that I was attending the Rail Committee meetings and involved in this process and so I supported the idea. Having been a stakeholder and still am I guess in the Committee meetings, what I find and I’m looking at this time line here, is that a stakeholder group will actually truncate or shorten the work of the Staff. In fact, that’s one of the values – I know this is a push pull kind of question but with the Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP) we found that we were able to come up with a lot of ideas that could then be put in and Staff didn’t have to come up and review that. So, I think this two and a half months versus two months can be shortened because this is a continuum here that will truncate that six weeks into less time. So, I would argue that this may not be the case in terms of the time and time is of the essences here, no doubt. The other thing is that I support Nadia’s letter that if – we should just have one group and a TAC should include local residents as stakeholders as well. So, I think that one group could work out together, although looking at the TAC list, it’s a long list already. I think the list needs to be culled and reviewed in order to make TRANSCRIPT Page 27 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 this an efficient process so that this can be cut down from six weeks to less than six weeks. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Our next speaker is Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair DuBois and good morning Committee Members. I want to speak on both parts of this and as – since Context Sensitive Solutions is a process type question, I want to just add reminders which I’m sure you all know but it doesn’t hurt to put it on the record. On the conflict of interest, that whatever portion someone is not participating in, it means that you can’t be at the table that the Committee Members and Staff are sitting on during that conflicted matter. Also, that definitive decisions about participation can only be in a written response from the Fair Political Practices Commission to request—and elected officials and Staff frequently get their own independent Council to help them frame the question. On Context Sensitive Solutions, Josh Mello gave a very useful distinction between the old way of doing things and Context Sensitive Solution, which is a new way. One way to continue doing it the old way is just to label it Context Sensitive Solutions and when you have that situation. Very often proponents of Context Sensitive Solutions fall into the trap and feeling that they have to bargain with the other position. If they get something—some part of it, that looks like Context Sensitive Solutions and they are willing to call it that. My advice to the public who know more about Context Sensitive Solutions than I do, if something is not Context Sensitive Solutions but is rather something resulting in a bargain with the old way, it’s still not Context Sensitive Solutions and people should still be advocating for that and labeling the process for what it is. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Thank you. The last speaker is Adina Levin. Ms. Adina Levin: (Inaudible) Chair DuBois: Great, thank you. Alright so come back to the Committee. Anybody have any questions or comments? Eric. Council Member Filseth: Yes. Did Mountain View have a separate Stakeholder Committee and a separate Technical Committee? Mr. Mello: I’m not sure. I can check on that for you. I would like to address if I could, a couple of the comments – the public comments. The TAC is not shown on this because the TAC will not be making decisions. The TAC will be TRANSCRIPT Page 28 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 advising the community and PTC and Rail Committee and Council as decisions are made. We’re not intending to allow other agencies to make decisions on our behalf around different alternatives but their knowledge will be important so that’s why they are not shown on this. Just another point of clarification, this is not intended to show the alternatives analysis, -- the Context Sensitive Solutions Alternatives Analysis process. This is only showing how we’re intending to make each decision in that process along the way so it’s not actually showing the decisions that will be made. It’s showing the process that will be used to make those decisions. Chair DuBois: Alright, go ahead. Mayor Scharff: In terms of the process and making the decisions, when I look back at what we’ve done in the past and where we are going. The big issue that came to Council was that when we looked at the different options, we obviously had an option for South of Oregon for a trench, which is only south of Oregon that came up. Then you had the crossing at Meadow and at the time people talked about taking 29 homes fully and 8t partially at Meadow and Charleston together. At property acquisition, if you maintained the turns of Alma, thirty-two full homes, and seven partials. Those are a big number of homes and I think that’s one of the reasons and there are other reasons as well as to why the trench was such an attractive option. It seems that one of the things is until we know if the trench is a constraint option that we can do or not, it’s really hard to figure out how the decisions are going to be made. I mean it seems like are we going to – as we go through this process, how are we going to get to that decision point of do we want to do a trench or not? I mean it seems to me that we don’t know yet because we haven’t gone through the process but the community would prefer to have a trench. At least that’s what was in our – Council voted and that was the preferred alternative, that’s the feedback that we’ve gotten. That the trench is the preferred alternative and that with the trench is was unclear to me if there are no homes taken or if it’s just the smallest number but I think there was some hope that there were no homes taken with the trench. So, it seems that the trench is going to be something that everyone wants to know how much is it going to cost, whether or not it’s feasible and it’s going to be impossible to think any other decisions until we have the information on the trench. When I look at the schedule, what I see happening is unless we understand the trench—and the trench is complicated. I mean I think as both members of the public have mentioned, we have to have decisions about can we do a two percent grade, can you – is – first of all, are they even going to allow us to do a trench? They may simply say we’re not allowed to do that and they are not going to let us do that. So, there are all TRANSCRIPT Page 29 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 these agencies corporations, there’s all these understanding of what permits are going to be required and how we go through that process. I think there’s going to be a significant amount of time spent on that so when you look – when you create this Palo Alto process to come out in the middle of – I guess it’s up till the last quarter of 2018, for a decision, what are your thoughts on that? How are we planning on dealing with that? Mr. Mello: The process that we’re currently planning to follow is beginning September 16th and starting to develop what’s called a universal alternative. So, we would consult with the community, let them put their ideas down on paper, what are the ideas that you had around these four grade separations – grade crossings, get some ideas on potential solutions and I fully expect the trench will be one of those solutions that are identified. Then we will go in and generate all the technical data that’s required to evaluate each of those alternatives. So, the cost will be one of those components and of course, we’re only going to be able to estimate at a very high level what the cost is until we start moving into engineering but we’ll get an apple to apple comparison of the different alternatives. Then we will reconvene the community, present the universe of alternatives and start to use our evaluation criteria to narrow those down. The narrowing down will be a decision point that will need to go through our decision-making process to pick the ones that we’ll study a little deeper and then eventually we’ll get down to one preferred the alternative. We may end up prioritizing the grade separations, we may end up deciding that we only want to identify preferred alternatives for three out of the four and the red line that’s shown on that chart is when we adopt a preferred alternative. So, that’s – after we adopt a preferred alternative, that’s the point where we start moving into design and we get a much better handle on cost but we’re hoping to have a pretty good understanding of the costs of the different alternatives by the end of this year. Mayor Scharff: I don’t think anyone was happy with the way our bridge went over 101, so this reminds me a little bit of the bridge. So, how did we get out of the bridge trap? It goes something like this, we say we’re going to build a bridge over Highway 101 – a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. We decided, let’s build a beautiful bridge, let’s have community engagement, let’s have a design composition. We get all these people involved, we have a design composition and we choose a beautiful bridge. We go through that process, we then look at the costs and we’re like that doesn’t work and now we have an unattractive bridge. I mean it’s not terrible but I mean – and it’s – but – and the process for choosing the other bridge was really just chosen on cost and we went through all this community engagement, built up all TRANSCRIPT Page 30 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 these expectations and then didn’t deliver. I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to the fact – we’re pretending that the trench is not the preferred alternative and that the community may choose something else. I think that’s a very low probability and without constraining it and saying – without having the information in a good way, how are you going to tell the community that the trench works or it doesn’t work? Once we go down the path that yes, we think the trench is going to work but there are all these issues. I mean, how are you going to make that decision? How are we going to get there? That’s my concern is that I don’t want to spend all the time and get to the end of it and say, oh, actually the trench doesn’t work. Then we’ve spent 18 months designing, going through it and not having the feedback. I mean how do we get that and then it could be complicated. I mean it seems like the issue on the two percent versus the one percent in itself is a negotiation that’s not resolved in a month, that’s not resolved in two months. Then I – I mean I guess the other question is the cost, I mean – so if I am wrong, just stop me but my recollection on the California Avenue garage was we were at like $10 million to start with, something like that and now we’re $30 million and so a high – when you say a high-level cost estimate, I panic. High-level cost estimate, what does that – what value does that have in making a choice if we’re not going to have numbers that actually we can then go ahead and find? Chair DuBois: So, Greg I agree with this conversation and I totally agree with what you are saying. I’m just wondering if you’re not getting into the next section versus the CSS process discussion. Mayor Scharff: I was actually talking about the schedule because that’s what was in front but is that – and that’s the process on CSS. When I am really deciding or asking is my concern that I have here is that we act as if CSS says everything is on the table and there are no constraints. Where there are clearly constraints and you want to start with a rational – instead of constraints that the community can work within. If you say that that’s not true, I think we could very much end up like the bridge and so that’s why I’m trying to figure out how we do the process and the schedule and if we are actually being realistic; that’s my concern. Mr. Keene: I don’t think you’re – you’ve actually bled over into this other area. I think the Mayor’s, as I hear it, is a little more theoretical or conceptual which is saying how we’re thinking about how we design this process really has some life impacts on schedule and what we do and we need to be thinking about that. If I could just add something to this, could you put – oh, you’ve got it back up there, good, you’ve got the schedule TRANSCRIPT Page 31 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 back up. I think that’s – this is really important because if you look at this right now, this is saying that vertical dotted red line looks like the end of the first quarter of 2018, which is basically saying we’ve got to, at a minimum, kind of catch up and be ready in whatever that is; 8 or 9-months. I agree with Nadia’s comment that we need to flush out the steps and the process more but I think it’s really important to think about setting what we think is when we’ve got to be ready and then reverse engineering back from that, as opposed to looping it. What I heard the Mayor potentially saying is we could vaguely also design a process that anticipates some things but then unfolds or balloons way out of our control and we lose our opportunity. I think we really need to think about that. If I could add one other frame work for thinking about this and I mentioned this to Tom when we were having breakfast. I think we need to get clear about what it’s going to take to ultimately get to making a decision and I think the language that we need, needs to be accurate. I mean unless I’m really missing something, the real decision makers in this are ultimately, the City