Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-09-18 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers September 18, 2012 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 September 18, 2012 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. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 182-46-006, Palo Alto Agency negotiator: Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami Negotiating parties: John Arillaga Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment Special Orders of the Day 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Police Canine Aris z Kaplickeho hamru Upon His Retirement 3. Proclamation of the Council in Support of Plug-In Day, September 23, 2012 4. Community Partnership Presentation – 20 Years of Clean Bay Business Program City Manager Comments Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Study Session 5. Preliminary Review of Proposed Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) Affordable Senior Housing Development at 567-595 Maybell Avenue 2 September 18, 2012 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. Minutes Approval June 11, 2012 June 13, 2012 June 18, 2012 Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment 7. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $250,000 to Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 to be used in the Alma Street Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Project; and Approval with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. In The Amount Not to Exceed $1,401,930 for the Alma Street HSIP Project, the 4th of 6 Contracts in the 2012 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP PE- 86070) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan To Incorporate Certain Findings of the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and Approval of a Negative Declaration. 9. Work Plan and Schedule for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure for the November 2014 Ballot 3 September 18, 2012 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. 10. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Yeh and Vice Mayor Scharff Regarding Council Contingency Funds in the Amount of $25,000 for Neighborhood Grants 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee 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/Committee, but it is very helpful. 4 September 18, 2012 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 Standing Committee Meetings City/School Committee Meeting 9/20/2012 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report 2011-2012 Annual Review of Compliance with the “Mayfield” Development Agreement with Stanford University Third Semi-Annual Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Update Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3092) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/18/2012 Summary Title: Retirement Resolution - Police Canine Aris Title: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Police Canine Aris z Kaplickeho hamru Upon His Retirement From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Attachments: K-9 ARIS Reso (DOC) Prepared By: Barbara Teixeira, Administrative Assistant Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO POLICE CANINE UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a Police Service Dog (Canine) from February 2006 through July 2012; and WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru has been the dedicated partner to his handler, Agent Anthony Becker; and WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru apprehended numerous criminals, including suspects wanted for robbery, burglary, auto theft, and violent assaults, most notably was a wanted Murder suspect who was located by Aris after an extensive multi-agency manhunt; and WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru assisted neighboring Police agencies such as Menlo Park, Atherton, Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos and East Palo Alto Police; and WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru promoted positive public relations by visiting numerous schools, Boy Scout meetings, Rotary Club meetings, and outside training classes; and WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru participated in numerous public classes such as Citizen’s Police Academy; and WHEREAS, Aris z Kaplickeho hamru received numerous letters of commendation from the citizens of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Police Department personnel; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge Aris z Kaplickeho hamru for his commitment to the community and his consistent efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Aris z Kaplickeho hamru and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: September 18, 2012 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________ ___________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________ ___________________ City Attorney City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 18, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Proclamation of the Council in Support of Plug-In Day, September 23, 2012 ATTACHMENTS: Plug-in Day Proclamation (DOC) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Plug-In Day September 23, 2012 WHEREAS, petroleum-fueled vehicles are responsible for over 50% of our local greenhouse gas emissions and are a contributing factor to air pollution and climate change, threatening the health of our citizens and the sustainability of our planet; and WHEREAS, the imbalance between gasoline resources and worldwide demand is escalating gasoline prices to levels that overburden commerce, hurt economic growth and cause hardship to our citizens; and WHEREAS, the transportation sector needs support to move toward adoption of clean energy technology, including plug-in electric vehicles, that reduces our dependence on foreign fuels and supports a healthy environment and economy; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is dedicated to being a leader in the use of clean energy, establishing policies and programs that conserve energy and promote sustainability; and WHEREAS, September 23, 2012 has been designated as National Plug-In Day throughout the United States to educate our citizens about the benefits of plug-in electric vehicles and to promote their adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim September 23, 2012 as “Plug-In Day” in the City of Palo Alto and call upon all residents of this great City to join me in supporting the aims and goals of this worthwhile effort. Presented: September 18, 2012 ______________________________ Yiaway Yeh Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 3024) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 9/18/2012 Summary Title: Clean Bay Business Recognition Title: Community Partnership Presentation – 20 Years of Clean Bay Business Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works See attached Proclamation. Attachments: A: Clean Bay Business Proclamation (DOC) B: Clean Bay Business Factsheet (DOC) Prepared By: Kirsten Struve, Manager, Environmental Control Programs Department Head: J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING 20 YEARS OF CLEAN BAY BUSINESSES WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto began a Clean Bay Business Program focusing on vehicle service facilities in 1992 and provided positive incentives and recognition to reduce pollutants such as heavy metals from entering our creeks and Bay from these facilities; WHEREAS, vehicle service facilities in the Regional Water Quality Control Plant tributary area (Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Stanford) are inspected yearly to ensure they implement best management practices and 98% of these facilities meet the Clean Bay Business Program Criteria; and WHEREAS, 17 facilities within the City of Palo Alto have been a Clean Bay Business for all twenty years of the programs successful partnership between the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the vehicle service businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby express our heartfelt congratulations to the businesses that have made special efforts to protect local creeks and San Francisco Bay in Palo Alto by implementing routine shop practices that keep pollutants away from both storm drains and the sewer systems. Presented: September 18, 2012 ________________________ Yiaway Yeh Mayor CLEAN BAY BUSINESS FACT SHEET The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the Bay. Stormwater runoff in Palo Alto washes pollutants from streets, gutters, and all other paved and covered areas to storm drains and creeks, which flow untreated to the Bay. Since 1990, the RWQCP and the City of Palo Alto have implemented an aggressive water pollution prevention program addressing wastewater and stormwater discharges to San Francisco Bay. In 1992, the RWQCP developed a Vehicle Service Facility Waste Minimization Program. The program approach was to combine increased regulation, education, and positive incentives to encourage pollution prevention. Vehicle Pollution Prevention Oils, dissolved metals (commonly found in vehicle fluids and cleaning wastes), cleaning solvents, and soaps can all too easily reach either storm drains or sanitary sewers, causing water pollution. Clean Bay Businesses Clean Bay Business vehicle service shops and car washes practice "waste minimization" and keep pollutants out of both the storm drains and the sewers. In order to be recognized as a Clean Bay Business, a vehicle service shop must adopt special practices to prevent water pollution, such as: Closing all floor drains and sumps inside the shop Good housekeeping around the shop; minimizing the use of water when cleaning floors Catching leaks and spills promptly and cleaning up spills using "dry" cleanup methods Cleaning and washing parts in ways that reduce or eliminate fluids or rinse water entering the sewer Washing vehicles in ways that protect storm drains from soap, oil, and grease Storing batteries and hazardous substances safely Reusing or recycling vehicle fluids whenever possible Clean Bay Businesses receive free publicity in local newspapers in full page ads and recognition items such as decals and brochures to publicize their status. Shops that have been Clean Bay Businesses for 5, 10, 15, or 20 years consecutively receive special recognition. City staff inspects approximately 240 facilities yearly in the service area, with Mountain View conducting their own inspections on facilities in that city, to educate facility operators and evaluate compliance with Sewer Use Ordinance requirements. Heavy metal concentrations from vehicle service facilities that still discharge to the sewer have significantly decreased since the inception of the program, contributing to the RWQCP’s ability to meet its stringent heavy metal discharge requirements. An updated list of Clean Bay Businesses for the entire service area can be found on our website. For 2012, the following businesses in Palo Alto have been Clean Bay Businesses for 10 and 20 years. Palo Alto Clean Bay Businesses (10 consecutive years) Carlsen Motor’s, Inc. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Palo Alto Fire Station #1 Palo Alto Fire Station #2 Palo Alto Fire Station #3 Palo Alto Clean Bay Businesses (20 consecutive years) Art’s Bodycraft Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. D & M Motors Embarcadero Shell Hengehold Motor Company Jim Davis Automotive Maaco Painting & Bodyworks Nine Minute Oil & Lube Palo Alto Speedometer Service Palo Alto Unocal Service Park Automotive Service Park Avenue Motors Precision Automotive Say Ray Auto Service Sherman’s Auto Service West Valley Flying Club Campus Service/Valero - Stanford City of Palo Alto (ID # 3061) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 9/18/2012 Summary Title: Study Session for 567-595 Maybell Ave. Title: Preliminary Review of Proposed Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) Affordable Senior Housing Development at 567-595 Maybell Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff requests that the Council provide general comments to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and to City staff regarding the development of the site into affordable senior housing, particularly relative to proposed rezoning and City commitment for funding. No action is necessary or may be taken by the City Council. Executive Summary The purpose of the study session is to present and discuss the proposed development of 567- 595 Maybell Avenue for a 60 unit senior affordable rental development and 15 market rate single family residences. Staff is requesting feedback from the City Council regarding the proposal from PAHC, particularly relative to whether rezoning is appropriate to either RM-40 or a Planned Community zone, and whether the City should commit financing for the project. Staff will bring the financing request and land use application for consideration at a future date. Background Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), a nonprofit affordable housing developer, proposes a project that would include a rental apartment building with approximately 60 apartments affordable to extremely-low to low income senior households and 15 for sale, market rate single family homes. The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and -108) located at the corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The total lot size is approximately 107,422 sq. ft. (2.46 acres). The larger parcel (93,654 sq. ft.) and the smaller parcel (13,768 sq. ft.) are zoned RM15 and R2, respectively, shown as Attachment A. Both parcels are within one- quarter mile from El Camino Real, with easy access to VTA bus routes/lines. PAHC plans to subdivide the property and apply for the rezoning of the 2.46-acre property. The affordable rental apartments would include (59) 1-bedroom apartments and (1) 2-bedroom apartment for an onsite manager, common areas such as a community room with computer lab, laundry room, manager’s office, a resident services office, as well as outdoor common area space to enjoy. The affordable apartments would have an average size of 600 square feet and be affordable to households earning 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The project would be designed to meet or exceed the City’s green point rating criteria. Discussion The existing use of the project site is single family residential on the R-2 zone portions. The larger, RM-15 zoned parcel is essentially vacant but was previously used for agricultural purposes. Orchard trees remain on the lot. There are four single family residential units adjacent to Maybell Avenue and all access Maybell Avenue. The residential units, constructed between 1953 and 1970, cover approximately .5 acres of the project site. There is no site access from Clemo Avenue and the intersection of Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue is closed to automobile traffic. The primary issues for Council input are: a) whether the land use is appropriate and, if so, whether a rezoning to a multi-family zoning (such as RM-40) or a Planned Community zoning is preferable, and b) whether the City is willing to commit funding from its housing funds for the project. Surrounding Uses The project site is surrounded by the following land uses: West: Single Family residences North: Multifamily residences (Arastradero Park owned by PAHC) East: Multifamily residences (The Tan Plaza Continental) South: Briones Park Acquisition of the Site PAHC has entered into escrow for the acquisition of the site with an anticipated closing date of November 30, 2012. PAHC is conducting their due diligence and removing contingencies from the purchase agreement. PAHC is also in the process of securing financing for the acquisition. A request for financial assistance in the amount of $6.5 million has been submitted to City staff. As reference, the City has approximately $4 million in the Residential Housing Fund and approximately $2 million in the Commercial Housing Fund. In addition, a minimum of $1.7 million of the Stanford University Medical Center Project’s Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing payment has been dedicated for affordable housing. The financial assistance request will be brought to the City Council at a later date pending the progress of the site acquisition and comments from the Council at this meeting. Proposed Rezoning As stated, PAHC will be requesting a zoning change in order to develop 15 for sale, market rate single family residences and 60 units of affordable senior housing. The existing zoning (RM-15 and R-2), allows a maximum of 34 residential units on the project site. At the present time, the developer is considering two options: 1. Request a zone change to a higher density multifamily district such to RM-40, with density bonus provisions, would allow the proposed density, or 2. Request a Planned Community (PC) district to accommodate the proposed project. The 15 for-sale, market rate units would be sold to help buy down the acquisition and development costs. At this point, PAHC has not determined how those market rate units would be transferred if the project were approved. PAHC could sell the entitlements to a for-profit developer, partner with a developer to construct the units, or build the units themselves. The 60-unit affordable senior development would be retained and managed by PAHC. Staff requests that the Council provide general feedback regarding these options. On September 5, 2012, the staff Design Review Committee (DRC) met to discuss and review the site layout of the proposed development. Their comments will be integrated into the land use application and site design. Policy Implications The proposed development is consistent with the policies and programs in the current and proposed Housing Element. Goal H-3 of the current Housing Element calls for housing opportunities for persons with special needs. Seniors are considered a special needs population. In addition, in the draft Housing Element, the Maybell site has been included in the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) as a potential site to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). Compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood will be considered as part of the site design and rezoning, and staff expects to assure an appropriate transition from the single-family neighborhood to the higher intensity multi-family development. Resource Impacts A request for financial assistance in the amount of $6.5 million has been submitted to City staff for the acquisition of the site. The City has approximately $4 million in the Residential Housing Fund and approximately $2 million in the Commercial Housing Fund. In addition, a minimum of $1.7 million of the Stanford University Medical Center Project’s Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing payment has been dedicated for affordable housing. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required for a preliminary review of the project. An Initial Study and subsequent environmental review will be conducted, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in conjunction with the subsequent entitlement review. Attachments: Attachment A: Project Site with Existing Zoning Districts (PDF) Attachment B: Maybell Concept Plan (PDF) Prepared By: Tim Wong, Senior Planner Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 137-25-085 Building C Building B Building F The Tan Continental Building E 31.5' 60.0' 81.5' 15.5'15.8' 40.2' 101.5' 59.5' 24 226.7' 339.5' 147.0' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 559.5' 547.2' 101.5' 60.0' 81.5' 15.5'15.8' 40.2' 101.5' 127.0' 31.5' 39.9' 147.0' 119.8' 119.3'119.3' 119.9'119.9' 119.2'119.2' 119.9' 53.8' 49.7' 50.1' 50.0' 53.7' 50. 1' 50.2' 49.9' 141.6' 203.5' 80.0' 169.1' 171.5' 64.7' 15.2' 1.2' 590 580 595 4155 578 576 570 416 566 587 575 567 PC-2656 PC-22 RM-15 MAYBELL ENUE MAYBELL AVENU E CLE MO AVENUE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'80' Pr o j e c t S i t e w i t h Ex i s t i n g Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto twong, 2012-09-05 14:11:57 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR September 18, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment At its meeting on July 10, 2012, the Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended the City Council accept the City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment. The Auditor’s Office will be issuing quarterly reports describing the status and progress of the work plan. Respectfully submitted, Jim Pelletier City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment (PDF) Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Draft Excerpt Minutes (July 10, 2012) (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Updated: 9/11/2012 3:34 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR July 10, 2012 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Workplan and Risk Assessment RECOMMENDATION The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) recommends that the Policy & Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council approval of the OCA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Citywide Risk Assessment and Work Plan. BACKGROUND The mission of the Auditor’s Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective and fully accountable City government. To fulfill this mission, the Auditor’s Office conducts audits of City departments, programs, and services. The purpose of these audits is to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which City resources are employed, the adequacy of systems of internal controls, and compliance with City policies and procedures and regulatory requirements. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to submit an annual Work Plan to the City Council for review and approval. The Work Plan is based upon a Citywide Risk Assessment that is conducted annually with the cooperation of City management. The attached report presents an overview and the results of the Citywide Risk Assessment and the proposed Work Plan for FY 2013. NEXT STEPS As audit work proceeds, we will issue quarterly reports summarizing the status and progress of each of the approved assignments. The quarterly reports will be issued to the City Council and discussed with the Policy & Services or Finance Committee as defined in the Work Plan. Respectfully submitted, Attachment A Updated: 7/2/2012 1:15 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 2 Jim Pelletier, CIA City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: FY2013 Citywide Risk Assessment & Workplan (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Attachment A Updated: 7/2/2012 1:15 PM by Deniz Tunc Page 3 Attachment A Fiscal Year 2013 “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government." Attachment A 1 July 2012 CONTENTS OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR (OCA)...................................................................................................................... 2 OCA’S CORE PRODUCTS & SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 ABOUT RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 3 RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINED ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 MANAGING RISK IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 4 OCA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS ......................................................................................................................................... 4 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 AUDIT UNIVERSE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 7 INTERPRETING THE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 7 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 7 IT SYSTEMS INVENTORY (APPLICATIONS) ........................................................................................................................................... 7 IT PROJECTS INVENTORY ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 IT RISK ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 ANNUAL WORK PLAN COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................................. 8 AUDITS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 SERVICE EFFORTS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS (SEA) AND CITIZEN CENTRIC REPORTING (CCR) ......................................................................... 9 ADMINISTRATION OF THE FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE HOTLINE ........................................................................................................... 9 SPECIAL ADVISORY MEMORANDUMS (SAMS) ................................................................................................................................... 9 COUNCIL & MANAGEMENT REQUESTS ............................................................................................................................................. 9 MONITORING & ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 BUILDING THE ANNUAL WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 10 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 10 CONSIDERATION OF AUDITS NOT COMPLETED IN FY 2012 PLAN ........................................................................................................ 10 OCA ANNUAL WORK PLAN RESOURCE ALLOCATION ......................................................................................................................... 11 AUDITS SELECTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 WORK PLAN ............................................................................................... 12 ATTACHMENT 1 – BREAKDOWN OF CITY DIVISIONS & FUNDS ........................................................................................... 14 ATTACHMENT 2 – ASSIGNMENT OF RISK FACTOR WEIGHTS .............................................................................................. 15 ATTACHMENT 3 – GENERAL FUND RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS ......................................................................................... 16 ATTACHMENT 4 – ENTERPRISE FUND RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS ..................................................................................... 17 Attachment A 2 July 2012 INTRODUCTION Overview of the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) The OCA conducts performance audits of City departments, programs, and services. Performance audits provide the City Council, City management, and the public with independent and objective information regarding the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of City programs and activities. Our goal is to help the City achieve its strategic, operational, reporting, and compliance objectives using a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluating and recommending improvements to the effectiveness of the City’s risk management, control, and governance processes. Through our audit activities, the OCA supports the key governance roles of Oversight, Insight, and Foresight as described below: Oversight Insight Foresight OCA provides oversight of City management on behalf of the City Council and the residents of Palo Alto by evaluating whether departments have established efficient and effective means of doing what they are required to do, spending funds for intended purposes, and complying with applicable laws and regulations. OCA provides insight to assist City management by assessing the adequacy of internal controls; sharing best practices and benchmark information; and looking across departments to help management identify opportunities to borrow, adapt, or re-engineer good practices. OCA helps City management look forward by identifying trends and bringing attention to emerging challenges before they become crises. These issues often represent long-term risks that can sometimes receive low priority for attention where scarce resources drive more short-term focus on urgent concerns. OCA’s Core Products & Services Audits – OCA’s core product addressing performance (efficiency and effectiveness), compliance, and information technology matters that provide management with value-added recommendations focused on mitigating risks and improving internal control. Audits are designed to support the achievement of the City’s strategic, operational, reporting, and compliance objectives and the City Council’s priorities. Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) and Citizen Centric Report (CCR) – The SEA is an annual report that provides data about the costs, quality, quantity, and timeliness of City services. The report includes a variety of comparisons to other cities and the results of a citizen survey. The goal is to provide the residents of Palo Alto, the City Council, City Staff, and other stakeholders with information on past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support future decision making. Prepared in coordination with the annual SEA report, the CCR is intended to be a brief, easy to read document that provides a quick snapshot of the City’s progress over the year. Based on guidance from the Association of Government Accountants, the report is a method to foster innovative means of communication between the City and the public. Administration of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline (Hotline) – The Hotline provides an anonymous mechanism for employees to report fraud, waste, and/or abuse of City resources. The OCA is responsible for partnering with an outside vendor to administer the Hotline and ensure that all calls are reviewed and acted upon by the Hotline Review Committee. The OCA may, as necessary, investigate certain cases. Additionally, the OCA will provide quarterly reporting of Hotline activity to the City Council. Attachment A 3 July 2012 Special Advisory Memorandums (SAMs) – Utilized for time critical engagements including limited assessments, reviews, or evaluations as requested by management or the Council. These services do not typically conform to the rigorous audit standards required for Audits, but allow for important information to be provided to management in a quick, flexible manner and can be focused on singular issues. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit Report – Each year, the OCA contracts with an independent, certified public accountant to perform both the City’s annual financial audit as well as the annual Single Audit. Sales and Use Tax Monitoring – The OCA conducts sales and use tax monitoring internally and contracts with an external vendor for quarterly sales and use tax recovery and information services. The purpose of this monitoring is to identify misallocations of local sales and use tax generated by companies doing business in Palo Alto. In addition, the external vendor prepares quarterly sales and use tax summary reports that are provided to the City Council as informational items. Professional Standards The OCA must adhere to a set of professional standards in conducting its work. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the OCA to adhere to Government Auditing Standards issued by the US Government Accountability Office. These standards require that we plan and perform our audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the objectives of each audit. The OCA’s compliance with these standards is reviewed every three years by an external firm. About Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Defined Risk is present in every aspect of government. From financial reporting and investing to community services and public safety, risk is present in the delivery of all services provided and all activities performed by the City. The annual risk assessment performed by the OCA is the process of identifying and analyzing inherent risks to the achievement of the City’s objectives. Risk is defined as the potential event or missed opportunity that may negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its objectives. Inherent risk represents the risks to the organization in the absence of any actions management might take to reduce or otherwise manage identified risks. In general, there are two key factors in assessing risk: Likelihood represents the probability that a risk can occur. In determining likelihood, we consider the source of the threat or opportunity, the capability of that source, and the nature of the possible vulnerability in the City. Impact represents the potential effect that a risk could have on the City if it occurs. Impact can be present in many forms including financial, operational, compliance, and reputational, among others. Risk - the potential event or missed opportunity that may negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its objectives. Attachment A 4 July 2012 Managing Risk is the Responsibility of the City Council and City Management Managing and mitigating risk is the responsibility of the City Council and City Management. The City Council and City Management should continually assess risks and should take the appropriate actions (risk response) to address those risks. Possible risk responses include: Reduction of the risk by taking actions to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the risk. This is the most common risk response and involves the implementation of controls. Sharing of the risk by transferring all or a portion of the risk to another entity. Examples include purchasing insurance or outsourcing certain activities (although outsourcing does not relieve the City’s responsibility to manage the risk, it simply brings additional expertise to assist in controlling it). Acceptance of the risk which means that no action is taken and management is willing to deal with the risk as is rather than spending valuable resources. Avoidance of the risk by not participating in the process that initially generated the risk. This is often not an option for the City as many of the activities performed are required. OCA Risk Assessment Process Overview The OCA has completed this risk assessment as a means to help identify, measure, and prioritize potential audits based on the level of risk to the City. Our Risk Assessment contains four components: Environmental Scan, General Fund Risk Assessment, Enterprise Fund Risk Assessment, and Information Technology (IT) Risk Assessment. The OCA Risk Assessment Process is the foundation for the development of the Annual Work Plan. This risk-based approach provides the following benefits: Prioritizes high-risk areas within the City for audits in upcoming fiscal years. Ensures that the OCA’s resources are effectively and efficiently focused on where they are most needed in alignment with the City Council’s Priorities and the City’s goals and objectives. Eliminates unnecessary audits that may be duplicative or audits that may not address higher risk areas of the City. Environmental Scan Throughout the year, the OCA collects information that provides important input into the risk assessment process. Additionally, the OCA solicits input from multiple sources including the City Council, City Management, the City’s external auditors, audit departments in peer cities and other local jurisdictions, as well as regional/national audit resources including the Government Accountability Office, the Association of Local Why is Risk Assessment Important? Prioritizes high-risk areas for audit Ensures effective & efficient use of OCA resources Eliminates unnecessary audits Attachment A 5 July 2012 Government Auditors, and the Institute of Internal Auditors. See the Summary of Environmental Scan Considerations below for more information. Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Scan Considerations Environmental Scan Consideration Description Expectations from External Parties Consideration of citizen survey results, current events, & broad economic conditions. Input from the City’s external auditor and from Statewide audit entities. Benchmarking Input from city peer groups including surveys of other audit departments and research of current audit trends from regional and national resources. Expectations from inside the City Input from City Council, City management, and OCA staff. Past Audit Experience Review of past audits and audit recommendations. Consideration of gaps in audit coverage and the length of time since last audit. Current Risk Environment Economic conditions impacting City operations, current IT environment, and considerations of disaster recovery and business continuity. Risk Environment Forecast Budgetary pressures, economic outlook, and State / Federal agendas. Audit Universe The term Audit Universe is used to describe all areas within the City that are subject to risk assessment and potential audits. There are several approaches that could be taken for defining the Audit Universe. For this year’s Risk Assessment, we defined the City’s Audit Universe as the City’s 62 Divisions plus 10 Funds (9 Enterprise Funds and 1 Internal Service Fund). Due to the current structure of the OCA, we segregated General Fund Operations from Enterprise Fund Operations. A breakdown of the Divisions and Funds by department can be found in Attachment 1 – Breakdown of City Divisions & Funds. To provide a framework for assessing the risks associated with each of the Divisions/Funds, we identified 15 broad Risk Factors. Risk Factors are observable or measurable indicators of conditions or events that could adversely impact the organization. Applying each of these Risk Factors to each of the City’s Divisions/Funds established the Audit Universe. The Risk Factors were then weighted based on relative importance as determined by input from OCA staff (see Attachment 2 – Assignment of Risk Factor Weights). The Risk Factors used for this year’s Risk Assessment are described below: Attachment A 6 July 2012 Table 2 - Risk Factors Risk Factor Definition Revenue A measure of the level of risk associated with the nature and sources of revenues for a Division or Activity. Expenditures A measure of the level of risk associated with the nature and types of expenditures incurred by a Division or Activity. Cash Handling & Asset Liquidity A measure of the level of exposure to potential loss due to cash transactions, or the level of ease in which assets can be converted to cash. Purchasing & Contracting A measure of the level of exposure to outside contracts for goods and services. Considers the number and dollar amounts of contracts relative to the budget of the Division or Activity, the complexity of the contracted services provided, and/or the degree of reliance the Division places on the goods provided. Payroll & Staffing A measure of the level of risk associated with the number of employees in a division. Asset Management A measure of the level of exposure to loss, theft, or misuse of assets. Considers the number and types of assets. Business Plan Volatility A measure of the level of risk associated with the level of change to a Division’s business plan. Considers changes in the nature of services provided, changes in the goals and objectives, and/or reorganizations that may have occurred. Budget Volatility A measure of the level of risk associated with changes to a Division’s budget over the prior year. Staffing Volatility A measure of the level of risk associated with staff turnover and the loss of institutional knowledge. Operational / Service Complexity A measure of the level of risk associated with the complexity of operations and/or services provided. Considers the number and types of services provided, the key business partners/stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with operations and/or services not being properly executed. Citizen Impact / Reputational Risk A measure of the exposure to loss or embarrassment caused by the level of visibility and/or public interest in the Division or Activity. Reliability of Information A measure of the risk associated with the extent to which data and/or information from the Division is used to support the City Council decision making process. Considers the volume and types of information presented, the types of decisions made based on the data/information, and the level of reliance placed on the data/information. Safety & Security A measure of the exposure to physical safety and/or security concerns experienced during the course of normal operations. Considers employees’ exposure to physical or environmental hazards/harm. Information Technology A measure of the level of risk associated with the use of information technology by the Division. Considers the importance, impact, complexity, nature, and sensitivity of the information associated with the system(s). Compliance A measure of the level of exposure to loss or regulatory sanction due to the complexity and volume of regulations. Considers the City Charter, municipal code, resolutions, ordinances, Federal and State laws and regulations, MOUs, contract requirements, and grant requirements. Attachment A 7 July 2012 Risk Assessment Results We conducted a comprehensive, collaborative Risk Assessment that included detailed input from the City’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) in addition to the continuous Environmental Scan mentioned earlier. We sent out a Risk Assessment Management Questionnaire to the ELT for input on the Risk Factors and areas of audit interest in their operations. Each of the questions on the questionnaire had five possible answers ranging from low risk (0) to high risk (9). We reviewed the completed questionnaires and followed up with an interview of each ELT member to ensure we understood their responses and to discuss any audit related concerns within their Department. Additionally, weights were assigned to each of the Risk Factors based on relative importance as determined by input from OCA staff. The final step to completing the Risk Assessment was to calculate the risk scores for each Risk Factor across each Division/Fund. Attachments 3 and 4 illustrate the results of the Risk Assessment for General Fund and Enterprise Fund Departments, respectively. Interpreting the Risk Assessment Results High risk scores for a Division/Fund indicate that if something were to go wrong within that Division/Fund, it could have a greater impact to the City than a Division/Fund with a lower risk score. A high risk score is not a measurement of the current efficiency or effectiveness of any given Division/Fund. The overall results of the Risk Assessment identify the highest risk Divisions/Funds that may warrant and benefit from additional management attention and/or audit services. Information Technology Risk Assessment Recent significant changes to IT within the City include: Establishment of the standalone IT Department (previously a division of the Administrative Services Department). Hiring of a new Chief Information Officer (CIO) reporting to the City Manager. Hiring of the Information Security Manager reporting to the CIO. Given this restructuring of the IT function, the OCA is introducing a new, conceptual framework for an IT Risk Assessment. Starting in Fiscal Year 2014, this framework will be used to perform an IT Risk Assessment to identify and prioritize specific IT Audits for the OCA. There are three components to the framework for IT Risk Assessment: the IT Systems Inventory, the IT Project Inventory and the IT Risk Environment. When combined, these components form the basis for the IT Audit Universe. IT Systems Inventory (Applications) The IT Department is currently in the process of compiling an inventory of all IT systems used within the City. For future risk assessments, the OCA will utilize this inventory as the basis for identifying the IT Audit Universe. Important A high risk score does not mean that the Division is being managed ineffectively or that internal controls are not adequate. A high risk score indicates that if something were to go wrong, it could have a greater impact on the organization. Attachment A 8 July 2012 IT Projects Inventory The OCA will work with the IT Department to identify major IT projects that could have significant impact to City resources. Major IT projects are those with budgets greater than $500,000 or those that require executive visibility and oversight. Major IT projects will be included in the IT Audit Universe. IT Risk Environment The IT Risk Environment, illustrated below, identifies the foundational IT general and application controls and how they apply at the application and infrastructure level. General controls span all IT systems and are put in place to ensure the integrity, reliability, and accuracy of the City’s applications. Application controls pertain to individual applications and ensure that system processes and logic perform according to specifications. Figure 1 - Information Technology Risk Environment Annual Work Plan Components The development of the Annual Work Plan is a dynamic, continuous process. The Risk Assessment drives the Plan, but there are other components including: the Service Efforts & Accomplishments report and the Citizen Centric Report; administration of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline; Special Advisory Memorandums; Council & Management Requests; and Monitoring and Administrative Assignments. Each of these components requires OCA resources that are considered in the Plan. Audits We select audits from the Risk Assessment process described above. The Risk Assessment guides the prioritization of the audits selected given limited resources. IT Infrastructure Application Host Database Applications Application A Application B Application C General Controls Systems Development Change Management Logical Access Physical Controls Service & Support Processes Backup & Restore Security Application Controls Authorization Integrity Availability Confidentiality Segregation of Duties Least Access Network Source: figure adapted and