Council. Now that doesn’t mean there are some exterior decision makers who are going to make determinations on one percent versus two percent or those kinds of questions but the real question ultimately is that we’re going to engage, we’re going to inform, we’re going to get recommendations from – through different approaches but there’s no confusion that at the end of the day, the City Council informed by the Rail Committee is going to have to make the choices and the decisions of the official positions on behalf of the City. Now ultimately if that means we’ve got to pursue gap funding that requires saying a vote of the people, then in that sense our public is ultimately going to be a decision maker explicitly. I don’t think we can -- you can forget the fact that at the end of the day, this is all going to come back to the City Council who’ve got to make some decisions and that seems to me that by the end of the first quarter at a minimum, 2018, that we’ve got to get to that point. I would like us to think about this frame work that is – includes some things that has to unfold in parallel in some ways, even if some components occur later. Number one, there is a technical issue here which is what are the – what is the design, what are the impacts of—actually what we do at these locations? The second one is what is politically feasible? In other words, what is ultimately acceptable to our community? The third one is what is financially possible? What are the financial capacity that we have to have and I think we need to be clear about what we’re – in the process discussions, what we are designing to because in the end, what is politically feasible or has community acceptance? The City Council is ultimately going to have to listen enough and have weighed all that and say this is where we see this. This can’t be delegated to anybody else. You want to be informed by it but I think that means that you – we need to be thinking about multiple TRANSCRIPT Page 32 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 engagement opportunities. We don’t have for example focus groups on here that very well may be – for example, that you would say in this eight or nine-month period has some recommendation advance. You would really want to test our community and public in some very specific practice ways to be able then again, inform reactions to folks. So, I think those three things, technical, political, community and financial need to be kept in mind and clearly, we can’t do those in an expressly linear – let’s do the technical, then let’s see what happens at the decision-making process and then let’s figure out how much it’s going to cost because it’s not going to work. So, please keep that in mind, thanks. Chair DuBois: Adrian, do you have any comments? Council Member Fine: A few, so thank you, Josh, for mentioning that one- time line was not the ultimate public facing timeline. Although I think it’s a point well made that we do need to better map of this process. Even this one is a little hard to see but – the one behind. This one certainly, yeah. I just wonder if there’s something that could be a little more public facing for folk so they do understand this. Then to Nadia’s point about where the TAC fits in as well. I mean this does document it so just to be absolutely clear that the TAC is public, right? Mr. Mello: Yeah, those meetings would be open to the public. Council Member Fine: Ok, great. I mean I have some questions around the time line but I think our question here is more about what process we want, how many groups we want to involve, what value they add, how they funnel into each other, and then as the City Manager just mentioning of what is kind of the contours of the decisions that they are making? I guess I’m looking to you three what kind of solutions are we going to propose here? I’m not sold on anything. Mayor Scharff: I mean, I’m supporting the Staff proposal and I think we should have focus groups too. (Inaudible) good approach but I think we have to be flexible on and I’m open to different… Council Member Fine: I just want to hear from you all. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I still have some questions to if you are finished? Council Member Fine: Yeah, I think I’m finished for now. TRANSCRIPT Page 33 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: So, on that time line it says that Sunnyvale still has to go through design. How long does design typically take? Mr. Mello: If you look at this chart, you can see Burlingame took a year and a half to complete the design for Broadway; well, we’ll take a year and a half. San Mateo took, it looks like a year and a half as well for the design at 25th and Hillsdale. Chair DuBois: So, I mean it does feel like we’re definitely on track in terms of timing and if it takes a year and a half for Sunnyvale to complete their design, we’re kind of right along there. It does make me feel better and I guess so does the conversations with VTA about funding this corporately instead of compactivity. That slide you had on time for decision or recommendation if Council is going to be the decider, I think then what’s missing here is the assessment of the quality of the decisions. I’ve said it multi times in this meeting that my fear is that in the rush for timeliness, we have a decision the community doesn’t except and ended up either restart and taking a much longer time. Which again, that’s the way the Comp. Plan started was with workshops and then we had to reset so I just want to make that point. Mr. Mello: If I could address that? What’s not shown here is there would be a fifth piece which is going back to the community after the Council. That’s what we’re doing with – so with the problem statement, the objectives and the evaluation criteria, that’s going to Council August 28th. Then the first part of September 16th public meeting we will be reviewing the Council decision and getting opinions on that and then we move into the next decision. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I think we just want a process that surfaces quality decisions. I’ll see this PTC input that we should have some kind of deeper engagement. I appreciate the City Manager’s comments on kind of these three areas because that’s what I’ve been struggling with. I feel that we’ve been somewhat linear so far and to Council Member Scharff’s – Mayor Scharff’s comments about is the trench feasible? What’s the cost? Part of that is what is the funding capability and I think we need to start to work on some of these in parallel and really having a more clearly defined process focusing on these areas of the engineering aspects, the community acceptance aspects. I mean we’re going to get into that in the next section but projects that are realistic with the amount of funding we expect but right now, I don’t really have a good view of how much funding we could expect TRANSCRIPT Page 34 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 with Measure B. Then Nadia’s point about we’re kind of at a high level defining roles but we need to I think, get a lot more specific. I did appreciate the CAARD letter, I thought it was very well written and the detail in here, the example of this highway project where they had the criteria for membership, a kind of detailed outline of roles and responsibilities and criteria. We’re getting there but I think some of that real focus on some of that work right now is going to get us on a much stronger footing kind of going forward. I am kind of intrigued about the idea of just adding some additional stakeholders to the TAC. I think that’s kind of the biggest gap is we are doing these community meetings, focus groups are pretty qualitative but really having some ongoing engagement at a deeper level with a few more stakeholder parties and residents. I don’t think we have PAUSD on the TAC right now. It just seems like we are missing a few groups and having this additional viewpoint feed into the recommendations. Hopefully, it’s not going to add any more time and we’re going to get a much richer set of what the community is willing to accept built into the recommendation. I think the other thing that I wanted to say was I actually appreciated making it explicit about building on the prior work. I thought that was a pretty good letter from former Mayor Nancy Shephard, about feeling like we were ignoring the previous work. I think – I heard some of that at the first community meeting as well and a lot of the people that were involved in those early works were attending these meetings. So, I think it’s critical that we acknowledge that work and how we’re building on it. Part of that is the community has said multiple times that a trench is preferred and so again, I think as we frame this process – when we start a meeting talking about four separate separations, it doesn’t really allow for that other approach to be discussed. I think we need to think about how that is made more explicit. Then again, my notes are a little bit out of order but I keep coming back to the funding investigation and the example at the Saint Gabrielle thing. It almost feels like a parallel track of people focused on the funding. The last thing that I would like to say is that I do think constraints are a key part to CSS and they need to be defined up front. Again, it gets back to this documentation of process and rules and I think constraints is a key part of that, funding is part of it and where is CSS strong? I think you bring in these community- based constraints and just an example—but I’m sure there are tons of others that we aren’t even aware of but yesterday, the Alma/Oregon Expressway intersection was completely backed up on Alma; it was very dangerous. You know we’re talking about grade separations but we haven’t – it hasn’t been explicitly talking about the Alma/Oregon intersection. Those kinds of things would have surfaced I think with more community involvement in the process and hopefully, it will be surfaced in the circulation study too. Again, I would support the recommendation from CARD and that we consider TRANSCRIPT Page 35 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 adding a few more people to the TAC as recommenders into the process. I think it’s a good way to get deeper community engagement without setting up a totally separate Committee and a separate group. Mayor Scharff: Can we look at that Committee? I actually – I’m fine with adding some people to the Committee. I think that actually makes some sense though I think you want to workable Committee and you don’t want it to be too big. I definitely agree but I don’t think we should be adding ten community people and I think we want people with technical expertise from the community. I’m open to what we do but I remember there just being a long list. Chair DuBois: I think – so it’s in your hand out here. Mayor Scharff: It is – right. It was somewhere. Chair DuBois: Well, it’s page three of the… Mayor Scharff: Of the CAARD letter? Chair DuBois: …of the CAARD letter. Again, I think some people could fill multiple roles. Mayor Scharff: No, that’s what I was thinking, right? Mr. Mello: So, a better list to look at would be in the community engagement plan which is Attachment A. It’s on page 9 of that. Chair DuBois: Do you also list potential public members? Mr. Mello: No, no, no, for the current makeup it is identified on page 9 of the… Chair DuBois: This just has all of that plus some suggestions. Mr. Mello: I have not seen that list so I can’t verify whether that matches the list on Page 9 of the Attachment A. TRANSCRIPT Page 36 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: So where – Page 9 on Attachment A of the community engagement, got it. Mr. Keene: The one that says the Caltrain list at the top and then the community engagement identifies… Mr. Mello: That’s from the current letter. Council Member Filseth: Packet Page 74. Mr. Mello: The list that Staff provided is Attachment A, Page 9. Chair DuBois: Yeah, so again I… Mayor Scharff: Packet Page 74? Chair DuBois: Again, I think the CAARD letter actually copies all of those and then it has kind of a working list of potential others. Mr. Keene: Could I make… Chair DuBois: Yes. Mr. Keene: …comment here, like a real-world comment? No, I mean I think the tendency to get into the beautiful minds solution that just ties everything together is a little risky. I mean I actually like the idea of thinking about adding some folks to the TAC. I do think we need to get clear about even the TAC’s role because there are lots of important conversations that have to take place with other peer agencies that some may benefit from being really open and public. I’m sorry but some may be debilitated by that. I know we think that everybody wants to listen to us in Palo Alto but other folks don’t necessarily see that. I can guarantee you that if we did every conversation we did on the San Francisquito Creek and the JPA project on getting that project built, we would still not have some things done because we’ve got to be able to get together with some other jurisdictions at times and have some big arguments without it all being out there. Now, that’s not no decisions are being made, those are agreements trying to be reached. I think we need to think about how we’re nimble enough to have these different technical folks – maybe there’s a plan recession at times but then TRANSCRIPT Page 37 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 there’s some break out opportunities for us to mix and match in some way in order to be able to be most effective, so just a caution. Mayor Scharff: Yeah, so… Council Member Filseth: The City Manager is very eloquent about this and I’m going to be less eloquent. Which is usually when you do these things you’ve got sort of two broad level objectives. One is how do we get the right answer and the other is how do we make sure there’s buy in from all the stakeholders? The challenge here is going to be in a perfect world you have everybody represented on all of the Committees and you would get to the right answer too. There’s going to be a trade off in here but is that we’re not going to be able to get a lot of stuff done with thirty people on the Committee or forty people on the Committee and every group. I think we’re going to have to judicious about who are represented for the – sort of getting buy in versus get the right answer part. I think as the City Manager point out earlier is absolutely correct but ultimately, the responsibility is with City Council to make the right decision. I think we should weigh very, very heavily on what it’s going to take to get us to the right decisions and perimeters of what’s technically possible. Are we going to be able to afford it and what’s acceptable to the community? I mean that’s sort of the right kind of stuff and so I don’t think we’re going to be able to represent everybody who’s interested on the Committee. In fact, we’re going to have to make a tradeoff for how do we focus on getting the right answer. The best thing that we can possible to do get everybody to accept this is to get the right answer in the first place and then it’s going to be a lot easier to – I mean I think defend is the wrong word. I think it’s – I think people will buy in and I think we’re in a situation where I don’t think this is going to be the most decisive issue in our community that has ever faced. I mean we have issues in our community – there are really people that really feel one way and people feel vastly different that we try to reach. This one, I think – I mean the general high-level problem I think you’re going to get most of the community to buy into which is increase in congestion on the rail and impacts on – we want to – without – I don’t want to veer into the second part of this discussion but I think we’re going to find that most people sort of have similar values on this kind of stuff. Who do we need on the Committee to get the right answer and let’s try to not grow it too much longer than that? I’ll say for example and I’m just going to make this up so don’t (inaudible) me but the Water District. Yes, is the Water District relevant, yes. Is the Water District – may be where they fall in the trade off of if we make the Committee to big, we’re not going to get to the right answer versus everybody gets represented. I think we’ve got to be very judicious on that. TRANSCRIPT Page 38 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: If I could just chime in. The TAC is currently intended to be on an as needed basis so as we move through the decision-making process, the (inaudible) will reach points where we need to cross the creek and we’ll need to consult with the Water District and say you know is this something you guys can work with? Do you see any red flags? It’s not currently intended to be a regularly scheduled meeting. It would be convened at key decision points where we need technical question addressed from the different stakeholders. Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Chair DuBois: Just some thoughts again, I think having the TAC does not stop you guys from having stuff with Caltrain Staff and these kinds of meetings that the City Manager was talking about. I think those are going to have to happen; High Speed Rail Authority is on here, right? I mean we only have I guess seven groups confirmed and we have several invited. The TAC is not that large right now and I don’t think we’re – (inaudible) representing everyone, I mean that’s kind of an extreme. I don’t think that just adding a few would make it a much richer group and I do think that it maybe needs to be on regular schedule; again, for public participation, transparency, and also just scheduling some of these groups. Looking at these lists, I can see adding maybe a neighborhood rep near each crossing. Again, I think Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), we should invite them. Maybe the Research Park or I mean we have business representation to the Transportation Management Association (TMA) but maybe another like I said the Stanford Research Park or another business representative. Then the other one that I thought was interesting on here is the hydrologist just because the water issues keep coming up and you do have the Water District but that’s like four or five plus the seven. I don’t expect—even the people currently listed on TAC, I don’t know if we expect them to show up for every meeting so that’s just my kind of thought. Mayor Scharff: I think that we need to – I’m fine with adding some people to the TAC but I think we can’t lose sight of the purpose of the TAC. It’s a Technical Advisory Committee and you may also need the ability to create subcommittees if you want too. You also – I’m not necessarily comfortable with the notion that we should have to have meetings if they don’t need to have the meetings. They’ve already committed to making the (inaudible) to the public, which I think is a good thing but I’m not – I don’t want to basically turn the TAC into the stakeholder group. What I want to do is add some additional representation so that if the – if there are technical issues that people think why didn’t you consider this? That’s really what I view the TRANSCRIPT Page 39 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 neighborhood people saying. You know what about this technical issue over here, how would that work out so that that comes forth? Council Member Filseth: Right, how do you get to the right answer? (Inaudible) make sure the stakeholders are equally represented. Mayor Scharff: Correct. People who have technical expertise and they are also in the neighborhoods. I mean – I will just be honest, someone like Nadia for instance, I think has that combination of being in the neighborhood and having technical expertise. I’m interested in adding like three people, that’s what I was thinking. Maybe four but I mean not more than that. Chair DuBois: Well I think maybe Staff has heard our input and rather than be that explicit we could have a more general motion to have Staff come back with a suggestion for adding deeper community input to the TAC and what the roles and responsibilities would be; even when they would meet and not meet. I mean I would be… Mr. Keene: Well, just a second on that Josh. Going back to Nadia’s comments earlier about flushing out the process and I just think we need to be doing that here just a little bit so that we have enough direction. I mean I really appreciate the attempt to sort of morph some of these streams together but what is the reason for adding say our local citizen voice to the TAC? Is it technical or is it political community or is it both? I mean I think we need to get clear about that because again, to the Mayor’s point, I think clearly, we’d have to have some freedom to spin off subcommittees because I mean I guarantee a lot of other agencies outside us are not going to always want to go to a meeting with us with our citizens. Nothing against them and then they are going to say, wait I guess we better bring our citizens in to and then all of a sudden it a whole different meeting. We just need to remember that other agencies in jurisdictions see the world differently than we do. What are we trying to accomplish? Is it mostly technical? Would we – or is it representational of the community? It sounds like at minimum, if anyone that we want to provide representational piece, also has to be somehow technically proficient. That is what we are saying, ok? Chair DuBois: For me, it’s not really technical or community, it’s a deeper expert engagement through the process versus just a workshop. So, it is community members who (inaudible) more technical but I think the TAC TRANSCRIPT Page 40 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 should also be more CSS. In that it’s not purely engineering type decisions, it is engineering married with some community context. Mr. Keene: Could I provide an alternative? It’s one that I brought up months ago and you probably hate it but isn’t the Rail Committee really important? I mean…(crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: We’re the community engagement. Mr. Keene: … is it – ultimately you are the nexus between the Council and the decision they make. You are going to ultimately try to formulate whatever it is to recommendations the Council makes because the Rail Committee can’t even make decisive decisions on its own. Isn’t there some way to think about is there some more direct connection to the Rail Committee, rather than the Technical Advisory Committee? You’re going to have to get this, I mean do you – I’m not saying this is the right but do you have ex-officio members of the Rail Committee from the community somehow involved? Not the same (inaudible) but advice – I don’t know or some... Mayor Scharff: We do and they are sitting in the audience. (crosstalk) Mr. Keene: I know, well now we deputize them. Mayor Scharff: You know, I don’t want to expand the Rail Committee. I think that’s too complicated. Chair DuBois: Again, I don’t think that gives us necessarily the expertise in the different areas that are potentially missing right now. Mr. Keene: So, could -- I think we need to define those expertise a little bit if we’re going to come back with some recommendations. Then again, I think the TAC needs to be thought of as a kind of not static. It kind of expands, morphs, moves, grows, has a subcommittee as needed. Do you know what I mean because – there you go, ok. Mayor Scharff: I mean I don’t view the TAC as the stakeholder group. How I viewed the TAC is it provides the ability for the City to get technical questions answered. I actually thought if we added some community members, what it allows is there are some community people who can say TRANSCRIPT Page 41 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 why didn’t you think of this? That’s all and then they can then get those questions answers but you know, the community people come here and ask us to make sure to ask the technical question and that process. I think it’s a tough call and I think you – Staff needs to be really clear with us that we’re not going to mess the TAC up. Yes, there’s no way for instance that – if you’re going to make progress with VTA on stuff, a lot of those discussions about what we want in negotiations are not going to be made in a public forum. VTA is not going to be open to being, shall we say, have a bunch of our citizens yell at them and say this is what we want. That’s not the way it’s practically going to occur and I think we have to keep that in mind. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: If I could perhaps chime on – in on to that from the perspective – I think maybe in the dynamic here from Staff, I’ll play the engineer here and someone who’s spent a career dealing with other agencies on projects like this. I think in terms of motivation, one of the things to remember in terms of the other agencies participation with us as we go forward is that they are here by choice or they will be here and engage by choice. The typically bureaucratic response to a situation that they are not entirely comfortable with will one be either to not show up, which is really possible in terms of the TAC Committees or more likely will delegate it to junior Staff that will not really be able to contribute at the level that we need in order to have effective input into the decision making. That group dynamic is one to keep in mind, especially if you take as perhaps a given that to a certain extent, VTA, a Caltrain, a High Speed Rail institutional interest is not necessarily to help Palo Alto define the grade separations. In fact, it could be to just go along for the process, rather than necessarily see an immediate solution come out of that. I think that dynamic is important and perhaps to Council Member Filseth’s point, the right decision – the term I might use in terms of going from the technical to ultimately the political decision is a sustainable one – sustainable decisions. One that the technicians and the engineers will say that’s the right answer but then it comes to the Rail Committee, much less to the Council, and the Committee and the Council says the wrong answer, go back and figure it out. Ultimately, I think Staff is looking for a decision that can be made at a Staff level that will be sustained through a policy process and that it involves a more deliberation of discussion that obviously goes way beyond the engineering considerations so one that can be carried forward. I think quite frankly, weighing down the technical discussions too much will ensure that – as I said, you’re not going to get the really honest feedback from the other agencies that will help make a decision that will both be sustainable, as well as actionable at the Council. So, I think there are some conflicting goals there. To a certain extent I suspect that with identifying the right people in TRANSCRIPT Page 42 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the technical, it gives Staff the flexibility for how that interaction actually happens. It would be able to help bring that forward with the recognition of the issues that are important to the Council along with the way. Mayor Scharff: So what decision do you need us to make today under this item? I mean do you want us to just endorse the Staff plan plus anything else. Is that what you’re looking for? I mean or are you looking for just the discussion or what – I mean how