revised from IT Control Objectives for Sarbanes-Oxley, 2nd Ed., IT Governance Institute Attachment A 9 July 2012 Service Efforts & Accomplishments (SEA) and Citizen Centric Reporting (CCR) The OCA prepares the annual SEA Report as well as the annual CCR. These reports are designed to provide the residents of Palo Alto, the City Council, and City staff with important data and information regarding the performance of the City. The reports are unique in that they are compilations of vast amounts of data obtained from both inside and outside the City and are prepared in coordination with all City departments. Additionally, the SEA includes the results of the annual National Citizens Survey which provides insight into residents’ perceptions of the City’s performance and allows the City to compare itself to other jurisdictions. Administration of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline The OCA is responsible for administering the City’s Employee Only Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline, which is currently in a trial phase. Incident routing and monitoring is administered by the OCA and the City Auditor is a member of the Hotline Review Committee with the City Manager and the City Attorney. Additionally, certain incidents may require investigation by OCA staff. Special Advisory Memorandums (SAMs) SAMs provide important information to the City Council and City management in a quick and flexible manner. SAMs are prepared in coordination with relevant City Departments and are utilized for timely communication of limited assessments, reviews, or evaluations. Council & Management Requests The Plan accommodates special requests from City management and the City Council throughout the year. Larger requests may require changes to the Plan. Monitoring & Administrative Assignments The OCA performs certain monitoring and administrative assignments including: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit Report – the OCA contracts with an external accounting firm to perform both the annual CAFR and Single Audit Report for the City. Sales and Use Tax Monitoring - the OCA monitors Sales and Use Tax payments due to the City both through our own analysis and through partnering with a third party specialist. Claims are submitted to the State Board of Equalization to redirect misallocated tax proceeds to the City. Preparation of Quarterly Status Reports – the OCA prepares quarterly status reports for the City Council. Annual Work Plan Audits SEA & CCR Hotline SAMs Council & Mgt Requests Monitoring & Administration Figure 2 - Work Plan Components Attachment A 10 July 2012 Annual Open Audit Recommendation Follow Up – as required by the Municipal Code, the OCA provides an annual update to the City Council on the current status of open audit recommendations. Advisory Roles – the City Auditor serves as an advisor to the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee and the Library Bond Oversight Committee. Building the Annual Work Plan Overview Development of the Annual Work Plan begins with the identification of the available resources within the OCA. This is defined as the number of staff hours available after vacation, training, and administrative time has been considered. Sufficient staff hours are then committed to SEA & CCR Development, Hotline Administration, SAMs, Council & Management Requests, and Monitoring & Administrative Assignments. The remaining hours are dedicated to the audits identified and prioritized through the Annual Risk Assessment Process. Annual Work Plan Limitations As with any plan, the OCA’s Annual Work Plan is limited by the following factors: The OCA has finite audit resources for the execution of our audits. This means that not every risk identified can be addressed each year, but is partially mitigated by the prioritization inherent in our risk- based approach. Risks and priorities are subject to continuous change and the Plan is required to be flexible. This could require certain audits to be removed from the Plan while others are added. All changes to the Plan are reviewed by the City Council for approval. Other auditors, typically state and/or federal, may perform audits within the City. The Plan will be adjusted to avoid duplicate work or to provide additional audit coverage if necessary. The Plan must align with the City Council’s priorities. Any changes to the priorities may result in adjustments to the Plan. Consideration of Audits Not Completed In FY 2012 Plan As a result of an aggressive Annual Work Plan and staff turnover in FY 2012, certain audits in the FY 2012 Plan were not completed. These audits were given special consideration for this year’s Plan. Audits from the FY 2012 Plan that were not completed include: Audit Title Status Rationale Human Resources Employee Benefits In Process This audit was delayed due to staff turnover. The audit is focused on employee health benefits. Alarm Permitting Recommend Deferral According to the Police Chief, there are pending changes to alarm permit processing. Will be reconsidered in future years. Grants Management Recommend Deferral The 2011 Single Audit identified, ~$9,000,000 in Federal Grants which represents only ~2% of the City’s total revenue. As these grants are generally covered by the annual Single Audit The City’s risks and priorities are subject to change requiring the Plan to be flexible. Attachment A 11 July 2012 performed by the City’s external auditor, we recommend deferring while the City addresses past Single Audit findings. Real Estate Management Recommend Deferral The Real Estate Division, within the Administrative Services Department, is responsible for managing the City’s real estate assets, generating revenue by disposing of surplus properties, and/or reducing leasing costs. This audit was introduced in FY 2012 as a result of risk assessment discussions with department directors. The audit will focus on lease agreements and rent payments associated with City-owned real estate. Recommend deferral to accommodate higher priority audits in FY 2013. Planning & Community Environment Development Permit Process FY 2013 In FY 2010, the City Council requested that the OCA review the Development Center’s permitting process to identify opportunities for efficiency and effectiveness. At the same time, the City Manager and the Planning and Community Environment Department initiated efforts to study the permit process and identify improvements, and requested that the audit be deferred until FY 2013. Utility Users Tax Revenues (Outsourced) FY 2013 (Tentative) Utility Users Tax Revenues have dropped in the last few years presumably related to increased cell phone usage. In FY 2012, the Administrative Services Director requested that the OCA contract with a utility tax auditor to determine whether the City is receiving all of the revenues that it is entitled to receive. Wastewater Treatment Fund FY 2013 The Regional Water Quality Control Plant provides services to Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. This audit will focus on the cost-sharing agreements and allocation of charges to partner agencies. Construction Process FY 2013 Recommended by the Finance Committee in FY 2012, this audit will assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s construction management practices as they relate to the bidding and change order process. OCA Annual Work Plan Resource Allocation As discussed above, the Annual Work Plan is limited by the finite resources of the OCA. The chart summarizes available staff hours and how they are applied to the various components of the Plan. The Plan may be adjusted throughout the year to accommodate the changing risk environment. If a situation arises that requires OCA attention and resources are not available, the City Auditor may request additional funding from the City Council to support the use of external, supplementary resources. 46% 29% 8% 1% 2% 14% OCA Resource Allocation (hrs) Risk Based Audits SEA & CCR Hotline Administration SAMs Council & Mgt Requests Monitoring & Administration Attachment A 12 July 2012 Audits Selected for the Fiscal Year 2013 Work Plan The following table summarizes the audits that were selected for this year’s Work Plan: Audit Department Preliminary Scope* Planned Hours* Council Committee Human Resources Employee Benefits Human Resources and ASD-Payroll Carryover from FY 2012. Examination of benefit oversight, costs, and administration through the HR Department. Will include ASD’s administration process over the General Benefits Fund and the Retiree Health Benefit Fund as needed. Due to the size and complexity, we will limit the scope to health benefits for both current and retired employees. 400 Policy & Services Development Permit Process Development Center (multiple departments) This audit will seek to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Development Permit Process. 600 Policy & Services Construction Process Public Works The audit will assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s construction management practices including compliance with applicable policies, regulations, and key contract terms. This audit will be limited to the bidding and change order processes within the overall construction management framework. 560 Policy & Services Utilities Asset Management Utilities Specific concerns regarding the effective and efficient safeguarding of certain assets were identified during the Risk Assessment process. This audit will follow up on those concerns and assess the adequacy of controls over Utilities assets including compliance with relevant policies and the Municipal Code. 320 Finance Wastewater Treatment Fund Public Works The Regional Water Quality Control Plant provides services to Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. This audit will assess whether the cost- sharing agreements and allocation of charges to partner agencies have been properly implemented and maintained. 600 Finance Utility Users Tax Revenues (Tentative, Outsourced) Utilities Utilizing a utility tax expert, this audit will determine whether the City is receiving all of the Utility Users Tax revenues that it is entitled to receive. This Audit is marked as tentative as follow up research will be performed to ensure the City’s exposure to missed UUT funds remains high before OCA requests additional funding from the City Council to outsource the audit. 40 Finance Pcard and/or Payroll Analytic Development Administrative Services The OCA will begin development of data analytics that can be used to continuously audit certain high risk processes. As time allows, we will begin to identify and develop analytics for the Pcard and/or Payroll processes. 40 N/A *Preliminary scope and/or planned hours may change based upon the preliminary survey of the audit. Attachment A 13 July 2012 Intentionally Left Blank Attachment A 14 July 2012 Attachment 1 – Breakdown of City Divisions & Funds •Administration •Consultation & Advisory •Litigation & Dispute Resolution •Official & Administration Duties City Attorney •Public Information •Council Support Services •Election/Conflict of Interest •Legislative Records Managment •Administrative Citations City Clerk •Admin & City Management •Public Communication •Sustainability •Economic Development City Manager •Administration •Accounting •Purchasing •Real Estate •Treasury •Office of Management & Budget Administrative Services •Admin & Human Services •Arts & Sciences •Open Space, Parks & Golf •Recreations & Cubberley Community Services •Fire Administration •Emergency Response •Environmental Safety Management •Training •Personnel Fire Department •Admin, Emp-Org Development & HR Systems •Employee/Labor Relations •Benefits/Compensation •Recruitment •Risk Management, Safety & Workers Compensation Human Resources •Administration •Collection & Technical Services •Public Services Library •Administration •Advanced Planning •Building •Current Planning •Development Center •Transportation •Code Enforcement Planning & Community Environment •Administration •Field Services •Technical Services •Investigations & Crime Prev. •Traffic Services •Police Personnel Selection •Animal Services •Parking Services Police Department •Office of Emergency Services Office of Emergency Services •Administration •Streets •Trees •Structures & Grounds •Engineering •Vehicle Replacement Fund Public Works •Refuse Fund •Storm Drainage Fund •Wastewater Treatment Fund •Airport Fund Public Works (Enterprise Funds) •Administration •Engineering •Resource Management •Customer Support •Operations Utilities (Enterprise Funds) •Electric Fund •Fiber Optic Fund •Gas Fund •Wastewater Collection Fund •Water Fund Utilities (Enterprise Funds) Attachment A 15 July 2012 Attachment 2 – Assignment of Risk Factor Weights Based on their experience and knowledge, OCA staff recorded whether they felt the Risk Factors listed down the left of the matrix have a greater level of inherent risk when compared to the Risk Factors along the top of the matrix. The results were used to calculate the weights to apply to each of the Risk Factors in the Risk Assessment. Column1 Re v e n u e Ex p e n d i t u r e s Ca s h H a n d l i n g & A s s e t L i q u i d i t y Pu r c h a s i n g & C o n t r a c t i n g Pa y r o l l & S t a f f i n g As s e t M a n a g e m e n t Bu s i n e s s P l a n V o l a t i l i t y Bu d g e t V o l a t i l i t y St a f f i n g V o l a t i l i t y Op e r a t i o n a l / S e r v i c e C o m p l e x i t y Ci t i z e n I m p a c t / R e p u t a t i o n a l R i s k Re l i a b i l i t y o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sa f e t y & S e c u r i t y In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Co m p l i a n c e Total % of Total Weight Revenue 1 1 0 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 18 3.4%3.4 Expenditures 4 3 2 4 2 5 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 46 8.7%8.7 Cash Handling & Asset Liquidity 4 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 32 6.1%6.1 Purchasing & Contracting 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 58 11.0%11.0 Payroll & Staffing 3 1 3 0 0 4 3 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 23 4.4%4.4 Asset Management 4 3 2 0 5 5 3 4 3 3 0 1 2 1 36 6.8%6.8 Business Plan Volatility 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 13 2.5%2.5 Budget Volatility 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 26 4.9%4.9 Staffing Volatility 3 2 2 0 3 1 3 2 4 4 1 1 3 0 29 5.5%5.5 Operational/Service Complexity 3 1 3 0 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 23 4.4%4.4 Citizen Impact/Reputational Risk 4 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 0 1 0 0 23 4.4%4.4 Reliability of Information 5 2 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 2 0 1 47 8.9%8.9 Safety & Security 4 2 3 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 47 8.9%8.9 Information Technology 4 3 4 2 5 3 5 4 2 4 5 5 3 3 52 9.9%9.9 Compliance 5 2 4 2 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 2 53 10.1%10.1 Attachment A 16 July 2012 Attachment 3 – General Fund Risk Assessment Results 4.4 5.5 8.7 3.4 6.1 10.1 2.5 4.9 6.8 4.4 9.9 4.4 8.9 8.9 11.0 Department Division Pa y r o l l & S t a f f i n g St a f f i n g V o l a t i l i t y Ex p e n d i t u r e s Re v e n u e s Ca s h H a n d l i n g & A s s e t L i q u i d i t y Co m p l i a n c e Bu s i n e s s P l a n V o l a t i l i t y Bu d g e t V o l a t i l i t y As s e t M a n a g e m e n t Op e r a t i o n a l / S e r v i c e C o m p l e x i t y In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Ci t i z e n I m p a c t / R e p u t a t i o n a l R i s k Sa f e t y & S e c u r i t y Re l i a b i l i t y o f I n f o r m a t i o n Pu r c h a s i n g & C o n t r a c t i n g Di v i s i o n T o t a l City Attorney Administration 16 33 29 31 0 0 11 18 23 0 55 16 30 50 0 310 City Attorney Consultation & Advisory 27 33 68 0 21 100 11 18 23 49 98 16 50 89 60 662 City Attorney Litigation & Dispute Resolution 16 33 29 0 21 33 18 18 23 49 98 49 30 89 84 589 City Attorney Official & Administration Duties 16 33 29 0 0 33 11 18 23 49 76 49 30 89 0 455 City Clerk Public Information 16 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 39 16 33 38 50 30 0 254 City Clerk Council Support Services 27 20 49 0 0 100 0 0 70 49 55 49 50 89 36 591 City Clerk Election/Conflict of Interest 16 0 29 0 0 56 0 53 70 49 98 49 50 89 0 558 City Clerk Legislative Records Management 27 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 39 38 33 38 30 89 36 385 City Clerk Administrative Citations 16 0 29 0 0 56 0 18 0 38 55 27 69 30 0 337 City Manager Admin & City Management 27 46 68 22 21 56 18 18 0 49 76 38 30 89 36 592 City Manager Public Communication 5 33 29 0 0 0 0 53 0 38 76 38 30 30 36 367 City Manager Sustainability 16 59 29 0 0 56 11 18 0 38 33 38 30 89 36 451 City Manager Economic Development 16 33 29 0 0 33 18 30 23 49 76 38 30 69 36 479 Administrative Services Administration 16 20 49 0 21 100 18 18 70 49 98 49 30 89 60 685 Administrative Services Accounting 38 33 68 0 50 78 11 41 70 49 98 49 30 89 36 738 Administrative Services Purchasing 27 46 49 0 36 100 18 0 23 49 98 49 30 50 84 656 Administrative Services Real Estate 27 59 49 22 21 33 25 41 55 49 55 38 50 89 84 695 Administrative Services Treasury 38 20 68 0 64 78 0 0 70 49 55 16 50 69 60 635 Administrative Services Office of Management & Budget 27 59 49 0 21 78 25 53 23 49 98 49 30 89 60 708 Community Services Administration & Human Services 27 33 87 0 0 33 0 0 23 38 55 16 30 50 60 451 Community Services Arts & Sciences 49 33 87 31 36 33 11 18 39 38 55 38 30 30 60 585 Community Services Open Space, Parks, & Golf 49 33 87 40 21 33 0 0 23 38 33 38 50 50 60 553 Community Services Recreation & Cubberley 49 20 87 31 36 33 11 18 39 38 55 38 30 50 60 592 Fire Department Fire Administration 16 46 68 0 21 100 32 53 23 49 98 38 69 69 36 718 Fire Department Emergency Response 49 59 87 40 21 56 25 18 39 49 98 49 69 69 84 810 Fire Department Environmental Safety Management 38 59 87 31 36 56 0 41 39 38 76 27 30 30 36 622 Fire Department Training 16 59 0 0 0 100 0 18 0 49 98 27 89 30 36 521 Fire Department Personnel 16 59 0 0 0 78 18 18 0 38 55 49 69 69 36 503 Human Resources Adm., Emp-Org Dev. & HR Systems 16 46 49 0 0 100 18 18 0 49 98 38 69 69 36 604 Human Resources Employee/Labor Relations 16 59 49 0 0 100 18 30 0 49 98 49 30 89 84 668 Human Resources Benefits/Compensation 16 46 29 0 21 78 18 18 0 38 98 27 30 69 108 595 Human Resources Recruitment 16 46 49 0 0 100 11 30 0 38 98 27 30 50 60 552 Human Resources Risk Mgt, Safety, & Workers Comp 16 20 29 0 21 78 0 18 0 49 76 38 69 30 60 503 Library Administration 16 59 68 0 21 33 18 30 23 49 55 27 30 50 36 513 Library Collection & Technical Services 27 59 49 22 0 33 18 18 39 38 76 27 30 30 84 548 Library Public Services 49 20 87 13 36 33 18 18 23 27 76 27 50 30 60 566 Planning & Community Env.Administration 27 33 49 0 0 33 11 18 23 38 98 49 30 89 60 556 Planning & Community Env.Advanced Planning 27 59 68 13 0 100 18 18 23 49 76 38 30 89 84 691 Planning & Community Env.Building 38 33 87 40 0 56 18 53 39 49 76 38 69 50 84 728 Planning & Community Env.Current Planning 27 33 68 31 0 0 18 41 0 49 98 49 30 89 84 615 Planning & Community Env.Development Center 27 59 49 0 0 33 32 0 0 49 98 49 30 69 60 553 Planning & Community Env.Transportation 27 33 68 22 21 78 18 0 23 49 98 49 69 89 84 727 Planning & Community Env.Code Enforcement 16 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 23 49 55 49 50 30 36 336 Police Department Administration 16 20 49 0 21 100 32 53 23 49 98 49 89 89 36 723 Police Department Field Services 49 59 87 31 21 56 25 30 39 49 98 49 89 89 84 853 Police Department Technical Services 49 59 87 22 21 56 18 0 39 38 98 38 30 69 108 730 Police Department Investigations & Crime Prevention 38 59 87 40 50 33 0 18 39 49 98 49 50 30 60 697 Police Department Traffic Services 27 20 68 0 21 33 25 53 39 38 76 49 89 89 36 663 Police Department Police Personnel Selection 27 20 68 13 21 78 0 0 0 38 98 49 30 50 60 550 Police Department Animal Services 38 20 68 22 36 100 18 53 55 49 76 49 69 50 84 784 Police Department Parking Services 27 20 68 31 21 33 11 18 23 38 98 38 50 30 60 564 Office of Emergency Services Office of Emergency Services 16 59 68 22 21 33 32 18 39 49 98 27 69 30 60 640 Public Works Administration 16 59 68 13 0 0 11 0 0 49 33 49 30 89 0 415 Public Works Streets 38 20 87 0 0 33 11 18 39 27 33 49 50 30 60 493 Public Works Trees 38 59 87 0 0 33 0 18 39 27 55 49 69 30 108 611 Public Works Structures and Grounds 38 33 87 40 0 33 11 18 55 38 55 38 50 30 84 607 Public Works Engineering 49 33 87 31 0 56 11 0 23 49 33 49 50 89 108 665 Public Works Vehicle Replacement Fund 38 59 87 40 0 78 18 53 55 38 98 27 50 50 84 772 Risk Factor Total 1,588 2,139 3,317 691 802 3,208 728 1,251 1,599 2,457 4,404 2,279 2,693 3,604 3,264 Risk Factor Weight Important A high risk score does not mean that the Division is being managed ineffectively or that internal controls are not adequate. A high risk score indicates that if something were to go wrong, it could have a greater impact on the organization. Attachment A 17 July 2012 Attachment 4 – Enterprise Fund Risk Assessment Results 4.4 5.5 8.7 3.4 6.1 10.1 2.5 4.9 6.8 4.4 9.9 4.4 8.9 8.9 11.0 Department Division Pa y r o l l & S t a f f i n g St a f f i n g V o l a t i l i t y Ex p e n d i t u r e s Re v e n u e s Ca s h H a n d l i n g & A s s e t L i q u i d i t y Co m p l i a n c e Bu s i n e s s P l a n V o l a t i l i t y Bu d g e t V o l a t i l i t y As s e t M a n a g e m e n t Op e r a t i o n a l / S e r v i c e C o m p l e x i t y In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Cit i z e n I m p a c t / R e p u t a t i o n a l R i s k Sa f e t y & S e c u r i t y Re l i a b i l i t y o f I n f o r m a t i o n Pu r c h a s i n g & C o n t r a c t i n g Div i s i o n T o t a l Public Works Refuse Fund 38 33 87 40 0 100 25 53 39 49 98 38 69 89 108 865 Public Works Storm Drainage Fund 27 20 87 40 0 78 0 18 39 38 76 27 69 69 84 672 Public Works Wastewater Treatment Fund 49 59 87 40 0 100 11 41 39 49 98 38 89 69 108 876 Public Works Airport Fund 16 0 29 0 0 100 32 53 39 49 55 38 89 69 84 652 Utilities Administration 27 33 87 40 21 100 18 30 23 49 98 49 89 89 36 788 Utilities Engineering 49 59 87 40 21 100 11 18 23 49 98 38 50 69 108 818 Utilities Resource Management 38 46 87 40 0 78 25 30 23 49 98 49 30 89 108 787 Utilities Customer Support 49 33 87 40 36 56 11 18 39 38 98 38 69 69 108 787 Utilities Operations 49 59 87 40 50 100 11 18 70 49 98 49 89 69 108 944 Utilities Electric Fund 49 59 87 40 50 100 11 30 70 49 98 49 89 89 108 975 Utilities Fiber Optic Fund 27 33 68 40 50 56 11 41 55 38 98 27 50 50 60 701 Utilities Gas Fund 49 59 87 40 36 100 18 30 55 49 98 49 89 89 108 953 Utilities Wastewater Collection Fund 49 59 87 40 36 100 11 30 39 49 98 49 89 89 108 930 Utilities Water Fund 49 59 87 40 50 100 11 30 55 49 98 49 89 89 108 960 Risk Factor Total 562 605 1,145 515 348 1,265 200 437 608 648 1,308 583 1,049 1,089 1,344 Risk Factor Weight Important A high risk score