do we bring this item to a conclusion? Mr. Keene: So, Number 1, we need some direction from you so we can start to move ahead. Two we’ve – for the most part, what we’re really talking about is what sort of local citizen involvement we’re going to have and into inject formally into our process right now? What I am hearing is that you want us to look at some way to use the TAC as a forum that can allow us to bring some of those perspectives or voices into the process. The Chair suggested that you give us that direction and we go to work and come back on that. Now I don’t think this is just – and Josh is freaking out thinking about how does he stay on schedule and all the twenty other things and what does he do on the shuttle; he's going to come back on that and all those things. I think there’s a lot of work that we just need to do at our level too, even talking with the City Attorney about how we could bring a recommendation forward pretty quickly on how to make this thing work. I think we would have to diagram and map it out that there will be some situations where the TAC is some subset of it and is just some Staff at some level. Then there are others that were engaged and it may be that we use our own citizen advisories to sit down and even on our Staff levels, to give us feedback or tell us what to do and then sometimes participate. I mean I think we could design that if that’s what you are interested in. What I am also hearing is we would formally all be agreeing that we can let go of this concept of this independent stakeholder group. I think we need to be clear about that. Mayor Scharff: That’s correct. Council Member Filseth: The way I say this is actually a way to avoid the scenario that Ed talked about. Just enough to avoid that scenario, right? Mr. Keene: I (inaudible) we’re not in any sort of chamber business team bureaucrat thing like gosh, let’s keep our citizens out of here. As a matter of fact, to the extent that we can ever be more effective, we will always do that. At the same time, his thing with the – we’re inviting people to a dinner TRANSCRIPT Page 43 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 party here from other places and if they really don’t like what we’re eating or what wine we’re serving, they are going to not come. We just need to be sensitive to that, that to some extent we really need their input. In other situations, we really need our own communities input to the technical recommendations that we’re going to make. Mr. Mello: I just want to say that this whole exercise today and PTC last week is CSS in process. We’re talking at length about decision making and how we’re going to do it and that is one of the core tenants of CSS; is establishing the decision-making process early on. So, I just want to commend everyone for – we are – this is the CSS process in action and we’re experiencing it right now. Mr. Keene: With that, let me just put a schedule thing on. Right now, we are scheduled to come back from the Rail Committee to the Council on September 5th on a tentative agenda. I mean it would be open to thinking whether or not the Rail Committee directions would be enough that we could put this together for an item – for the item that would go to the Council. Chair DuBois: I don’t think this is what Ed meant and I appreciate the comments about engineers and having a dinner party that people what to come too but I also think that we don’t want to go back to this old method of the technical decision driving the solution. If we get into this mode of deciding and defending and if the TAC makes a decision and you come to the Rail Committee and we don’t like it, that’s basically the old method. They are going to defend it and we would have to object to it versus a more collaborative approach. I just don’t – I think some public speakers said this too, I don’t want to call it CSS if it’s not CSS. I would like to figure out a way that we add like I said deeper community engagement at even what the TAC – being on the TAC doesn’t mean if there are subcommittees that again, there’s an engineering discussion and maybe it’s open to the public but doesn’t mean that all participants are at the table as part of that particular discussion. I don’t know how we would work that out but again, the pieces that I see missing right now are the neighborhood, the schools, we have some business and the environmental expertise. Mr. Keene: I think that’s really important but I just again think that – I mean the TAC itself isn’t necessarily how we solve that or – I mean I don’t think we have ever felt that stakeholder engagement is not central and representative. Stakeholder engagement that allows for the pollical community by in on technical decisions; that’s what we’re after. I don’t know TRANSCRIPT Page 44 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 that we can specify all of those right now but we could give more definition to that even when we come back to the Council. Even the idea of just some static representatives rather than free flowing, I mean we could have hundreds – forget the group meeting, we would have 200 people involved in a much more hands on way over the next eight months than we would with even just say one single Committee with ten people on it. You would get more representative voices so let’s just take PAUSD, I can’t imagine that we could get them to hang in there with us at the level that we would but episodically or appropriately engaging them, we could be sure that we do that. Mayor Scharff: I also wanted to say that I don’t view the TAC as making decisions on anything. I view them as purely advisory – frankly advisory to Staff and then Staff makes the recommendation to PTC and the Rail Committees and then eventually to Council. That’s – I think that’s an important point that we’ve got to keep in mind and then I think Staff needs to be able to use the TAC to get good information and I think that’s what Staff is pushing back on. I think that’s – we’ve got to make sure that happens. I also think that it's more than TAC, I think if we’re going to give this direction, I also wanted to give direction to go back and I like the City Manager’s idea of focus groups. I think some focus groups actually can really get good citizen engagement by going through that process. Then I also, on a third thing, wanted to give direction to Staff that we really focus on starting now starting to work out what a trench would look like and the cost associated and the constraints and how that would work because the sooner that we start around that process, the better the information everyone will have. I view that as the stumbling block in all of this, I think because those technical issues regarding the trench are going -- what delays this process. I don’t want to wait for people to say it’s – I don’t want to go through a whole process where we say let’s get to this point where we then decide that the trench is the preferred alternative. I want to do it in parallel and we may choose the trench as not being the preferred alternative but I want to take the risk that we spent all that time understanding the trench because I don’t think anyone can make the choice without having the information. Mr. Mello: I might suggest that similar to how we’re working on the circulation study in parallel to the Context Sensitive Solution Alternatives Analysis, maybe we start work on a white paper that looks at the trench… Mayor Scharff: That’s all I’m suggesting. TRANSCRIPT Page 45 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: … and starts to take the work that Mott McDonald did a little bit further and we could provide that as information as part of the decision- making process through the CSS. Mr. Keene: This is another aside, I mean I haven’t even talked with Josh about this but not everything just directly has to be in Transportation's wheel house. So, I mean I think we’re going to do some financial scenario planning what ifs on – under different possibilities. Whether it’s how we could look at what the appropriate numbers are, what does it mean on bond financing versus other things, so we start – again, these are high level but we start to put some meat on the bone about these things. Council Member Filseth: He’s really only talking about accelerating the existing process, not sort of getting into the decision of Alma crossing versus… Ms. Stump: Chair DuBois, can I make one comment? Chair DuBois: Yes. Ms. Stump: So perhaps one tool that would be a component of enriching citizen involvement which we could talk about off line, this would be legal and permissible for this Committee to enhance and loosen and supplement the public participation practices that we usually use. I know sometimes people feel that public comment is kind of narrow and constraining and if this Committee was interested in enhancing the public dialog process in this Committee, we can talk about ways to do that. Mayor Scharff: I actually think that would be a great idea. You know we’ve done that on some of the airplane noise stuff and I was actually thinking about engaged people are on the airplane noise stuff. I mean if I – if we scheduled a meeting on airplane noise right now, there would be one hundred people in this room. Two hundred people in this room and I got to say that we don’t have a formal stakeholder group but the airplane noise people understand that stuff than the FAA half the time I think. I mean it’s really amazing the expertise they bring to it. I’m open to us doing some of that stuff. Council Member Fine: So just a few things, I think it would be helpful to potentially expand this group but I also want to remind us all we do have comment periods at PTC and this meeting every single time, right? So, TRANSCRIPT Page 46 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 there’s that level of community engagement. I’m a little worried about just putting community engagement within the TAC because it seems like something we’re going to turn off and turn off when we don’t want it and if we’re having other agencies come, we’re just going to turn off the public engagement piece there so that seems a little shallow to me. Then also I do think Tom, your comments on finance are well taken. I don’t think we have that piece exactly. It could be the trench study that you’re looking at but maybe that’s separate and done more at the Staff level. Then just a last thing, Eric, I think you said it pretty well; we’re trying to make the right decision, we’re trying to get agreement on it and I think we, as Council, pushed more on getting the right decision, we’re taking on more of a political risk on the back side. I also kind of agree with you that the values around this aren’t as fraught as some other issues that we’ve faced in the City. So, I guess we should just be clear with ourselves about that, right? Chair DuBois: I’ll attempt a Motion, so my Motion would be to have Staff propose adding some additional members to the TAC, to add additional expertise in areas that aren’t represented, to define those roles and responsibilities, and potentially sub-committees. To consider adding focus groups and to start to develop a trench scenario. Mayor Scharff: Ok, I second. MOTION: Chair DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to recommend Staff propose adding members to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide additional expertise in areas not currently represented, to define those roles and responsibilities, suggest potential subcommittees and to consider adding focus groups. Council Member Fine: Is the trench scenario – it’s just the trench itself. Do we want anything on financial scenarios and directing Staff there? Chair DuBois: I don’t know if that needs to be a part of this Motion. Ms. Stump: Can we move – can we actually move that second part, the trench and the finances, to the second item and just deal with the process issues here? Mr. Keene: Just to be clear, I may leave during that part of it in some way but I’m assuming that the – whatever motion comes out of the Committee is not prescriptive. I mean it’s trying to clarify some particular directions but TRANSCRIPT Page 47 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 when we write the report to the Council, we may touch on some areas that are unspoken and the Council (inaudible). Mayor Scharff: It’s not prescriptive. Chair DuBois: So, do you want to read that Motion again? Did you guys get it? Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Mr. Mello: I mean I – well so Mr. Keene: That was good, that was classic. Let the record know (inaudible) Mr. Mello: Well I think without any kind of Motion, we’re going to put together a white paper on the trench. Chair DuBois: We’ll talk about that in the next section. Alright so, all those in favor of the Motion? Great, alright. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Council Member Filseth left the meeting at 10:08 AM Mayor Scharff: Ok, so I have a hard stop at 11 so hopefully we can wrap this up. Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Mayor Scharff: So now we are on Item Number 2, right? Mr. Mello: It’s still the same item, it’s 2B. Mayor Scharff: Oh, it’s 2B, right. Mr. Mello: So, it’s still the same item but we’ve broken it into two parts and this is the second part which will cover the problem, the objectives, and the evaluation criteria. Just to give you a background on how we arrived at the problem statement, the objectives and the evaluation criteria. This process TRANSCRIPT Page 48 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 started with fifteen community stakeholder interviews, which my Staff and I conducted across the street at the Downtown Library. These interviews included neighborhood leaders, advocates, former elected officials and local rail experts. The key takes away from those interviews were that the prior Rail Corridor Studies are important. There’s a confusion around the trench study, a lot of folks misinterpret the trenching study to be some type of alternative selection, when in fact it was just a feasibility analysis of what it would take to do a trench. There were also differing opinions on the CSS process, which we are pretty familiar with. Concerns about a pre-supposing solution so we – one particular interview we talked about how the trench could be more expensive than a traditional grade crossing and there was a disagreement. So, folks want us to be very deliberate about how we talk about the cost of each of the different alternatives and pre-suppose that one of them maybe more expensive or less impactful than others. Then we reaffirmed – there was reaffirmed that safety and visual impacts are very important. So, visual impacts around the potential to raise the rail road and there was a lot of concern around the impacts that would happen in surrounding neighborhoods. Following the stakeholder interviews, we hosted our community workshop. You are very familiar with what occurred then, that was May 20th; we had 130 attendees, 39 written comments. The afternoon of that Saturday we talked about the problem definition, objections and evaluation criteria and that were the – that session is where we got the most valuable input on these three topics. Over the summer we did a survey monkey community questionnaire. We emailed it out to 444 recipients, that’s the number of people we have on Gov. Delivery email list for the Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program. They sent it out via email trees to their neighborhoods and other groups. We also promoted it on social media and as a result, we had 791 unique responses within the two-week period. Nine-eight percent of those who started the questionnaire completed it, which is a pretty good completion rate given the complexity of the questions and the amount of information we were asking people for. The purposes of the questionnaire were to maintain community involvement, so you remember one of the key tenants of CSS is continuing engagement. We didn’t have the May 20th workshop and then disappear for three months and leave community member feeling as though we had forgotten them. We also wanted – didn’t want to bring anything forward to PTC, Rail Committee or Council without first going back and check with the community as part of the continuing engagement process. The questionnaire shared the draft problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria and then solicited input from the respondents on those three topics. After the questionnaire, we made some edits to the draft problem statement and I can read this if you want but it’s included in your packet. This is our suggested problem statement TRANSCRIPT Page 49 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 today and it’s – this is how we will frame this process going forward in this program. Instead of Staff or someone else deciding what we think the problem is, this is a community driven problem statement that attempts to clarify how the community sees the current issues out there and where we should – what we should use to developed solutions to the problem. We also developed a list of suggested objectives, it’s a pretty long and lengthy list and I’ll talk a little bit about PTC recommendation in a little bit but we may want to think about shortening this and being more pointed about where we want to focus our efforts on this. Then the evaluation criteria, we have three tiers and the tiers are based on the questionnaire and the input that we got during the community workshop. The ones in Tier 1 are what the community thought were the more important so facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes, reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings, provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclist, and support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements. That was something that a couple of our interviewees touched on as whatever we develop, we should – it should support Caltrain service not detract from Caltrain service or planned Caltrain service expansions. Then the tier two criteria and the tier three criteria are still important but they were judged to be less important than the tier one criteria. The PTC last week reviewed these materials and their two recommendations in regard to this portion of the presentation is to reconsider the inclusion of noise and vibration and other common issues near railroads in the problem statement. They felt that safety and circulation are really a primary issue and that noise and vibration are something that’s fairly common when you live near a rail corridor and to expect us to solve those problems a little bit of a stretch with our Rail Program. Then their second recommendation was to reduce the number of objectives to the top four. So, this is the current list of objectives and they felt that a lot of the ones at the end are just best practices and we would be doing those anyway; like maximizing Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources. They didn’t necessarily feel like they were worth while putting in the objectives for this program because it dilutes the other – the top four objectives, which are to improve safety along the rail corridor, reduce traffic congestion, improve circulation and access for all modes and then deliver grade separations in a timely manner. So, with that, I conclude the presentation. Mayor Scharff: The evaluation criteria and the suggested objectives, why wouldn’t you just have one? Mr. Mello: The objectives are a refinement of the problem statement – I’m sorry, I just got a… TRANSCRIPT Page 50 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: But isn’t – what’s the relationship between the suggested objectives and the evaluation criteria? Mr. Mello: The objectives are a refinement of the problem statement and the evaluation criteria, when we start to develop our alternatives, we’ll create an evaluation matrix which will rate each of the alternatives on how they meet the evaluation criteria. Chair DuBois: Like have specific metrics? Mr. Mello: Yes, we’ll develop specific metrics on how do we measure the reduction of delay and we’ll have a matrix that basically compares all of our alternatives using the evaluation criteria. So, the objectives are more policy, the evaluation criteria are technical in nature. Then just next steps, we’re going to City Council on September 5th; it’s no longer August 28th. We are hoping to convene the Technical Advisory Committee sometime in September, just to give them an update on where we are and not string them along too much; you know bring them into the fold and know that we will be consulting them throughout this process. Then we are hosting a community workshop on September 16th and then did pencil in a tentative community workshop on August – October 21st but we’ve been thinking more about that lately and we think there could be a potential to use polling and/or focus groups in lieu of having community workshop three because that work shop is going to be where we start to talk about what alternatives are acceptable and applying to the community. So, a focus group might be a better way to get more intensive involvement from the community and allow for more prolonged discussion about the pros and cons of different alternatives than a community workshop. With that, our Staff recommendation today in regards to this section of the presentation is to review the attached summary of community workshop one and the summary of the questionnaire responses and then provide a recommendation to the City Council on the draft problem statement, project objectives and an evaluation criterion for discussion of community workshop two and to inform the development in screening of grade separation alternatives. Chair DuBois: Alright, we do have some members of the public. Where did I stick these? Alright for Item 2B we have Nadia Naik, followed by Elizabeth Alexis. Nadia Naik: Hello again, so I’m kind of actually still mentally on the last section but when you’re looking for better ways to maybe have some of TRANSCRIPT Page 51 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 these meetings be a little bit more engaging with the public. Some of the things that we did in the last Rail Committee meetings in the past was that when there were lengthy discussions like what you guys just had, they would actually go around for a second round of comments because often times folks like us are like oh, but there is a mistake. So, for example, the two percent grade is absolutely a technical thing that Caltrain can do; it’s on their tech specs but it leaves the rest of us biting our finger tips because we’ve got lots of more things we could say so that’s an easy way to kind of get more engagement. The other thing that was done in previous Rail Committee iteration was there were a lot more working group sessions. So often times the Chair would have different sets of groups who might come up. So, you might have CAARD come and present what we know, you might have Clem Tillier come and talk, you might have Adina come talk but it allows you, Council Members, in an open forum to ask specific questions and get data. It also presents a way publicly for all of us to also help Staff get some of the things that they need. So those would be some suggestions on maybe how to – while you guys still figuring out where your stakeholders belong in this process, how to actually start to have a wider conversation. I think what I hear you struggling with at your – at its core is that you don’t want to make anything to official but you agree that the citizens have something to add and in the end, we all just want to have a really good conversation and make sure that we’re having it openly. So, I think there’s a way to figure this stuff out. I will say that I sent my comments and I warned you not to print because I was thinking of you guys that might be printing it at home and reading them last minute last night. It – the packet does not include the rest of my attachment which is – which would be page 10-36 which include excerpts from the Pennsylvania project. They have very specific examples in there of community criteria that they used to kind of measure their alternatives. Obviously, that’s a finished report so it’s much more advanced than what we have but some of the specific things are for example if you were looking at the Churchill crossing, including criteria that would say you know really maximizing how to get bikes across or whatever. They just had very geographically specific criteria so I would highly recommend that we continue to look at models of other projects to see how we can build on those and look at those things. I think that’s all I have for the criteria right now. I just – again, it’s going to be hard to continue to widdle that down unless there’s a kind of spelled out the process of where we’re going with all this stuff. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Thank you. TRANSCRIPT Page 52 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Elizabeth Alexis: Yes, it would be nice to talk more about the – I think there are some interesting things that were brought up about what is the role, why do you want normal people in a room with the technical experts? That’s sort of the magic of CSS is you’re asking technical people to think a little differently than they did before because on the technical side you get sort of stuck on standards and the book and what it says. What you are asking people to do is can you think of another way to achieve your objectives? Like if you’re trying – like for the Water District; I mean it really is a big project. We all the creeks that we’re crossing, we have a lot of water flow issues, and we have a lot of stuff there. So, I just – ten people going really deep is not the same as two hundred people going shallow. I mean it’s different, you want both actually because there are certain things that the two hundred people will give you feedback on but ten people thinking really deeply about the problem and that lead into the problem statement. I think -- and this is one thing to think about with Eric and some other people, I think you’ve got a problem statement on sort of a global level. That we have the Caltrain expanded in 2025 and that we have – we’ve always had limited capacity on an east/west and that’s already taxed in. That will just be – it will be a non – I mean nonviable but then we start to look – and this is where we can use the experience that we’ve learned from the previous studies and why we’re a little different than the problems that we’re looking at in Sunnyvale or Mountain View. I mean I think you can divide it up, I think there is a South Palo Alto project that starts at San Antonio Road and includes the station area because one of the things – the 2025 Caltrain thing is not just about the crossings but it’s going to be about as people who do not work in San Francisco because it’s a pain in the butt to get there, they will work in San Francisco. People who live in Palo Alto, who live in Los Altos, who live in – all of these things are going to create a demand to get to the stations and we need to be thinking about that when we’re solving these other problems. We have more issues with bicyclist than other Cities do because of our reliance and that for the high schools where you get in a half an hour period you get, I don’t know, five hundred people moving across the crossing; they have to be a different kind of width. I would look at – and as I think Staff said, you said oh, there are just two alternatives. No, there’s actually – I mean the permutations and combinations you get because we know – this is things that we already know. It’s expensive to maintain all the current turning movements so the question is, can you find a way because we do have a couple of crossings and the San Antonio Road is – we haven’t even talked about sort of looking at that area and what that can use or not use or the limits on what’s going to happen there. Looking across those South Palo Alto as a general problem, I think is one issue. Then looking at North of Oregon Expressway, including the California Avenue area because there are issues TRANSCRIPT Page 53 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 which are people getting into the station there and people getting onto Alma. Up to, let’s call it Town and Country, that’s one area because some of the solutions may include looking at the Embarcadero Crossing as part – taking up some capacity and then the – as the Alma Street one is really – it is a Palo Alto station area plan which we will need to do and thinking of those as three different distinct things. Chair DuBois: Great, thank you. Richard Brand. Richard Brand: Richard Brand, resident and I guess acting as an ex-officio advisor here, thank you, Mayor Scharff. A couple things on the problem statement, I think – and this comes back to what I outlined at the beginning of the meeting is that suggestion – let’s see, sorry, suggested problem statement. Cal – the a – High Speed Rail is going to be probably, I wouldn’t say possible. I mean as it is right now, High Speed Rail is a probable solution and we’ve heard them say that as they presented here so right now the wording is possible. Yes, funding is still up in the air but I think you need to consider changing that and that brings me to the other issue of the trench, which I think is a great discussion that’s going on. I think Staff though cannot come back with a cost issue until we have High Speed Rail tell us what they are going to do about four tracks versus two. Four tracks will change us and in fact, what are we going to do? Close down Alma and build a shoe fly along Alma to get the trains to continue to – shoe fly is an alternative rail solution. A four-track trench is going – where are you going to put the tracks? So once again, this all depends, I’m defending Staff here, on what the High Speed Rail people do. We need a solution – we need an answer from them on that proposal. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Next speaker is Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Yeah, I just want to talk a little bit about the problem statement. The – how you frame the problem statement gets into what Council Member Filseth said on the previous part of this agenda item, which is making a decision and having by in on the decision. In previous meetings and I guess at this one, it seems that the no project alternative, that is not doing any kind of grade separation; whether it’s a trench or clover leaf or anything else. That’s already been made, even though not in a formal way so, in some sense, that’s part of the problem statement in that you have already decided not to do that. Another part of the problem statement is the relationship to feature development. I mean if Caltrain is the only rail line and is not High Speed Rail, just to simplify it and their ridership is going to double, does that mean that half the people who drive – an equal number of TRANSCRIPT Page 54 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the people who are driving now ride on the train now. Well, it’s just going to come from those people so we’re going to decrease the number of people who are driving cars in Palo Alto by an amount equal to the commuters who come into Palo Alto and the commuters who leave Palo Alto. If the real situation is related to the Comprehensive Plan, that land developers and large corporations, who among themselves could pay for all of this and not have a sales tax and bonds (inaudible) the public, it they want that relieving that traffic congestion to be able to develop more and have more employees come in by vehicles so that you are back to the same congestion. What’s missing from the problem statement is the land use decision that is being made in the future when you make a Comprehensive Plan decision and those have to be weaved into that. Otherwise it just becomes an issue that you’ve already made a decision, for example, to do a trench or maybe the problem statement is (inaudible) by the City Manager, which is there’s this pot of money available within a short period of time and our problem statement really at the top is how do we do this so quickly and come to a decision that people buy in to get that money. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Ok and our last speaker is Adina Levin. Adina Levin: A few different points in terms of the problem statement and objectives and criteria is – as well as the process is that I think funding strategies really need to be a first-class consideration here because if a trench is a preferred alternative, the order of magnitude cost here is a billion dollars. Think about the heartache about the Adobe Creek Bridge in the ten to the $20 million range and that was difficult. We’re talking two orders of magnitude greater than that; a billion dollars is a little bit of money and the strategies whether they are bonding, whether they are taxing, whether they be land value capture, those will make a really big difference in terms of the burden on community members. The change in the community being envisioned in order to make some of this possible and building in the time to get the expert advice on the financial options and then the community input on what seems like desirable strategies and undesirable strategies. I think that needs to be pretty heavily weighted in the analysis and in the decision making, so that’s one point. Another point with regards to taking things into the account but not pre-judging. You may be familiar with a process that Burlingame went through where they had earlier phase and they said we want a trench. The Council Members were persuaded they wanted a trench, the community members were perused they wanted a trench, then they looked at the details and what – where they came to was they saw visualizations of the amount of fencing you need to protect electric poles and wire from people fallings on top of them. They concluded for themselves that TRANSCRIPT Page 55 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the aesthetic impact, they thought that was uglier than the other alternatives that they were looking at. That was the decision that they made and the other thing is that they looked at the water issues where they were located and realized that it would be extremely difficult at that location to keep it dry. They came up with, at the end, a split alternative that was different from where they thought they started. I do not have a personal opinion, Friends of Caltrain has no position on this topic so this is not to say Palo Alto should do one or the other. It’s to say that when those options are considered and people look at the visual impacts and the data, they may come to a different place than when they started. Then two more things more quickly if I might. One is about how separable Alma is and one of the things that I’ve heard from community members is around on the permeability topic, it might be possible to make additional through connections in that area but that would have timing and funding interrelationships. Even in the current value capture legislation where things don’t need to be in the exact same location, they could intertwingle. I know that has like some consequences that people don’t want in terms of process but that might be on the – be considered sooner rather than later. Oh, and just the long middle three only goes through Cal. Ave. Chair DuBois: Ok, so back to us for discussion. So, I think there are two parts, here right? There’s the problem statement criteria, objectives and then I think we’re also being asked to – well, just (inaudible) (crosstalk)…. Mayor Scharff: The problem statement. Chair DuBois: … the results, yeah, so that’s it. Mayor Scharff: Adrian, do you… Council Member Fine: Sure. I think the problem statement is pretty close, there are a few things that I want to change and I’ll start with the small ones. So, one is I actually do appreciate Richard’s comment about High Speed Rail probable versus possible. Another one that kind of stuck to me is saying the rail corridor also creates issues in surrounding neighborhoods. It also creates issues for Stanford and for our commercial areas and I think that’s worth noting and then the last thing is the biggest comment. I think it’s important for us to frame this problem as something else we’re committed to because I mean we could say like gosh, Caltrain is going to increase service and we should just fight them tooth and nail and not do grade separations. I think it’s important for us to acknowledge that Caltrain TRANSCRIPT Page 56 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 is really the backbone of heavy transit on the peninsula. You know many of our residents use it to get to work, many folks come down here for work, and so I think it’s worth acknowledging that Caltrain is expanding and it’s going to provide more service to our region and to our City but there are these connectivity and physical barrier issues. So, I would just recommend that we bring that opportunity in benefit of Caltrain to the front and then kind of do the butt. That’s my comment on the problem statement. I do have comments on the other things but you want to just stick with… Chair DuBois: Yeah, why don’t we just talk about the problem statement? Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I agree. Council Member Fine: Just stick to that for now, ok. Mayor Scharff: Do you want us to wordsmith this right now? Would that be the easiest thing for you to do or do you want general comments like Adrian just made? Mr. Mello: I mean so after this meeting we’ll refine it and bring it to Council on September 5th so I mean just input into the refinements that you’d like to see would be sufficient I think, as long as there’s general agreement among the Committee. Mayor Scharff: I agree with what Adrian said and I’m perfectly good with that. I actually think you did a good job on the problem statement. I think the unspoken part of the problem statement and I know you want to just do the problem statement but I think it bleeds into this, is when you put down objectives all the way – bottom is cost minimized right of way acquisition. I’m afraid that we not talking about that when we look at these grade separations that it’s up to 50 homes that are taken. I think that if we don’t make that explicit as we go through this process – you know one of the things may be minimizing eminent domain, which where’s when you talk about just right of way acquisition, people think it’s a cost. It feels like we’re hiding the ball so I do think it’s appropriate just to use the term right of way acquisition. I want us to be explicative so that people talk about it, that people – that the community has this discussion. I don’t want to get through this all and then 50 people’s homes might be taken, plus their neighbors and that they come out on mass and say we had no idea this was going on so I think that’s really important. I’m not sure that needs to go into the problem statement but that is my biggest concern with sort of where we are on this. TRANSCRIPT Page 57 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: If I could, we could certainly change right of way acquisition to property acquisition or acquiring property or something that is more explicative under the objectives. In the evaluation criteria, I know you want to talk about that later but currently minimized right of way acquisition is shown as a tier three criterion so a recommendation the Committee could make is to move that to tier one. Chair DuBois: Or two but I guess a question is do we want to explicatively say emanate domain? Mayor Scharff: I don’t know, I just don’t want to be ever accused that we hide the ball so I wanted them said publicly and I mean I don’t know how we do it, I just want it to be out there in the public and people start talking about it. Mr. Mello: Yeah, so there’s generally two types of property acquisition; there could be a vulnerary sale to the City and then there could be emanate domain. I think the emanate domain one is the primary concern if I’m reading you correctly. Mayor Scharff: Correct. Chair DuBois: Yes. Mayor Scharff: So, I’m good with the problem statement with the comments that Adrian made, go ahead. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I think I generally support the comments that both of you guys made. Maybe a few tweaks to something that Adrian had said but for me, I feel like we're burying the headline on the problem statement. I think it – we’re really talking about future impacts and that’s really understated. It doesn’t come out that no project is not really feasible because of these future impacts. So, I think that needs to be kind of the headline and so the very last sentence is some of these issues will continue to get worse in the future’ I think that’s just very weak. Mayor Scharff: I agree with you Tom, you’re right. Chair DuBois: I would split the support of Caltrain sentence with the but and I would actually lead with that the planned increase and frequency and TRANSCRIPT Page 58 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 length of trains by Caltrain and High Speed Rail will worsen all impacts. Then maybe follow that up with the City of Palo Alto benefits from Caltrain service and we support Caltrain. Again, being really clear that why are we spending all this money that doesn’t even sound like there’s a big problem here. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Development Director: If I could just respond to that last comment. Hillary Gitelman the Planning Director, I just wanted to let the Committee – make the Committee aware that some of the very strong responses we got to the citizen questionnaire were on this subject and they challenged us to acknowledge that some of the impacts, for example, noise, and vibration, may get better with electrification. So, they didn’t want us to lump like all the impacts are going to get worse. They wanted us to be more explicitly about our support for Caltrain service and acknowledge that while congestion may get worse, other impacts may be improved in the future. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I don’t know we quantify that they get better if others – maybe a little less noise but it’s much more frequently right? So again, we’re talking about I think more trains and potentially longer trains. Mayor Scharff: Well it’s east/west connectivity that gets worse, congestion may actually get a lot better because people will hopefully be taking Caltrain and not driving. Ms. Gitelman: But the number of times that the gates come down and traffic gets congestion… Mayor Scharff: That’s east/west connectivity. Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, the congestion associated with that is what (inaudible) (crosstalk) Chair DuBois: Something else is you need to be realistic about the volumes. I mean you’re talking ten times the volume in vehicles and 30,000 people on the train. Council Member Fine: I mean this is why I do think that we actually want to lead with the opportunity a little bit saying the City of Palo Alto is supporting the modernization of Caltrain, which will result in better service but that will impact our east/west connectivity, noise, vibrations… TRANSCRIPT Page 59 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: So, that’s the one thing that I disagreed with that in terms of a problem statement… Mayor Scharff: You think you want to lead with… Chair DuBois: … we should lead with the problem, right? Council Member Fine: I just think people don’t see it get and I think you articulated well like there is something coming towards us and not doing anything is not an option. Chair DuBois: Yeah, the other thing that I would say is that I consider Stanford and businesses to be parts of the neighborhoods so I wasn’t really clear what you were suggesting. (Inaudible) Again, that’s my main comment, that we should really be very explicit that these changes are coming and they are going to have significant impacts. Do you need anything more explicitly than that feedback? Mr. Mello: No, I mean I think we can look at ways to emphasize that more clearly and also, emphasize that Caltrain is a good thing for the community in general; the Caltrain service that is provided to Palo Alto and will be provided with electrification. Chair DuBois: Great, ok, so let’s move on to the objectives. Want to mix it up or go in the same order? Council Member Fine: I’ll lead off, I don’t mind. So, I think these are pretty good. A few of them, (inaudible) the PTC comments and what you said Josh, we maybe could knock off; like the bottom on maximizing Palo Alto fair share of available funding sources, I think we’re always going to do that. Minimize disruption during construction, I hope we do that every time and I think that’s kind of goes without saying. The one that I didn’t see here is kind of – I don’t know the exact phrase but leverage these changes that are happening and kind of coordinate it with our land use planning and other opportunities that may arise, maybe even doing a new station plan, particularly for downtown. I think that there may be an objective there in terms of saying there are big changes coming, we’re doing a lot of physical work, lots of upgrades and what are the surrounding land use station impacts. I think that’s all I’ve got on the objectives for now. TRANSCRIPT Page 60 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: Let me tell you what I’ve got. I’ve got – I actually think we should change it to minimize emanate domain and local road closures; I think that would be helpful. I think we should strike to ensure fairness in terms of the investments, improvements in North and South Palo Alto and let me tell you why. We as a community may decide we’re going to change – close Churchill, which would mean a much less investment in North Palo Alto. We may decide that we’re going to do a trench which is much higher investment in South Palo Alto and I don’t think it makes any sense to say the funding needs to be equal for both and so I think we should strike that. Chair DuBois: Is that it? Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I also agree with Adrian about getting rid of the last two. So, I would get rid of the last three to make that one change. Let me see, (inaudible) something else. Yeah, I think the rest of its fine. Chair DuBois: So, a lot of agreement on this, that’s great. I agree with both of those comments. My main comment was the third bullet, I think improving circulation access for Alma is a transportation period is an objective and that’s separating bicyclist is a separate objective. I think in your report you said that this was somewhat in priority orders, kind of clustered, so I think it might be good to make that explicit in the workshops and things because it is a long list. I don’t necessarily agree that we need to get it down to four items but I think there is some implied priority in this list. The other thing in the Staff report, you know there’s a sensitivity about talking about the trench because we’re potentially proposing a scenario but I think that’s an opposition to this and kind of recognizing the work of the past. So, I think it would be great if you could find a way in the objectives to reference the past Community desire – stated desire and Council’s stated direction has been a trench. We’re starting to look at this new approach just to acknowledge that past work so we don’t continue to get feedback that is why are you ignoring this one from a few years ago? I just wanted to completely drop it in and work it in somehow. Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I’m fine with that as long as – if it seems that the trench is not going to be feasible, I don’t want us to be locking in that as an objective. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I’m not saying that it’s an objective, I’m just acknowledging (crosstalk) (inaudible)… TRANSCRIPT Page 61 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: (Inaudible) Chari DuBois: …preference, right? Ms. Mello: I think we could certainly reference the past work and the community preference for the trench and then clarify that we’ll be going through a formal alternatives analysis process and we may end up there, we may not end up there but we’ll think about how to word that. Mayor Scharff: But at least that gets us starting on the trench work and I’m good with that. Council Member Fine: Just one last piece I’m missing from here, I don’t know again, if this one that goes without saying but to support the City and Region sustainability goals. There’s nothing in here about that but it’s not priority one. Mayor Scharff: Why would we add that? I mean I understand but I mean we’re trying to… Council Member Fine: I’m just wondering as we’ve heard about things like – as we’ve heard about things of – in terms of one -- like there’s the mass transit aspect of this too. There’s also like the bike and ped stuff, right? I agree with you Tom that separating bike and ped is not a first order thing. Chair DuBois: Well, it’s up there but I’m just saying that it’s not the same (inaudible) (crosstalk) Council Member Fine: As improving circulation for all modes. There are the electrification pieces, there’s kind of our construction management in some of these sensitive areas, there’s all the creek work. I don’t know, I’m not totally sold on it but it just seems like as I look through this list, that seems to be one key term we’re missing but we may not need it here. Mr. Mello: We could potentially expand the one that says to support Caltrain Service enhancements… Council Member Fine: (Inaudible) TRANSCRIPT Page 62 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: …to encourage sustainable transportation or something to that effect, ok. Chair DuBois: Alright, let’s get moving here. Criteria? Mayor Scharff: The draft evaluation criteria, right? Chair DuBois: Yeah. Why don’t we switch up the order? I’ll jump in and then we’ll go down the line. I didn’t know if we need to call out rail operations at a tier one. I don’t think anyone is talking about trying to stop Caltrain or anything. It just seemed not needed, I mean it was just an impression. On number two, I do think minimizing right of way acquisition should at least be a tier two, I’m not sure it should be a tier one but a tier two. On – then tier three, I think we should separate the – well the other part of that; finance with available funding sources. I think we should have something like determine funding sources and take steps to start to get them in place. I think one of the public speakers said making the funding strategy more explicit and that’s a class one problem. Mayor Scharff: Yeah so, I… Mr. Mello: See if I could just jump in so just to be clear. These are criteria that will be used to evaluate the different alternatives. So, it would have… Chair DuBois: Sure, ok so (inaudible) (crosstalk) I guess – well, I guess the other – yeah, maybe it doesn’t belong here. The other part on the cost that I forgot to mention is the last time in the workshop we threw in a bunch of potentially new crossings, which may have different sources of funding and I said it at the last rail meeting that I think we should be really clear about separation of costs on current grade seps from funding, potentially new crossings. I think that adds confusion to the process. Mayor Scharff: I think what Tom – maybe you were trying to get at it a little bit and I’m struggling with this too on the cost thing. It’s really not cost, it’s feasibility; it’s cost feasibility. I mean something may be more expensive and we may choose to do it but it’s feasible where as something may be totally unfeasible because of the cost. Chari DuBois: And know what’s feasible requires some analysis of funding sources but I’m not sure how we capture that. TRANSCRIPT Page 63 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: So maybe finance with feasible funding sources instead of available because it may very well be that… Mayor Scharff: That’s what I would say. Mr. Mello: …they are not available today. Mayor Scharff: I would just say cost feasibility quite frankly and leave it at that and knowing just like you’re going to do the work on the trench stuff in parallel. Jim said we’d start with finance and doing the financing part for availability. I actually disagree with Tom on the rail operations, I think support continued rail options on Caltrain service improvements. I think making that explicit is really important and I do think that we should move up to minimize – I actually think it's minimized, do away with the word cost and just say minimize emanate domain and make that a tier two criterion. Then I’m not so sure we need a tier three criterion. We may just have tier one criteria and tier two criteria unless you want to break some of these out. I mean… Chair Dubois: Well, I mean disruption of (crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: Right, so we could make – minimize disruption and duration of construction activities Tier 3. Chair DuBois: Well, we still have cost feasibility under Tier 3. Mayor Scharff: But I mean cost feasibility has to be under Tier 1. I think. I mean if it’s not feasible – in fact, it should be the number one criteria. I mean if it’s not feasible to do it, we should drop it. I mean that’s – so, I’d actually make that Tier 1. You disagree? Chair DuBois: I just think it’s a fund-raising effort so it happens over time and knowing up front something that is absolutely feasible – it depends – well, kind of like the order of magnitude of feasibility versus more accurate. Mayor Scharff: I realize that the term feasible is squishy, right? I mean what may be feasible for – but I think at the end of the day, that’s sort of a… Chair DuBois: But until we’ve done the work, it’s hard to know. TRANSCRIPT Page 64 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: Yeah but you can’t engage on the fund raising and decide that you’re going to see if it works and then end up not having any grade separations. You’ve got to have a plan that’s feasible, right? I mean I don’t think the plan could be hopefully someone will donate the money for instance. It’s got to be like what we did with the infrastructure. Chair DuBois: But the plan could involve private money, business impact money, and a bunch of other things that we haven’t been talking about. Mr. Mello: If I could just jump in here. So, the evaluation matrix that will be created using these evaluation criteria will be used to inform the decision- making process. The matrix itself is not going to make the decision so the way this could play out is under rail operations, for example, let’s say we get into a one percent versus a one and a half percent debate with Caltrain and they say well, we could accept 1.25 percent but not 1.5 percent. The alternative that has that 1.5 percent would have a lower score under rail operations because… Mayor Scharff: (Inaudible) support passenger rail operations. Mr. Mello: We could certainly… so it’s – basically this is just going to help facilitate the decision-making process. So, the feasibility of the funding would be something that would be if we’re building something that only uses Measure B funding because it only cost $90 million. Let’s say that would have a high score under funding feasibility but if we pick something that’s going to require a local referendum that’s – we haven’t done any polling on and have no idea, that would have a lower score under funding feasibility but it’s not going to be automatically dismissed because the decision will ultimately up to Council. Mayor Scharff: Getting back to what Tom said, what you just said – I don’t think we should be scoring that until we did the polling. Do you know what I mean? I mean I – what I don’t want to have happened in this process is we make decisions with very limited information when we could get better information. I would actually give you a hard time if you came here and said we scored this low because we haven’t done polling yet and I’d say well, let’s go do the polling. Mr. Mello: That’s exactly probably how it would – I mean we can leave it blank until we do polling and not score it but I mean I just wanted to be clear about how this will be used. TRANSCRIPT Page 65 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: Ok, I just don’t want to get into a situation with the bridge where we had the entire community go through this, we choose something, and then we are really rushed for time and we just basically do what the opposite of CSS; which is we say ok, we’re just doing this grade separation just like this because we no more time and we need to do it. We had a 5- year process and we went down the wrong path. Council Member Fine: I mostly agree with the Mayor. I do think the rail operations bullet is important, as is something about the financial feasibility and I think for Tom’s point, that could be a broad feasibility catch at that point. If we’re going to move the minimize -- I mean the use of emanate domain for this project into tier two, I agree. I think we can get rid of tier three and that the construction criteria, minimizing disruption during the duration of construction activities at a single location; it’s nice to have. I think we’re going to do that anyway and it shouldn’t just be the one hanging out in tier three. Chair DuBois: So, you’re saying to move it to Tier 2? Council Member Fine: I think that we could strike it and just move the right of way acquisition of the emanate domain bullet point into Tier 2 and then… Chair DuBois: So, I guess the one thing that we would be missing and again I’m ok leaving rail operations in there. It just struck me as we’re going to do it anyway; that was my only point. The issue of construction disruptions not only to vehicle traffic but also rail operations are we – do we suddenly… Council Member Fine: Impact on current (inaudible) Chair DuBois: (Inaudible) there. I mean are we going to like not consider an alternative because it has some construction impacts on operations. Council Member Fine: I mean that’s fair. Mayor Scharff: That’s fair but I actually liked keeping minimize disruption of the durations but I was just going to move it to Tier 2. Chair DuBois: But yeah, I’m ok with that and just have two tiers. TRANSCRIPT Page 66 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: But if Staff for some reason wants Tier 3, I mean three tiers, we could break up Tier 2 into Tier 3 and then we’ll have (inaudible) Council Member Fine: I guess that’s a little persuasive. Maybe that at any single location is a little funny then. I guess that was making think… Mayor Scharff: Why don’t we just say duration of construction (inaudible) Council Member Fine: Yeah, that was making me think we’re not going to impact a single household so badly for this but I think Tom, your point about it could like it could be existing service or another right of ways. Mayor Scharff: Well, if we take that house it won’t… Council Member Fine: We’ll we’re not going to take that house that’s why we’re going to try to minimize that. Mayor Scharff: Exactly. Chair DuBois: Ok, so I think this is mainly kind of feedback and I don’t know if we need a Motion. I did have a couple other comments on – so on the Council meeting on September 5th, what are we taking to Council? Mr. Mello: I think a Motion from you directing us to incorporate your feedback into the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria that we present to City Council on September 5th would be helpful. Mayor Scharff: So, moved. Chair DuBois: Second. All in favor? Ok, but is that the only thing we’re taking to Council? MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to incorporate the Committee’s feedback regarding the problem statement objectives and evaluation criteria and to present the new versions to the City Council in September; and Mr. Mello: Yeah, well we’ll also probably most likely has a discussion about the process again and we’ll provide the direction that we were given by PTC and Rail Committee to Council. TRANSCRIPT Page 67 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: The other thing I would just say is that I am pretty concerned that on the engagement plan around the alternatives, you were saying that it may not even have the second workshop. I mean the amount of people that can participate in a focus group on probably one of the most key steps is making a little nervous. Mayor Scharff: So, I thought – I’m with Tom. I think we should have – we should do – I thought the focus group was an additive to be honest, not a… Chair DuBois: Well, I heard him say that maybe we (inaudible)(crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: No, no, that’s why I’m supporting you on that. Chair DuBois: I think we need to think about that. Mr. Mello: We can do both, we can do a community workshop and focus groups. I think focus groups will enable us to get a little deeper in the discussion and spend more time… Chair DuBois: Yeah, I’m a little bit concerned about even just two meetings on alternatives and if that’s going to be sufficient. Mr. Mello: This whole process is designed to be flexible so I think if after October 21st, we don’t feel like we have closure on the development of the alternatives, we could have another discussion with the community. Chair DuBois: So, do we need to add to the Motion the idea about the trench white paper? Mayor Scharff: Yes, just add that in. Chair Dubois: Is that ok? Council Member Fine: Yep. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Develop a white paper on trench scenarios, which will address constraints to a longer trench while providing a more extensive look at the Charleston Meadow trench.” TRANSCRIPT Page 68 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: I just need a clarity; would you like the white paper to focus on just the trench under Charleston and Meadow or a trench along the entire corridor? Mayor Scharff: No, it doesn’t work on the entire corridor. Why would we spend the time on that? (Inaudible)… Mr. Mello: So, the white paper... Mayor Scharff: … can’t go past Oregon, right? I mean that’s what we’ve been told. Chair DuBois: I don’t know. I’d be interested in understanding that. Council Member Fine: Yeah, I would be interested in seeing the entire corridor and if there is that issue, spelling it out on the white paper. Mr. Mello: So, Hillary I think wants to jump in but the complexity of a paper focused on the entire corridor would have – I think it would lead to a longer turnaround time for the paper. I think we could deliver something on the Charleston/Meadow one a little bit quicker and go a little deeper than we could if we were to look at the entire corridor. Ms. Gitelman: What I wanted to add is maybe tearing off of the Chair’s comments earlier about constraints. Instead of a white paper that focuses solely on the trench, I was wondering if we couldn’t broaden it to just be more about the constraints that we’re going to face along the corridor with all of these things; particularly with below grade solutions. I mean we’ve done some work on that in the past but that needs to be re-looked at and refreshed and it might be a way to make it a little broader than just the trench at these two crossings. Chair DuBois: Yeah, that sounds good. I think constraints and maybe if there are any mitigations for constraints but I think the other part of it was getting a ballpark of pricing too at some point and costing… Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I mean we have that ballpark pricing in the first Mott McDonald study. We’ll dust that off, take a look at it, and refine it as we can at this point. TRANSCRIPT Page 69 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: I think it’s more than that. I’m not actually ok with that direction. I think I don’t want to have the $10 parking garage because that’s the best you can dust off. I mean I’m fine with an iteration on this but I really do think that we need to start honing in on whether or not that trench is feasible. When we talked about this previously – and look, if you want to do a light touch across the entire trench and if it is possibly feasible, I’m interested in it but all the work that came back to us last time indicated that trench over the entire corridor was not feasible. Now, if that’s changed, great but let us know but I… Ms. Gitelman: If I can clarify, I mean that last study which we linked to in the report you got today concluded that the longer trench was like a billion- dollar project and the Charleston/Meadow trench or no it was, I’m sorry. The one percent trench was a billion-dollar project and part of it is, is it went farther than just Charleston/Meadow. It had to go and impact at the Caltrain station and the Caltrain under crossing and all that, as well as the Oregon Express Way under crossing. So, there were all kinds of costs associated with the fact that it lengthened the footprint of… Mayor Scharff: So yeah, put all that in the white paper, I agree but let’s not just stop with the white paper. I mean I think we need to hone in on what’s feasible in terms of a trench and what’s not. Mr. Mello: I think a good format for the white paper would be a look at constraints to a longer trench but then go a little deeper into the Charleston/Meadow trench and look at sharpening our pencil on the cost estimate. Mayor Scharff: Right, that sounds good. Chair DuBois: So, I know you have a time constraint… Mayor Scharff: I do. Chair DuBois: …but if we could quickly get through Item 3 which is the Union Pacific letter, was that a re-sent? Mayor Scharff: Was there a re-sent, what do we do? TRANSCRIPT Page 70 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: This is just an informational item for the Committee to show you that the letter was sent. Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk: I’m sorry to interrupt. We had a Motion on the floor and no vote yet on Item 2. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to: A. Incorporate the Committee’s feedback regarding the problem statement objectives and evaluation criteria and to present the new versions to the City Council in September; and B. Develop a white paper on trench scenarios, which will address constraints to a longer trench while providing a more extensive look at the Charleston Meadow trench Chair DuBois: All in favor? MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 3-0 Filseth absent Interagency Communications 3. Cities’ Letter to Union Pacific to Inform Short-Haul Freight Operator Request for Proposals (RFP) Regarding Peninsula Grade Separations NO ACTION TAKEN Next Steps and Future Agendas Chair DuBois: Quickly on upcoming schedules and agendas. So, we have SamTrans hopefully in the next meeting. What else is on the future agenda? Mr. Mello: We’ll be bringing you an agenda for the September 16th community workshop. Assuming – I’m sorry, what’s the next date of the Rail Committee – do you know? Chair DuBois: I probably have it. TRANSCRIPT Page 71 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: Yeah, so we will be going over the agenda in the planning for the community workshop on September 16th. We’ll also be recapping what the outcome was from the Council meeting. Chair DuBois: So, I have a Rail Committee meeting on September 13th, is that incorrect? Mr. Mello: Yeah, I have September 13th from 8-10 on my calendar as well. Mayor Scharff: So, we are doing one on the 6th or not? Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk: Currently on the tentative, it’s for Wednesday, September 13th at 8 AM. Chair DuBois: Is there a reason to change it? Mayor Scharff: Oh, you know what, there is a reason to change it. The issues are that that’s where the League meeting is. Ms. Brettle: In Sacramento? Chair DuBois: Can everyone make the 6th? (crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: We do have (inaudible) but that’s at 3 in the afternoon. Chair DuBois: Alright so… Ms. Brettle: September 6th? Chair DuBois: Yes. Ms. Brettle: Ok. Chair DuBois: Make sure… Ms. Brettle: No problem. Chair DuBois: … Eric Filseth knows. Ms. Brettle: I will. TRANSCRIPT Page 72 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: The other thing that you talked about not starting the Dumbarton Rail letter. I guess since we moved the meeting up, we’ll have more time but if it’s possible to even outline a draft letter for that meeting, I think that would be worthwhile. Alright, anything else? Alright, thank you guys, long meeting, meeting adjourned. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 11:03 A.M.