does not mean that the Division is being managed ineffectively or that internal controls are not adequate. A high risk score indicates that if something were to go wrong, it could have a greater impact on the organization. Attachment A Policy and Services Committee DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 of 9 Special Meeting July 10, 2012 City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Workplan and Risk Assessment. Jim Pelletier, City Auditor reviewed the presentation and recommended the Policy & Services Committee (Committee) recommend to the City Council approval of the 2013 City-wide Risk Assessment and Audit Workplan. He defined risk as the potential event or missed opportunity that may negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its objectives. Risk was typically measured in terms of likelihood which was the probability at which risk could occur and impact which was the potential effect. While financial impact was most often considered operational and compliance, reputational risk was also important considerations. Noted there were four possible decreases: 1) reducing the risks through strong policies and internal controls, 2) sharing the risk by partnering with others or buying assurances against the risk, 3) simply accepting the risk, or 4) avoiding the risk by exiting the service. The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) completed an Annual Risk Assessment as a means to 1) prioritize high risk areas for audit, 2) to ensure effective and efficient use of OCA resources, and 3) to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative audits. There were many different ways in which to assess an audit. He researched Best Practices throughout other government agencies and determined the methodology to pursue the City’s Assessment. The two principles he based the assessment on were 1) keep it simple and 2) a collaborative systematic approach to make the results more easily understandable. There were four components the assessment touched on 1) the environmental scan, 2) the Enterprise Fund Assessment, 3) the General Fund Assessment, and 4) the Information Technology Assessment. The Enterprise and General Funds Assessments were a collaborative process with the City Manager team. The Audit Universe was the term used to describe all areas within the City that were subject to risk assessment and potential audits. The current year’s assessments began with the City’s 62 divisions and 10 Funds out of which 15 risk factors were identified. Risk Assessment questionnaires were completed by each Executive Leadership Team Member for each of their divisions or Fund. The introduction to the Information Technology (IT) assessment was part of the framework for the upcoming year’s Risk Assessment and Audit Workplan. There were no IT assessments on the current plan in order to provide the newly implemented Chief Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 2 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Information Officer the ability to implement his vision of the newly established department. The IT department had unique elements and therefore did not fit into a standard risk assessment which was why there would be a separate IT Risk Assessment. The assessment would begin with an inventory of the IT systems inventory; IT projects inventory, and an IT risk environment. He mentioned the current Staff in the OCA did not include an IT specific auditor but believed his Staff had the capability to perform the application control type audits. The overall Annual Workplan was inclusive of monitoring and administration assignment, Council and meeting requests, Special Advisory Memorandum (SAMs), the newly implemented Hotline, Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) and Citizen-Centric Report (CCR), and audits. Additional time had been spent on the SEA and CCR development to redesign them to make them more user friendly. Council Member Schmid saw risk differently than what was defined in the presentation. The flow chart seemed to focus a great deal on information type areas where he was more concerned with the areas where the City was cut short such as; the Refuse Fund paying $30 million in money that had already been expended without any current usage, the benefits obligations which were under estimated in the past and was now being paid for, and Fire Staffing. The question was how the criteria of selection could assist in the identification of the areas that could be risky in the future. An area on his list that was not shown on the flow chart for risk assessment was parking; business, worker, customer, and resident. There were six special funds listed as Parking Funds but he was unable to track the funds entering, exiting or availability of those Funds. If parking was an issue with every development what needed to happen for it to be a part of the audit list. Mr. Pelletier stated there were two components 1) would be seen through the environmental scan which was not reflected in the Heat Map. Those items were coming in over time to be considered as potential issues. Council Member Schmid asked if the environmental scan process arose only after the problem was confronted. Mr. Pelletier said potentially, yes. The Committee asked for Staff to achieve a predictive model to be able to audit potential issues in advance. Council Member Schmid appreciated the SAMs program where the OCA could take a quick look at an emerging issue. It was disappointing to see that the SMs program was such a small portion of the budget. Mr. Pelletier agreed it was 1 percent. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 3 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Council Member Schmid felt the SAMs program was more valuable than 1 percent in order to assist Council in catching the potential risk prior to aftermath. Mr. Pelletier noted by the City Charter the Auditor was required to follow Government Audit Standards (GAS). SAMs were considered non-audit services which were allowed as long as they were identified as such. Council Member Schmid clarified the SEA was not an audit but was a large portion of the work and budget. Mr. Pelletier stated the SEA was treated as an audit. GAS were followed in the preparation of the SEA Reports. Council Member Schmid asked if SAMs could be selected in the audit preparation. Mr. Pelletier asked for clarification on taking a limited SAMs approach to achieve a better understanding of the issue and use that to determine whether or not there should be a full-scale audit or not. That proposal was an appropriate use of the SAMs tool. Council Member Schmid said the revenue sources were lagging the expenditures and he asked if teat was a chronic problem, a risk factor for the City. He asked what the realm of the state mandates were and how they affected the City’s ability to deal with the risks. Mr. Pelletier noted the information presented to the Committee was more of a quantitative analysis and as previously mentioned there were multip0le levels of granularity that could make the process unwieldy. The list was created to assist Staff in prioritizing the necessary audits. Council Member Schmid said if there was a comparison between the Refuse Fund, Gas Utility, and Electric Utility they all appeared the same on the chart. In reality the Refuse Fund lost $30 million. Mr. Pelletier explained the basis for the results shown on the chart were direct input from the Department Heads. The OCA influenced the results were through the white factors. He assured the Committee he did not give more weight tot eh Heat Map than the environmental scan but the Heat Map provided a more quantitative systematic approach to illustrate management’s perception for where they feel the risk may be. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 4 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Council Member Schmid said with the scan process there could be enough analysis completed to alert the Council of the concerns in the environment they may not necessarily be aware of. Mr. Pelletier agreed that would be an appropriate use of the environmental scan process. It could not be utilized to predict risk but notify Staff of impending risk. Council Member Espinosa mentioned the importance of receiving charts and Heat Maps in color. During his tenure there had been annual reviews of how the City Auditor assessed risk, understanding risk, limited resources, and different models used by different Auditors. The work completed and presented for the 2013 fiscal year led him to ask what was different. Mr. Pelletier understood the risk assessment process chosen by his administration differed from the previous ones but the 2012 assessment categories implemented well into the Heat Map model which corroborated the different models used and validated the path he chose. He anticipated there would be annual review and comments from the Council and there would be adjustments made to the model. Council Member Espinosa noted another difference was the consideration and explanation of volume in the context of delineating hours per project and what that result would justifiably allow. He asked if in the future the OCA saw a difference in the amount of work being taken on. Mr. Pelletier said in reviewing the audits selected versus the list from prior years it was much smaller but more attainable. He included the budgeted time allotted for each audit to show an accurate timeline for his Staff. Council Member Espinosa said there was a model without major change from past years and a list of audits significantly shorter than previous years and he asked if the City was in jeopardy of missing possible risks by not accomplishing ample work or diving into enough areas where there could be problems or concern. Mr. Pelletier stated risk was about impacts and likelihood. In some instances impact might be significant but eh likelihood might be quite low. There was a balance that needed to be placed on the need versus resource limitation. He believed his role was to illustrate to the Committee and Council to the best of his ability where the risks were and allow them to direct him on their preferences. Chair Holman appreciated the list being accomplishable in the fiscal year. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 5 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Mr. Pelletier noted there were items that may arise during the year that could supersede the items on the list but his goal was to substantially complete the list provided. Chair Holman concurred with Council Member Schmid’s concern with the multiple Parking Funds. She asked if the section on Purchasing and Contracts included the City’s practices of requesting or using Request for Proposal (RFP’s) or Request for Quote (RFQ’s). She asked if that was too fined grained. Mr. Pelletier stated yes, it was. The risk factors were represented by one question each on a questionnaire provided to management. The question was a high level question about their perception of risk related to Purchasing and Contracts. Chair Holman asked if at some point that process would be looked into. Mr. Pelletier said absolutely. Chair Holman said Grant management was different than revenues but they were related. She asked why Staff recommended deferral for the 2011 Single Audit which identified $9,000,000 in Federal Grants. Mr. Pelletier did not feel it was less important but not at as high a risk as some of the other audits. The Grant represented only 2 percent of the City’s total revenue. As the grants were generally covered by the annual Single Audit performed by the City’s external auditor, Staff recommended deferral while the City addressed past Single Audit findings. Chair Holman asked for clarification on the use of the efficiency and effectiveness in the context of the Planning & Community Environment Development Permit Process section. Mr. Pelletier clarified efficiency and effectiveness meant the process itself within the Development Center, what had been set-up for how the Coty serviced the customers. Staff was effectively managing the process which included compliance with established policies or procedures. Were the processes designed efficiently, did they work properly, were the goals being met. His thought was to use a more consultative approach where there would be assistance for the Development Center to assist them in mapping out their processes to identify redundancies and controls. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 6 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Chair Holman asked how Palo Alto compared with other communities specifically in the areas of compliance, reliability of information, and expenditures. Mr. Pelletier noted the City was fairly comparable in those categories. The reliability of information was in reference to the Council decision making process. So the reliability of the information received from the City Staff was crucial to the decision making process. Compliance from a government perspective was a high risk area because there were so many factors. Council Member Schmid felt the general five areas identified were on target. He questioned the Development Permit Process and the Wastewater Treatment Plan. The City was spending a large block of time reorganizing the development process he asked if the audit process would be on what was expected not what was being done. Mr. Pelletier believed his team had the ability to take a more advisory approach. The Development Center process began in 2010. Council Member Schmid clarified the City Council approved the process in 2011. Mr. Pelletier the Development center was an audit that had been deferred until 2013. Council Member Schmid asked if there was enough information to perform an audit on the Development Center. Mr. Pelletier believed the current status provided an opportunity for a hybrid situation. The opportunity was to perform an audit from practices performed presently but in a different setting. From that perspective the same procedures needed to be completed, the same services needed to be provided to the customers. From the advisory perspective there was a new process being developed to have departments work together for an opportunity to apply a more configure the best way in which to have the Center set-up and have adequate controls when doing so. Council Member Schmid said the Wastewater Treatment Plant which was in its infancy. He asked how an audit was performed when they had not performed yet. Mr. Pelletier clarified the Wastewater fund was more of a looking back at whether the cost sharing allocations to partner agencies had been properly implemented and maintained. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 7 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Council Member Schmid asked if that process would assist in deciding where to go from here forward. Mr. Pelletier was uncertain. He had met with Phil Bobel, the Assistant Director for Environmental Service who had two concerns for an audit; the peer compliance piece and whether what was set-up the correct way. He began all audits with a risk assessment to review the processes being considered for the audit to achieve a better understanding of where the risks lye. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa that the Policy & Services Committee recommend the City Council approve the Office of the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year 2013 Citywide Risk Assessment and Workplan. Chair Holman asked a question that hinged on both policy and risk. Where there were partner agencies was the process all policy or partly audit and policy. If there was implication of risk in terms of losing a partner which part would that fall under. Mr. Pelletier asked for clarification on the question. Chair Holman mentioned an issue she had with regard to the Animal Services it was a large ticket impact and that discussion did not go before Council. She asked if there was a policy Council needed to make to determine when an item should be brought before them or was it an Auditor role to advise the red flags if there was a risk of losing a partner. Mr. Pelletier felt the safer route would be for Council to set policy. He noted as an independent auditor he was not aware of everything the City was involved in. Chair Holman clarified there were some aspects of the community that were partner services. From a risk assessment stand point should the City develop procedures or policies whereas they should address the partner type of situations so a notification arises earlier. Mr. Pelletier clarified if the City anticipated losing a major contract Staff would be required to report their knowledge to the Council. Chair Holman agreed but asked if that process would be strictly policy or an Auditor’s recommendation. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 8 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager noted there were cities where there were policies in place that were centered on service evaluations that outlined the process surrounding budget cycle where there were notifications. There were business case analysis and timelines to follow when evaluating services. Council Member Schmid asked if the financing for the Wastewater Treatment Plant was shared and whether Staff was looking at cost sharing agreements for the Plant. Mr. Pelletier asked for clarification on the cost for the City Auditor Staff. Council Member Schmid said yes, were Mountain View and Los Altos paying for part of the process cost. Mr. Pelletier stated no. Council Member Schmid asked if the partners would trust the outcome of the cost a sharing without their input. Mr. Pelletier clarified if the question was whether Palo Alto would contact them as the work was being performed and request their input. Council Member Schmid clarified the report mentioned the analysis would take 600 manned hours. He asked if they would be paying for part of those hours. Is the audit Palo Alto’s or a joint audit. Mr. Pelletier felt it was a Palo Alto audit to comply with the terms of the agreement entered between the City and Mountain View and Los Altos. Council Member Schmid said the other cities may perform their own audit. Mr. Pelletier agreed. Chair Holman asked if the audit performance was controlled by the contract. Mr. Pelletier said if there was an audit clause in the agreement but everything was a public record so if there was information they were interested in they could simply request it. Council member Schmid believed since the cities were partners they would desire a joint audit. Mr. Pelletier believed not all cities had their own auditor. Attachment B DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES Page 9 of 9 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 7/10/12 MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Klein Absent Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 3052) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/18/2012 Summary Title: Award of Contract for Alma Street HSIP Project Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $250,000 to Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 to be used in the Alma Street Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Project; and Approval with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. In The Amount Not to Exceed $1,401,930 for the Alma Street HSIP Project, the 4th of 6 Contracts in the 2012 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP PE-86070) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $250,000 for the Rubberized Pavement grant awarded by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for Street Maintenance Program project PE-86070 – Alma Street HSIP Capital Improvement Program Project; 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. in an amount of $1,401,930 for Street Maintenance Program project PE-86070 – Alma Street HSIP Capital Improvement Program; and 3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $140,193. Background The Public Works Engineering Services Division manages construction contracts for concrete repair, preventive maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction of various city streets on an annual basis. The candidate streets are surveyed biannually by Public Works Engineering Services staff and then rated by a computerized pavement maintenance management system (PMMS). In 2011, the asphalt paving project repaved five (5) lane miles of Palo Alto Streets. The cost of the contract was approximately $2.2 million. Since 2003, the Public Works Engineering Services Division has implemented multi-phased resurfacing projects; phase one for concrete repairs and preparation, phase two for preventive maintenance, and phase three for asphalt concrete resurfacing. This method of phasing has proved to be more cost effective by avoiding the typical 15% markup that prime contractors place on work that is performed by their subcontractors. This contract is the fourth of six contracts for the calendar year 2012 streets program. All streets have been coordinated with the City’s Utilities Department and Transportation Division of Planning and Community Environment Department to minimize cutting newly resurfaced streets. Extensive public outreach will be conducted before and during construction phase to inform the community step by step throughout the process. Discussion Project Description Staff is recommending approval of the 4th of 6 street resurfacing contracts to be approved this calendar year as part of an enhanced program to increase the condition of Palo Alto’s streets. This contract constitutes a $1,401,930 expenditure for 725,000 square feet (9 lane miles) of improvements as part of an effort to raise the Pavement Condition Index (a Statewide scoring system) from 73 to 85 by 2022. In 2009, the City was awarded $900,000 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant to resurface and make safety improvements along Alma Street from Colorado Avenue to the southern city limit. This project will repave Alma Street from Colorado Avenue to Charleston Road with rubberized pavement and reseal Alma Street from Charleston Road to the Southern City Limit. Additionally, the project scope includes the replacement of deteriorated guardrails, installation of video detection at Alma/Charleston and Alma/Meadow intersections and 1,000 lineal feet of new curb and gutter. In addition, the Public Works Department will utilize a $250,000 Rubberized Pavement grant awarded by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in 2011 which will be reimbursed at the end of the project. The grant pays for the additional cost of using rubberized pavement vs. traditional hot mix asphalt. The use of rubberized pavement is ideal for Alma Street where there are long stretches of pavement with little turning movements. Rubberized pavement is known to quiet road noise from high speed travel and is a green product which diverts used tires from the landfill. Bid Process On August 14, 2012, a notice inviting formal bids (IFB) for the Alma Street HSIP Project was posted at City Hall, and was sent to 14 builder’s exchanges and 26 contractors. The bidding period was 21 calendar days. Bids were received from 4 qualified contractors on September 4, 2012 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment C). Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Alma Street HSIP Project Proposed Length of Project 90 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Sent to Contractors 26 Number of Bid Packages Sent to Builder’s Exchanges 14 Total Days to Respond to Bid 21 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes Number of Bids Received: 4 Bid Price Range (base bid plus 1 alternate) From a low of $1,401,930 to a high of $2,058,910 Bids ranged from a high of $2,058,910 to a low bid of $1,401,930 and ranged from 24% above to 16% below the engineer’s estimate of $1,663,930. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and found that the bid totaling $1,401,930 submitted by Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. the lowest and that Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends awarding the base bid plus add alternate # 1 for a contract total of $1,401,930. The change order amount of $140,193, which equals ten percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by the lowest responsible bidder, Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. including past paving projects performed for the City. There were no significant complaints with their previous work. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file. Resource Impact Staff is requesting a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $250,000 to accept the reimbursable Rubberized Pavement grant awarded by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to increase the Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program project PE-86070 budget. The Infrastructure Reserve will be reimbursed by the equal amount upon completion of the project. The remaining funds required for the award of this construction contract are currently available in the Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program project PE-86070 budget. The HSIP grant award of $900,000 was already included in the project in FY 2013 budget. The BAO will have no net impact on the Infrastructure Reserve balance. Policy Implications This project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review Street resurfacing projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: A - Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOC) B - 147323 Alma HSIP Project HSIPL 5100 (014) - Interstate Grading & Paving (DOC) C - ALMA STREET BID SUMMARY FINAL (PDF) Prepared By: Holly Boyd, Project Engineer Department Head: J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $250,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-86070, STREET MAINTENANCE, FOR THE ALMA STREET HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 18, 2012 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2013; and B. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $4,653,635 for CIP Project PE-86070, Street Maintenance, for annual resurfacing, slurry seal, crack seal, and reconstruction of city streets. Included in CIP Project PE- 86070 is the Alma Street Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Project to resurface and make safety improvements along Alma Street; and C. In 2011, the City was awarded a grant of $250,000 by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for the use of rubberized pavement. An appropriation of $250,000 to CIP Project PE-86070 is needed to authorize expenditures related to the grant for the use of rubberized pavement along Alma Street; and D. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2013 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE-86070, Street Maintenance, for the Alma Highway Safety Improvement Program Project. SECTION 3. The Capital Projects Fund will be reimbursed by grant funding from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). SECTION 4. The transactions above will have no net impact on the balance of the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 7. The resurfacing project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C13147323 City of Palo Alto and Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. PROJECT Alma Street HSIP Project HSIPL 5100 (014) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. .................... 5 1.1 Recitals .............................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Definitions .......................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT……………………………………………………………………………… .............................. 5 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. ......................... 5 3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………. ..... 5 3.2 Order of Precedence …………………………………………………………………………… ............... 6 SECTION 4. THE WORK ………………………………………………………………………………….............................. 7 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ………………………………………………………………………….. ............................. 7 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION ………………………………………………………………….. .......................... 7 6.1 Time Is of Essence ....................................................................................... ……… 7 6.2 Commencement of Work .................................................................................... 7 6.3 Contract Time ..................................................................................................... 7 6.4 Liquidated Damages ........................................................................................... 7 6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ......................................................................... … 8 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8 7.1 Contract Sum ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9 7.3.1 Self Performed Work………………………………………………………………………………… 9 7.3.2 Subcontractors…………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE .................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION .................................................................................................... 10 9.1 Hold Harmless…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 9.2 Survival………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION ............................................................................................. 10 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ......................................................................................... 10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ......................................................................... 11 SECTION 13. NOTICES .................................................................................................................. 11 13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................ 11 13.3 Change of Address .............................................................................................. 12 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes .......................................................................... 12 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes .............................................................................. 12 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ……………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ……………………………………………………...........................13 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13 14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................. …… 13 14.4.1 Direct Negotiation………………………………………………………………………… ………….13 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14 14.4.3 Mediation ………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ……………………………………………………………………………………15 14.5 Non-Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 SECTION 15. DEFAULT ................................................................................................................. 16 15.1 Notice of Default ................................................................................................ 16 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ............................................................................... 16 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................................. 16 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................... 16 16.1.1 Delete Certain Servic………………………………………………………...........................16 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17 16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17 16.2 Delays by Sureties .............................................................................................. 17 16.3 Damages to City ................................................................................................. 17 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .................................................................... 18 16.6 Termination Without Cause ................................................................................ 18 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18 16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination ................................................................ 19 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................................. 19 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ........................................................................................ 19 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19 17.2 Damages to Contractor ....................................................................................... 19 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS .......................................................................................... 19 18.1 Financial Management and City Access ......................................................... ……. 19 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ....................................................................... …. 20 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ........................................................................................... 20 SECTION 20. NUISANCE ............................................................................................................... 20 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES........................................................................................... 20 SECTION 22. WAIVER .................................................................................................................. 20 SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW .................................................................................................... 20 SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT .......................................................................................... 21 SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ......................................................................................... 21 SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES ................................................................................................ 21 SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION ............................................................................................. 21 SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS ...................................................................................... 21 SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES ...................................................................................................... 21 SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS ...................................................................................................... 22 SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY .......................................................................................................... 22 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on September 18, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a California Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 366020. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On August 14, 2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Alma Street Hsip Project Hsipl 5100 (014) (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the construction of the Alma Street HSIP Project HSIPL 5100 (014) ("Project"). SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Change Orders Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within Ninety calendar days (90) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Four Hundred One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Dollars ($1,401,930). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates 1.] / / / / Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors, of any tier; (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Elizabeth Ames Or Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. 128 So. Maple Avenue San Francisco, Ca 94080 Attn: H. Michael Pariani 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 16.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. 16.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 20 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 22 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. Or The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 28 AUTHORITY. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, 22 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ___________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachment C - Bid Summary ALMA STREET HSIP PROJECT HSIPL 5100(014)PE 86070 IFB 147323A-REBID ITEM # BASE BID DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 AC Base Repair TON 600 140.00$ 84,000.00$ 135.00$ 81,000.00$ 123.00$ 73,800.00$ 158.00$ 94,800.00$ 190.00$ 114,000.00$ 2 AC Milling, 1.5" SF 95,000 0.40$ 38,000.00$ 0.51$ 48,450.00$ 0.21$ 19,950.00$ 0.40$ 38,000.00$ 0.30$ 28,500.00$ 3 Micro Surfacing, Black Aggregate SF 230,000 0.35$ 80,500.00$ 0.41$ 94,300.00$ 0.37$ 85,100.00$ 0.40$ 92,000.00$ 0.40$ 92,000.00$ 4 AC Overlay, 1.5" TON 6,200 95.00$ 589,000.00$ 90.00$ 558,000.00$ 97.00$ 601,400.00$ 96.00$ 595,200.00$ 84.00$ 520,800.00$ 5 Asphalt Conform LS 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 6,800.00$ 6,800.00$ 24,500.00$ 24,500.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 6 Crack Sealing LF 37,500 0.50$ 18,750.00$ 0.50$ 18,750.00$ 0.52$ 19,500.00$ 0.50$ 18,750.00$ 0.50$ 18,750.00$ 7 New Guard Rail LF 550 150.00$ 82,500.00$ 85.00$ 46,750.00$ 50.00$ 27,500.00$ 75.00$ 41,250.00$ 40.00$ 22,000.00$ 8 Demo Guard Rail LF 240 20.00$ 4,800.00$ 16.00$ 3,840.00$ 15.00$ 3,600.00$ 50.00$ 12,000.00$ 20.00$ 4,800.00$ 9 Guard Rail Endcap EA 24 200.00$ 4,800.00$ 275.00$ 6,600.00$ 100.00$ 2,400.00$ 200.00$ 4,800.00$ 50.00$ 1,200.00$ 10 Adjust Utility Box EA 40 450.00$ 18,000.00$ 350.00$ 14,000.00$ 350.00$ 14,000.00$ 300.00$ 12,000.00$ 450.00$ 18,000.00$ 11 Adjust Manhole EA 40 500.00$ 20,000.00$ 600.00$ 24,000.00$ 550.00$ 22,000.00$ 550.00$ 22,000.00$ 795.00$ 31,800.00$ 12 Blue Markers EA 20 25.00$ 500.00$ 26.00$ 520.00$ 25.00$ 500.00$ 30.00$ 600.00$ 40.00$ 800.00$ 13 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 10 LF 22,000 1.00$ 22,000.00$ 0.32$ 7,040.00$ 0.30$ 6,600.00$ 0.32$ 7,040.00$ 0.50$ 11,000.00$ 14 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 23 LF 1,000 2.00$ 2,000.00$ 0.85$ 850.00$ 0.80$ 800.00$ 0.90$ 900.00$ 1.10$ 1,100.00$ 15 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 27B LF 400 2.00$ 800.00$ 0.95$ 380.00$ 0.90$ 360.00$ 1.00$ 400.00$ 2.00$ 800.00$ 16 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 30 LF 2,300 3.00$ 6,900.00$ 1.70$ 3,910.00$ 1.60$ 3,680.00$ 1.60$ 3,680.00$ 2.50$ 5,750.00$ 17 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 33 LF 7,100 3.00$ 21,300.00$ 1.15$ 8,165.00$ 1.10$ 7,810.00$ 1.20$ 8,520.00$ 1.50$ 10,650.00$ 18 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 37B LF 500 4.00$ 2,000.00$ 1.90$ 950.00$ 1.80$ 900.00$ 2.00$ 1,000.00$ 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 19 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 38C LF 2,200 3.00$ 6,600.00$ 0.85$ 1,870.00$ 0.80$ 1,760.00$ 1.00$ 2,200.00$ 1.20$ 2,640.00$ 20 Thermoplastic Striping, Detail 40A LF 100 2.00$ 200.00$ 1.00$ 100.00$ 1.00$ 100.00$ 1.00$ 100.00$ 2.00$ 200.00$ 21 Thermoplastic Striping, 12" WHITE LF 1,300 4.00$ 5,200.00$ 4.25$ 5,525.00$ 4.00$ 5,200.00$ 4.50$ 5,850.00$ 5.50$ 7,150.00$ 22 Thermoplastic Striping, 4" WHITE LF 7,000 2.00$ 14,000.00$ 0.95$ 6,650.00$ 0.90$ 6,300.00$ 1.00$ 7,000.00$ 1.25$ 8,750.00$ 23 Thermoplastic Legends EA 168 35.00$ 5,880.00$ 85.00$ 14,280.00$ 83.00$ 13,944.00$ 90.00$ 15,120.00$ 115.00$ 19,320.00$ 24 Type A Curb LF 750 50.00$ 37,500.00$ 45.00$ 33,750.00$ 61.00$ 45,750.00$ 70.00$ 52,500.00$ 45.00$ 33,750.00$ 25 New Curb Ramp EA 13 2,000.00$ 26,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 32,500.00$ 2,675.00$ 34,775.00$ 3,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 26 Curb Ramp Upgrade EA 12 350.00$ 4,200.00$ 400.00$ 4,800.00$ 350.00$ 4,200.00$ 400.00$ 4,800.00$ 400.00$ 4,800.00$ 27 Concrete Sidewalk SF 1,500 10.00$ 15,000.00$ 10.00$ 15,000.00$ 9.00$ 13,500.00$ 10.00$ 15,000.00$ 10.00$ 15,000.00$ 28 Concrete Driveway SF 1,250 10.00$ 12,500.00$ 12.00$ 15,000.00$ 11.00$ 13,750.00$ 12.00$ 15,000.00$ 12.00$ 15,000.00$ 29 Adjust Catch Basin EA 9 2,500.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 650.00$ 5,850.00$ 1,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 30 Inert Recycling TON 6,200 2.00$ 12,400.00$ 1.00$ 6,200.00$ 2.00$ 12,400.00$ 4.50$ 27,900.00$ 2.00$ 12,400.00$ 31 Intersection Traffic Cameras LS 1 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 59,000.00$ 59,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 97,000.00$ 97,000.00$ 32 Traffic Control LS 1 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 155,000.00$ 155,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 33 Submittal Package LS 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 100.00$ 100.00$ 800.00$ 800.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 34 Planter Strip/Landscape Conform LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 35 Conform Work at Loma Verde Intersection LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 6,100.00$ 6,100.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 8,500.00$ 8,500.00$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 36 Wedge Cut LF 12,000 2.00$ 24,000.00$ 2.00$ 24,000.00$ 2.00$ 24,000.00$ 1.25$ 15,000.00$ 2.00$ 24,000.00$ 37 Advance Traffic Loops EA 6 2,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 1,400.00$ 8,400.00$ 600.00$ 3,600.00$ 1,500.00$ 9,000.00$ 1,300.00$ 7,800.00$ 38 Guardrail Material LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3,200.00$ 3,200.00$ 17,000.00$ 17,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 39 Installation of Signs LS 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 3,100.00$ 3,100.00$ 2,880.00$ 2,880.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 40 Median Curb LF 250 80.00$ 20,000.00$ 43.00$ 10,750.00$ 85.00$ 21,250.00$ 85.00$ 21,250.00$ 90.00$ 22,500.00$ BASE BID TOTAL 1,459,330.00$ 1,222,130.00$ 1,379,459.00$ 1,510,160.00$ 1,395,510.00$ ITEM # ADD ALTERNATE DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 Additional Cost of RAC Overlay TON 6,200 33.00$ 204,600.00$ 29.00$ 179,800.00$ 30.00$ 186,000.00$ 35.00$ 217,000.00$ 107.00$ 663,400.00$ ADD ALTERNATE TOTAL 204,600.00$ 179,800.00$ 186,000.00$ 217,000.00$ 663,400.00$ GRAND TOTAL 1,663,930.00$ 1,401,930.00$ 1,565,459.00$ 1,727,160.00$ 2,058,910.00$ Base Bid Total 1,511,660.00$ Add Alternate Total 217,000.00$ Grand Total 1,728,660.00$ *Note: There was an addition error in the Base Bid Total for O'Grady Paving, Inc. The improperly reported totals were as follows: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. C. F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC. O'GRADY PAVING, INC. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY O'GRADY PAVING, INC. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. C. F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC. C. F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC. O'GRADY PAVING, INC. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2723) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/18/2012 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Rail Corridor Study Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan To Incorporate Certain Findings of the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and Approval of a Negative Declaration. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) approving the 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report, as updated as shown on Attachments B and G, amending the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to incorporate some key policy findings of the Report, and that Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment C) for the project. Executive Summary The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Rail Corridor Study Task Force (Task Force) and staff have recommended approval of the Rail Corridor Study Report (Attachment G; packet copies to Council and City Libraries only and available online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/committees/rctf.asp?NewsID=1235&TargetID=59 with list of text changes in Attachment B) and the incorporation of key policies and programs into the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment to the Transportation Element would formalize the City’s approval of the Report and would give the Report’s key policy findings greater legal standing. However, the recommendations in the Report would be subject to future development, refinement and PTC and Council review. The City Council initiated a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study on June 12, 2010 to evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the corridor. The Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the citizen Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study with support from City staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group (BMS). The 17 member task force, representing a variety of stakeholders (residents, businesses, civic organizations, etc.), was convened to provide input into the process. The purpose of this document is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor, while furthering the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles. The Report identifies the issues and vision for land use and circulation and attempts to look at the entire 1,000-acre corridor as an interconnected, but diverse subarea within the City. Recommendations are also made for implementing the vision described in the study. The attached resolution (Attachment A) would adopt the document as an official City Report and incorporate key policies and programs into the existing Comprehensive Plan. Background The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study in July 2010 to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. The Report, the outcome of the two year process, analyzed those elements and their potential impacts from the range of possible rail improvements, including Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or the potential options for the High Speed Rail project. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not intended to be the focus of this project. Both the Caltrain and High Speed Rail projects are still pending and the ultimate form those projects may take will not be known for some time. The purpose was to generate a community vision that would provide land use and transportation policies to guide development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to be proactive in advance of changes to the rail system. The boundaries of the rail corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits on the south. Council’s authorization included the formation of a Task Force to assist in the preparation of the study and to provide a forum for public input. The 17-member Task Force is made up of several different stakeholder groups, including residents and business owners, and representatives of the school district, a non-profit housing venture, environmental groups, and Stanford University, as well as a Caltrain rider. Vision Statement The vision of the project, as stated in the Report, is to: “create a vibrant, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers that provide walkable, safe, 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.” The areas that make up the Rail Corridor have been traditionally viewed as separate areas. This Report attempts to look at the entire 1,000 acre corridor as an interconnected subarea within the City, which is challenging because of the diversity of the corridor and its large size. The intent is to develop a long term comprehensive set of policies that can be used to guide the area regardless of what improvements are made to the fixed rail system. As such, the Report does not analyze in detail the various impacts of the various rail alternatives, such as noise, traffic and air quality, which are beyond the scope and resources of this study. Task Force The Rail Corridor Study Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the Council- authorized Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study, with support from City staff and the consultant, BMS. This Report represents the consensus of the Task Force as a whole, as an outcome of fifteen (15) publicly noticed meetings. Through the Task Force meetings and community workshops, staff has also received detailed feedback on the draft report from the public. The Task Force members also acted as a conduit and a voice for their specific stakeholder groups and for other interested members of the public. The public process also included input from liaisons of various City boards and commissions to represent their respective groups, including the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). A study area tour was held on September 10, 2011 with a majority of the Task Force, as well as interested members of the public, to familiarize them with the corridor. The highlights of the four hour tour included the South of Forest Area, the Homer tunnel, California Avenue, the Churchill Avenue train crossing area, the intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road, rail crossings at Charleston Road and at Meadow Avenue, and the new residential developments near the Elks Lodge in south Palo Alto. At the final Task Force meeting on May 1, 2012, the Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report, including the Implementation Chapter. City Council Rail Committee The Rail Corridor Study Report was the subject of three meetings before the City Council Rail Committee. A brief update was provided on January 26, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the first draft of the Rail Corridor Study Report was presented for their review and comments. The primary comment received was a request to make the references to the future of the rail line more general because the future of the High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects is uncertain and continues to change. On April 26, 2012, the Committee met and provided further comments. Staff and BMS informed the Committee that various changes had been made to the document in response to their feedback and subsequent public hearings. It was emphasized that the Report was crafted to be consistent with the City’s position on the High Speed Rail project and the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles. The document was also revised so that it would be as flexible as possible to provide a longer horizon to better respond to the rapidly changing High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects. The Committee was generally supportive of the direction of the document. Community Workshops and PABAC/CSTSC Joint Meeting Two community workshops were held on the Rail Corridor Study. The first Community Workshop was held on May 19, 2011 at the Lucie Stern Community Room. The public was provided with a project overview, including the schedule and process. The attendees were requested to provide their vision of the future of the corridor, preferred uses in specific areas, view of the role of the corridor and priorities regarding transportation improvements. A second Community Workshop was held on March 29, 2012 at the Lucie Stern. In order to encourage a greater attendance of this workshop, additional public outreach was implemented, including the mailing of over 7,000 notice cards, publication of the notice in the Palo Alto Weekly, and posting of announcements at City Hall, the City’s social networking sites and the libraries. Staff requested the Task Force members to publicize the meeting and encourage that their neighbors attend the meeting. Because of the greater outreach, the second workshop was well attended with more than 50 attendees, including many residents of South Palo Alto. A few key issues were raised, including safety for children, pedestrians and bicyclists, treatment of all neighborhoods fairly, and protecting schools from rail impacts. Some members of the public stated that although additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings were desired, additional vehicular crossings were not. The community members were generally appreciative and supportive of the Report. In addition to the community workshops, staff and BMS also met with the representatives of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) on February 16, 2012. The participants were generally supportive of the work that had been done. The majority of the attendees encouraged trenching for rail projects and improving safety for children, bicyclists and pedestrians, especially with grade separated crossings. Discussion The purpose of this item is to request adoption of a resolution formally approving the Rail Corridor Study Report and to incorporate specific policies and programs into the existing Comprehensive Plan to formally recognize the Report as representing the City’s policy positions. The PTC conducted its final review of the Rail Corridor Study Report and resolution on May 30, 2012, following review by the ARB on May 24, 2012. Both the PTC and ARB unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the resolution approving the Report and to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The May 30th PTC and May 24th ARB staff reports and excerpt minutes are provided as Attachments D and E. The May 16 draft, included in the packet and online, is the most current version of the printed Report. In addition, following the final decision made by Council, staff intends to update the report to reflect the changes suggested by the PTC and ARB. Those changes have been summarized on Attachment B, List of Text Revisions. Following a final decision by the City Council, all those changes and any other changes per Council direction would be incorporated into a final Report. Should the Council approve the resolution, the Transportation Element of the current Comprehensive Plan would be amended to recognize the Rail Corridor Study Report and to formally incorporate some of its key policy findings into the Comprehensive Plan to provide a regulatory framework for these key policies. The Report establishes the context for decisions in the future regarding more detailed policy and physical improvements. It is the first step towards responding proactively to the City’s needs for the rail corridor area. The recommendations of the Report would then become part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update and future studies and projects for implementation, such as area studies and the Capital Improvements Program. To develop an understanding of the broad study area, the Report described related plans, programs and policies and created two areas of focus: (1) Circulation and Connectivity and (2) Land Use and Urban Design, as endorsed by the Task Force, public and various boards and commissions. The background, existing conditions, issues and visions are discussed in detail in the subsequent chapters. Those sections are followed by an Implementation chapter, which includes project improvement and policy recommendations for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan and other City programs, designed to help implement the vision. Key Themes Five overall themes emerged as critical components for the success of this Report as a guiding document. Those themes are: 1. East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers should be removed. 2. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved (although this was not unanimous). 3. All residential neighborhoods must be protected and treated equally. 4. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement. 5. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings. In addition to the general categories of Land Use and Urban Design and Circulation and Connectivity, there was also focus on the rail alignment itself and on public facilities/infrastructure to support existing and new development. The rail corridor issue is discussed in the following section. One of the consistent messages heard throughout the process has been the need to ensure infrastructure to keep pace with development. This includes transportation facilities, schools and parks. Rail Alternatives The City Council’s most recent position on the High Speed Rail (HSR) project is to oppose it in any form, although there is continued discussion of the merits of 1) a below-grade trench and 2) the blended two-track Caltrain/HSR project. The Task Force focused on those two rail alternatives that would capture the range of issues that could occur under any of the various alternatives being discussed by the State. The report includes three key recommendations to address the issues related to the railroad alignment, given some form of Caltrain or HSR expansion occurs. The preferred high speed train alternative is a continuous below-grade trench, with the incorporation of trench covers and bridges at key locations. Rail crossings should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience. Rail impacts on neighborhoods and mixed-use centers should be mitigated. Circulation and Connectivity The Circulation and Connectivity Chapter focused on: Physical barriers to east-west connections, particularly for pedestrians and bicycles, at the railroad tracks, Alma Street, and El Camino Real Alma Street, emphasizing the importance of maintaining traffic capacity of Alma, as well as improved aesthetic design. Corridor-wide design principles. Enhancing connection opportunities and safety along the rail corridor, again particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. In order to try to provide opportunities to improve the connectivity of the area, the study proposes to look at the City’s roadways as a layered network, recognizing that different types of streets have different primary functions. By identifying the purpose of the streets within the corridor, the Report recommends how the streets should be treated to enhance circulation and connectivity. Six key recommendations were developed to implement the vision and issues for circulation and connectivity. They consist of: Improve east-west connectivity across the rail corridor, Alma Street and El Camino Real. Provide additional rail crossings in the southern section of the corridor. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections to citywide facilities. Create a walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly framework that provides convenient and safe access to goods and services. Implement a layered street framework. Retain traffic carrying capacity where needed. Land Use and Urban Design The Land Use and Urban Design chapter focuses on the following overarching concerns: Conservation of residential neighborhoods and historic resources. Improving access to and facilities for public services and resources. Providing more opportunities for commercial goods and services, especially in the southern portion of the City of Palo Alto. Improving public spaces, including streetscape and pedestrian facilities Enhancing underutilized land resources. This chapter refines the designations of the very diverse corridor as Mixed-Use Centers and Residential Subareas. The Mixed Use Centers consist of the 1) Downtown/University City Center, 2) California Avenue Town Center, and 3) South Palo Alto/El Camino Way Neighborhood Center. The Report also outlines the concept of a “keystone block” for each center. The keystone blocks are comprised of key multiple parcels within the subareas that can unify the district and ensure the success of the area. Recommendations developed for the Land Use and Urban Design issues include the following: Conserve, protect and preserve historic and natural resources. Enhance the three mixed-use centers to create unique places that serve the community. Protect existing residential neighborhoods. Encourage a diverse mix of housing. Encourage improved utilization of land resources. Implementation The Implementation and Next Steps Section provides recommendations made by the Task Force to improve the livability of the study area and benefiting the rest of the City. The key components of this section are the identification of transportation improvements/connections and proposed Comprehensive Plan policy amendments. Because this is not intended to be a technical study, these recommendations represent big picture goals and policy statements to assist the City with future decisions regardless of what happens to either Caltrain or any other rail project. The implementation projects have been presented in three priority categories. Tier One implements existing goals and policies. Tier Two implements other key safety projects. Tier Three projects are important enhancements for connectivity, safety and accessibility, but not so immediately critical as the other tiers. These are recommendations deemed best to achieve the Report’s vision, but they do not preclude other measures that may be identified in the future. The Tier One priority projects, as listed in Table 6.1 on page 6.05, include: Implement existing safety goals and policies, including the School Commute Corridors Network Crossings. Rail safety crossing improvements for Charleston Road. Rail safety crossing improvements for Churchill Avenue. Rail safety crossing improvements for East Meadow Drive. Recommended priority projects would be implemented through the City’s Capital Improvements Program scheduling. The Implementation Section also recommends future studies that would help achieve the vision and goals of the Report. Those studies include: Transportation and public improvement plans for Alma Street. Detailed area studies (similar to the California Avenue Concept Plan) for the Downtown/University Mixed Use City Center and the El Camino Way/South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed Use Center. Rail Corridor/Alma Street crossing improvements and engineering studies, to identify the feasibility of proposed improvements, and estimated costs prior to incorporating into the CIP. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The recommendation of new or amended policies for the Comprehensive Plan is an important component of the Implementation Chapter of the Report. Most of the elements of the study are consistent with goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Five new goals and associated policies were identified and recommended to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the ongoing Amendment process to further the goals of the Study. Certain policies and programs can immediately be implemented into the existing Transportation Element without much additional environmental analysis. These policies are detailed below and covered in the Negative Declaration. Other policies and programs recommended by the Report will require more detailed analysis and therefore will be analyzed as part of the continuing Comprehensive Plan update process. Although the Task Force has recommended approval of the goals and policies, there was some difference of opinion regarding Policy 1.1. There were some Task Force members, as well as members of the public, who do not believe the below-grade trench should be referenced as the only preferred option. This topic was the subject of some debate, but a clear majority of the group supported the policy as proposed. 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 HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. Policy 1.3: All Neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts. 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 generally being grade separation. 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 High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize future noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts 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 and 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. Rail Corridor Study Report Resolution The intent of the Rail Corridor Study Resolution is to formalize the approval of the document and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to give the recommendations in the Report added authority. With the resolution and the amendment into the Comprehensive Plan, the Report becomes a formal document that must be considered when reviewing development within Palo Alto. The Resolution would amend or add three policies and three programs in the Transportation Element to reflect the Report recommendations, including the Vision Statement. However, the actual implementation of the recommendations of the Report would be part of future planning studies, CIP projects, and related environmental clearance. The following additions (underlined) to existing programs and policies are proposed (as modified by the PTC): Program T-1: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood 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. In 2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Program T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but would be significantly more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s preference for the below-grade rail alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade alignment. The City is opposed to the above grade aerial rail options. Program T-21: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve northeast-southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned as a way to increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent studies and shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High speed Rail Authority plans. Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds, especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. The primary exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford University plans to implement an expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below. Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users…. The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent studies. The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections between the east and west portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly places. Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) The first Planning and Transportation Commission study session on the Rail Corridor Study was held on June 8, 2011. Staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group, provided a detailed introduction and an update on the Rail Corridor Study and Task Force. The PTC provided extensive input regarding the study. The items of concerned raised by the PTC included increasing public outreach, the importance of Alma Street, and connectivity in South Palo Alto. A second study session before the PTC was held on March 14, 2012. The PTC expressed support for the document and provided comments and direction to staff and the consultant. Some of the more important comments included the need for clear vision statements, avoiding impractical goals/actions, making the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles more prominent (especially the third principle regarding equal treatment among neighborhoods), the need for future area plans and stronger urban design policies. The PTC staff report and minutes of the June 8, 2011 and March 14, 2012 meetings can be found online (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp). The final hearing on the request for a recommendation by the PTC to the City Council was held on May 30, 2012. The staff report and minutes for the May 30th hearing have been included as Attachment D. The PTC have recommended an additional policy to clarify that the City is opposed to an elevated rail alignment, all neighborhoods must be treated equally and that existing vehicular crossings remain open. These changes have been added to the Resolution (Attachment A). The PTC again expressed support for the Report and associated resolution, but expressed some concerns. Those concerns included making sure policy statements are explicit, especially regarding rail alignment, ensuring that the north and south neighborhoods are treated equally, properly identifying potential impacts at all rail crossings, and confirming that the goals and policies of the implementation chapter would be incorporated into the larger Comprehensive Plan update for consistency. The PTC had the following specific comments: Make policy language more positive. Policy statements should be explicit. North and South Palo Alto must be treated equally. Vehicular rail crossings must be retained. Make sure Figure 4.5 for Alma Street shows all potential impacts at critical rail crossings. Rename Palo Alto Mixed Use Center with more descriptive name. Report should include the Rail Committee Guiding Principles 1 and 3. Substitute “high speed rail” with “rail”. The PTC offered specific modifications to the language of the Resolution and unanimously recommended adoption of the resolution and the accompanying Negative Declaration. Architectural Review Board The Report was also brought to the Architectural Review Board for a study session on March 15, 2012 and a hearing on May 24, 2012. The ARB was also supportive of the document and expressed a desire to confirm that this effort would be incorporated and not ignored. The ARB had similar comments to the PTC. The comments included support for the “keystone block” concept, the need to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation, especially along the tracks, and the importance of development of a vision statement for Alma Street. The ARB staff report for the March 15 study session can be found online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/architectural.asp. The ARB recommended approval of the Report and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at its May 24th hearing. The one change the ARB recommended was to the vision statement. The Board recommended that the word “safe” be added. This modification has been added to the list of changes and also to the vision statement in the staff report. The May 24th ARB staff report and minutes are provided as Attachment E. Public Outreach To solicit public feedback, a website and email address was established for the project. Notices for all meetings are posted on the City’s website in the Know zone (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp) and the City Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org, has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website, www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project website during the process. Next Steps Subsequent to Council approval of the proposed resolution, the next step will be to work with the Planning Commission and the consultant to include the Report’s recommendations on new Comprehensive Plan goals and policies into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff will coordinate recommendations for future studies into staff’s work programs and will factor priority projects into future Capital Improvements Programs. Resource Impacts The City Council initially authorized $200,000 for consultant services for this study. A total of $90,000 was included in the fiscal year 2010-11 and the remaining $110,000 was to be allocated in the 2011-12 budget. The contract was amended on June 4, 2012 with a minor budget increase of $25,000 by the Council to accommodate the additional report drafts and meetings that were determined to be needed. Policy Implications The Report will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use and transportation policies to guide the effort for the corridor. The Report is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment Table on page 6.14 of the Study. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and the California Avenue Area Concept Plan, would be considered with respect to the policies and improvements outlined in the Rail Corridor Study. The Report and Vision Statement of the Report would immediately amend Programs T1, T17 and T21, amend Policies T28, and add Policies T-6.1 and T-38.1 in the Transportation Element. The new Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and other program recommendations would be integrated into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and/or subsequent studies. Environmental Review A Draft Initial Study which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted and circulated for a 30 day public review on May 25, 2012 (Attachment C). The public comment period closed at 5:00 PM on June 25, 2012. Copies of the environmental documents have been provided to the State, Caltrain/San Mateo County Transportation District, Caltrans and Stanford University for their review and comments. Caltrain and Stanford University have expressed no objections to the document. No other comments have been received as of the printing of this staff report. Minor modifications to the Initial Study and Negative Declarations were made to reflect the PTC and ARB comments. Because those changes are minor and do not create additional impacts, CEQA does not require recirculation of the documents. Additional environmental review for individual projects would be required as those projects are more fully developed for implementation. In addition, CEQA review for the Next Steps and Implementation section will be conducted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update and/or as CIP projects are implemented. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution (PDF) Attachment B: List of Text Changes and Figure 1 of Grade Configuration (PDF) Attachment C: Negative Declaration and Initial Study (PDF) Attachment D: May 30, 2012 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF) Attachment E: May 24, 2012 ARB Staff Report and Minutes (PDF) Attachment F: Rail Committee Guiding Principles (PDF) Attachment G: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study - Councilmembers and Libraries only. Also available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31091 (TXT) Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Not Yet Approved 1 120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report and Amending the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate Certain Findings of the Report WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in 1998, including the Transportation Element; and WHEREAS, Policy T-1 provides that land use decisions shall be made that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The policy also states that transportation and land area are inextricably linked; and WHEREAS, Program T-21 provides that the City shall study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible; and WHEREAS, Program T-17 provides that the City shall support Caltrain electrification; and WHEREAS, Policy T-28 provides that the City shall make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2010, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the preparation of the Rail Corridor Study; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public outreach program in developing the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report, (the “Project”), including convening a citizen task force, facilitating outreach to the community and coordinating with other City departments throughout 2010 to 2012; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board heard public comment and reviewed the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on May 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard public comment and reviewed the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on May 30, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard public comment and reviewed the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on June 25, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate certain aspects of the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Study Report. Not Yet Approved 2 120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012 NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report, as amended by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board is hereby approved. SECTION 2. Program T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum. The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood 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. In 2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 3. Program T-17 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but would be significantly more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s preference for the below grade alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade alignment. The City is opposed to the above grade aerial rail options. SECTION 4. Program T-21 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Not Yet Approved 3 120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012 Street and the Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve northeast-southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned as a way to increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans and shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority plans. SECTION 5. Policy T-28 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds, especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. The primary exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford University plans to implement an expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below. Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans. The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections between the east and west portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly places. SECTION 6. Goal T-2 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add Policy T-6.1: Policy T-6.1: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic. SECTION 7. Goal T-5 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add Policy T-38.1: Not Yet Approved 4 120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012 Policy T-38.1: All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic. SECTION 8. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager _________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT C LIST OF TEXT REVISIONS Report of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force September 10, 2012 The following is a list of text revisions that will be made to the final draft based on input provided during the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission hearings. ■ The word "safe" will be added to the vision statement throughout the document. ■ p. 2.01, paragraph 3 will be revised to read: "The study area extends one parcel east of Alma Street and one parcel west of El Camino Real with the exception of the Stanford University main campus and Stanford Shopping Center where the study area follows the right-of-way to address the land uses that front these major transportation corridors." A note will also be added to each diagram legend next to the label study boundary (approximate, see description on p. 2.01)” ■ p. 3.06, The first paragraph under Public Facilities will be revised to read: "INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD KEEP PACE WITH DEVELOPMENT AND SHOULD ACHIEVE A HIGH QUALITY DESIGN. Implementation of schools, parks, recreation and cultural facilities, and transportation improvements should keep pace with development. In particular, ensure adequate transportation facilities, schools and parks are in place concurrently with development. New facilities should be designed to be attractive and compatible with the surrounding context. Establish and enforce measurable standards to ensure that this is achieved." ■ p. 4.08, first bullet under Task Force Recommendations, additional text will be added that reads: "Explore a variety of configurations for trench cover design which could include cantilevers, lattice covers and full slab covers accommodate additional pedestrian and bicycle connection opportunities. ■ p. 4.11, Figure 4.5 will be updated to show conceptual impacts on Alma Street for all priority existing rail crossings (4). See attached figure. ■ p. 4.13, Table 4.1, item 7, third column: Castilleja Elementary School will be changed to Castilleja School. ■ p. 4.14 Table 4.1, item 10, third column, second bullet the text will be revised to read: "Improvements including widening of tunnel to be ADA compliant and also to provide visibility and lighting." ■ p. 4.22, second column, second paragraph, third bullet, first sub-bullet text will be modified to read: "Corridor-wide: Design elements that can be applied throughout the corridor to ensure continuous identity across the city. This includes identifying and protecting appropriate existing large trees to preserve and may also include the addition of new elements such as; large street trees, street lighting, regulatory signage, signalization and wayfinding, uniformly-designed pedestrian crossings and facilities, and uniformly-designed legible bicycle facilities." ■ p. 5.02, Under Task Force Recommendations for the Mixed Use Centers, a new bullet point will be added as follows: "Include public art throughout the corridor as a way to reinforce the unique identity of each of the Mixed-Use Centers." ■ Throughout the entire document the South Palo Alto Mixed-Use Center will be renamed the El Camino Way Mixed-Use Center. ■ p. 6.03-6.04: The policies under Goals 1 and 3 have additions, see below. ■ p. 6.06: A note will be added under Table 6.2 that reads: "Note regarding cost assumptions in Table 6.2 which follows Cost estimates shown in Table 6.2 are based on the following assumptions: ° Detail engineering studies have not been conducted. ° Planning estimates with 2012 dollars. ° Source: City of Palo Alto, Hatch Mott MacDonald. ° Costs do not include any necessary property acquisitions." Revised Task Force recommendations for new policies that should be considered for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update 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: All Neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts. 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. Policy2.2: 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. Policy2.3: 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. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study September 10, 2012 2 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. Policy4.1: 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. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study September 10, 2012 3 CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY Figure 4.5: Two-Track On-Grade Configuration: Crossing and Impact Area Locations ddiro o ./ E.S. h • -, / ~ ~'Q / " o=u Schoo I =,-E "·r I '. E E "-I I ~\r"~ ",'"" Ow"" I ~ I "_"" \ --------------~-=-=--~-~~~~t=,~ \ I ~----$01 \' ~ "'"'om i'! ,\ %, U",o, i \ " -" \ " \ !, \ ) \ m " 'L , (~ ~ )3 ,/ Legend -!Ii Ii> o .. E P ~ ~ B C (-'. Street Undercrossing Impact Area (approx.) Priority Safety Crossing Improvement Area (Existing Grade Crossings) Vehicular, Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing Crilicallnterseclion lor Improvement (&hoo/ Q)mmure eorrioorsAdlJpleci by City CoullCil, 2{)()4) Existing Crossing (See dOl color lor type) Polenlial Crossing Study Area Boundary (Approximate, see description p. 2.01) Public Park School Creek Potential future BRT Station Caltrain Station 1/2-mile Radius Transit Service Area ~-o· 1.250' 2500' • I~ , NOTES: 1. Some eXisting crossings shown exist but need improvement. The colored dots indicate Ihe preferred type 01 crossing. 2. II is desirable to have a balanced approach along the enlire rail corridor for east-west connections. However, land use (existing homes) and discontinuous streets create considerable difficulfy in identifying additional crossings in the soulh. Further studies are recommended to explore additional connectivity opportunities across the rail lines in south Palo Allo. 3. Legend definitions are intended only to illustrale potential locations and impacts lor grade separations. Further studies are needed to determine feasibility and impacts. 4.11 Reviled June ]3,2012 __________________________________________________ ---' _____ HAY 16,2012 DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________________________________ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: September 18, 2012 Project Name: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report Project Location: City of Palo Alto Applicant: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Elena Lee, Senior Planner Owner: Various property owners and City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description: The proposal is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement and specific policies into the Comprehensive Plan. No development is proposed. The Study outlines specific policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor area, including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The Rail Corridor Study was initiated the City Council to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor in Palo Alto, particularly in response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. The vision of the project, developed with a citizen Task Force and stated in the Report, is to “create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers that provide walk-able, 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.” The purpose of the study was to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The Study treats the entire corridor as an interconnected but diverse 1,000 acre sub-area within the City. Proposed Project The proposed project is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement and specific policies into the Comprehensive Plan. The project would not result in any development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance Page 2 of 5 with regulations The Study outlines specific policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor area, including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The recommendations are focused on two general categories: 1) Circulation and Connectivity and 2) Land Use and Urban Design. The report discusses the context, issues and vision of both of these two items. The report identified several important themes: East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers shall be removed. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved. All residential neighborhoods must be protected. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings. From these issues, the Study identifies and makes recommendations for several future projects to help implement the vision. These next steps for implementation consist of recommendations for priority safety, connectivity/circulation both related to and independent of the rail corridor itself, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan Policies. The Study identifies these as priorities that would be incorporated into future City efforts and projects. The safety and connectivity/circulation recommendations include improvements to existing rail crossings, undercrossing and to existing school commute corridors, as identified by the City Council in the School Commute Corridors Network. The Study designates several areas to be part of future area studies, including the Downtown, the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed Use Center, Alma Street, El Camino Real and the Rail Corridor itself. In order to formalize the approval of the Study and to give added authority to the Study’s recommendations, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to be modified as follows: Program T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum. The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood 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. In 2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Program T-17 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Page 3 of 5 Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but would be significantly more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s preference for the below grade alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade alignment. The City is opposed to the above grade aerial rail options. Program T-21 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve northeast-southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned as a way to increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans and shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority plans. Policy T-28 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds, especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. The primary exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford University plans to implement an expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below. Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans. The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections between the east and west portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly places. Page 4 of 5 Goal T-2 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add Policy T-6.1: Policy T-6.1: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic. Goal T-5 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add Policy T-38.1: Policy T-38.1: All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic. The immediate proposal is for the City Council to approve the document and to incorporate the Vision of this study and specific policies, as described above, into the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of the improvements and area studies discussed above all require subsequent processes which will include an associated environmental clearance. This document identifies these projects as planned priorities but the approval of this document would not automatically implement these actions. All projects are required to conform to the City of Palo Alto rules and regulations, which can include a General Plan amendment, Architectural Review or approval by City Council by resolution or an ordinance. The City is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan. The incorporation of the Study’s policy recommendations would be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and be included as part of the Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. Page 5 of 5 Project Planner Date Adopted by City Council, Attested by Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Rail Corridor Study Page 1 Initial Study Rail Corridor Study Report Initial Study Prepared by City of Palo Alto May 21, 2012 Rail Corridor Study Page 2 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 9 A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................... 10 B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 11 C. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 12 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 13 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 14 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 15 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 17 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 18 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 20 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 21 K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 22 L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 23 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 24 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 25 O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 25 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 26 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 28 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 29 III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 30 IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 31 Rail Corridor Study Page 3 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Rail Corridor Study 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Elena Lee, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 650-617-3196 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto 5. APPLICATION NUMBER Not Applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION The Rail Corridor Study applies to the City of Palo Alto, which is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, bounded on the west by the San Francisco Bay, city of Mountain View to the south, city of Menlo Park to the south, and the Santa Cruz mountains to the west, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The boundaries of the corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits on the south, as shown in Figure 2. The study area also includes sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation and urban design changes. Rail Corridor Study Page 4 Initial Study Figure 2: Palo Alto Figure 1: Regional Map Rail Corridor Study Page 5 Initial Study 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Rail Corridor Study would apply through a large area of the City of Palo Alto and, therefore, there is no specific General Plan designation applicable to this project. 8. ZONING The Rail Corridor Study would apply through a large area of the City of Palo Alto and, therefore, there is no specific Zoning designation applicable to this project. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background The Rail Corridor Study (Study) was initiated in 2010 by the City Council to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor in Palo Alto, particularly in response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those improvements may include Caltrain upgrades such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or High Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant physical component of Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point how rail use in the corridor may change. The vision of the project, developed with a citizen Task Force and stated in the Report, is to “create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers that provide walk-able, 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.” The purpose of the study was to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The Study treats the entire corridor as an interconnected but diverse 1,000 acre sub- area within the City. Proposed Project The proposed project is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement and specific policies into the Comprehensive Plan. The project would not result in any development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance with regulations The Study outlines policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor area, including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The recommendations are focused on two general categories: 1) Circulation and Connectivity and 2) Land Use and Urban Design. The report discusses the context, issues and vision of both of these two items. The report identified several important themes: East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers shall be removed. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved. All residential neighborhoods must be protected. Rail Corridor Study Page 6 Initial Study New development requires timely infrastructure improvement. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings. From these issues, the Study identifies and makes recommendations for several future projects to help implement the vision. These next steps for implementation consist of recommendations for priority safety, connectivity/circulation both related to and independent of the rail corridor itself, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan Policies. The Study identifies these as priorities that would be incorporated into future City efforts and projects. The safety and connectivity/circulation recommendations include improvements to existing rail crossings, undercrossing and to existing school commute corridors, as identified by the City Council in the School Commute Corridors Network. The Study designates several areas to be part of future area studies, including the Downtown, the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed Use Center, Alma Street, El Camino Real and the Rail Corridor itself. In order to formalize the approval of the Study and to give added authority to the recommendations, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to be modified as follows: Program T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum. The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood 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. In 2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Program T-17 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but would be significantly more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s preference for the below grade alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade alignment. The City is opposed to the above grade aerial rail options. Rail Corridor Study Page 7 Initial Study Program T-21 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve northeast- southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned as a way to increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans and shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority plans. Policy T-28 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the following underlined language: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds, especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. The primary exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford University plans to implement an expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below. Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans. The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections between the east and west portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly places. Goal T-2 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add Policy T-6.1: Policy T-6.1: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal Rail Corridor Study Page 8 Initial Study consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic. Goal T-5 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add Policy T-38.1: Policy T-38.1: All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic. Implementation Process The immediate proposal is for the City Council to approve the document and to incorporate the Vision of this study into the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of the improvements, and area studies discussed above all require subsequent processes which will include an associated environmental clearance. This document identifies these projects as planned priorities but the approval of this document would not automatically implement these actions. All projects are required to conform to the City of Palo Alto rules and regulations, which can include a General Plan amendment, Architectural Review or approval by City Council by resolution or an ordinance. The City is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan. If this study is approved by Council, the incorporation of the Study’s policy recommendations would be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and be included as part of the Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The City of Palo Alto is surrounded primarily by other urban uses, but has two significant natural and sensitive areas on the most eastern (San Francisco Bay/Baylands) and western (Santa Cruz Mountains/Foothills) edges of the city. The map provided above shows these adjacencies. The Rail Corridor Study area is located within a part of the City that is fully developed and urbanized. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder California State Clearinghouse City of Menlo Park City of Mountain View Caltrain California Department of Transportation Stanford University Rail Corridor Study Page 9 Initial Study ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and Rail Corridor Study Page 10 Initial Study b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,5 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 2-Map L4, 5 X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 2-Map L4, 5 X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1,2,5 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,5 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The Rail Corridor Study and the vision statement do not propose any specific development. The Study includes recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Physical development that would be part of improvements would be subject to the City’s Architectural Review process. The Architectural Review entitlement is required for all the exterior improvements to ensure the project is designed with high aesthetic quality and is harmonious with its surroundings. Environmental review would be included in the project review. The proposed Study recommendations and vision will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All improvements are subject to Architectural Review to address aesthetics, and once fully developed, all individual components of the recommendations that the City will seek to implement will be further reviewed for impacts and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required Rail Corridor Study Page 11 Initial Study B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 2-MapL9 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X DISCUSSION: 1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. Rail Corridor Study Page 12 Initial Study The Study and vision statement do not include lands that are located in “Prime Farmland”, “Unique Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The areas that are the subject of this Study are not zoned for agricultural use, and are not regulated by the Williamson Act. The areas affected are within a developed urbanized area and have no impacts on forest or timberland. Mitigation Measures: None Required C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? 1,5 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); 1,5 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1,5 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1,5 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1,5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 13 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million 1 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI 1 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1 X DISCUSSION: The Study and vision statement includes recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The Rail Corridor Study area is in a developed urbanized location within the City of Palo Alto. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance with regulations related to Air Quality. The City of Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. The Rail Corridor Study will not create any new significant air quality impacts. Construction activities related to the implementation of the Study’s recommendations and future projects would be evaluated in a project-specific environmental analysis for potential effects on air quality. Once fully developed, all individual components of the Study that the City would seek to implement would be required to mitigate any potential air quality impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or 1, 2-MapN1, 5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 14 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1,2-MapN1, 5 X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,8-MapN1, 5 X d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1,2,3,4,5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would cause a less than significant to no impact to biological resources within the City. The Study includes recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. The areas within the rail corridor study boundaries are all in urbanized areas and are fully disturbed. The subsequent projects that the City may implement would be further reviewed for potential biological impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Rail Corridor Study Page 15 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1,10 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1,2-MapL8 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,2-MapL8 X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2-MapL8 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1,2-MapL7, 10 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X DISCUSSION: The Study and vision statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. The Study area is located within a fully developed and disturbed portion of the City. The Study recommends the preservation of historic resources. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential cultural and archaeological impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. For all those future projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Mitigation Measures: None Required F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the Rail Corridor Study Page 16 Initial Study risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 11 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN10 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2-MapN5 X iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 2-MapN5 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 2-MapN5 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision statement reflects the study’s recommendation for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The incorporation of the Vision statement and separate approval of the Rail Corridor Study would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential geology, soils and seismicity impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward faults. Although hazards exist, development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building Rail Corridor Study Page 17 Initial Study codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,5,9 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,5,9 X DISCUSSION: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are: • For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. • For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of Rail Corridor Study Page 18 Initial Study operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size ** Single-family 56 du Apartment, low-rise 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du City park 600 acres Day-care center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf **If project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant. The Study and Vision Statement supports recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The amendment of the vision statement to the Comprehensive Plan and the approval of the Rail Corridor Study would not result in any development. Future projects that are guided by the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential greenhouse gas impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. It is not anticipated that the Study’s recommendations would create any new significant operational GHG emissions. The intent of the study is to coordinate land use and transportation decisions, including encouraging bicycle and pedestrian modes of transport and to reduce automobile trips where possible. The subsequent projects guided by the Vision Statement that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Rail Corridor Study Page 19 Initial Study Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1,5 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1,5 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1,5 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1,2-MapN9 X f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2-MapN7 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,2-MapN7 X j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement supports recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for hazards and hazardous materials impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. Rail Corridor Study Page 20 Initial Study The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The recommendations do not involve the use, creation or transportation of hazardous materials and seek to improve safety. The actual implementation of the Study is anticipated to have little to no impacts with regard to public safety, hazards and hazardous materials. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 2-MapN2 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,5 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1,5 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1,5 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 2-MapN6 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 2-MapN6 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapN8 X Rail Corridor Study Page 21 Initial Study of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement supports the recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies and the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and adoption of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for hydrology and water quality impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. All development is required to comply with building codes that address flood safety issues. Development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water quality. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,3,4,5 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 22 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,5 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1,5 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1,2,3 X DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement supports the recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. The policies included in the Study have been analyzed and determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. New land uses that would not be allowed in the Comprehensive Plan are not proposed. The entire study area is located within a fully developed or previously disturbed area. Future development is required to be consistent with existing land uses within the City. Future projects supported in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for land use impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for Rail Corridor Study Page 23 Initial Study other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required. L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1,2,12 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? 1,2,12 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,12 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,12 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 X g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1,12 X Rail Corridor Study Page 24 Initial Study DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for noise impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1 X DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and the Vision Statement as amended in the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the approved Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for population and housing impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and adoption of the Vision Statement would not cause housing or population impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Rail Corridor Study Page 25 Initial Study Mitigation Measures: None Required N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X DISCUSSION: The approved Study and the Vision Statement amended in the Comprehensive Plan supports the recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects recommended in the approved Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for public safety impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and vision statement recommend projects to improve safety and would not cause public safety impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that 1 X Rail Corridor Study Page 26 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 X DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement to be amended to the Comprehensive Plan supports the recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for recreation impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and vision statement would not cause a population increase that would create recreation impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1,5 X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1,5 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 1,5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 27 Initial Study or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1,5 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1,2,5 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,5 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1,5 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,5 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1,5 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,5 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1,5 X n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,5 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1,5 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 28 Initial Study DISCUSSION: The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. The Study includes recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for transportation and traffic impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the Comprehensive Plan would not cause traffic impacts. The Study recommends projects that would improve safety and reduce traffic congestion, while enhancing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation: None Required Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,5 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,5 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,5 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,5 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,5 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1,5 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,5 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 29 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? DISCUSSION: The Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan includes recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and adoption of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for utility and service system impacts, and would be subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and/or previously disturbed area. No development is recommended within undeveloped areas that are not currently served by existing public services. The approval of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not cause utility and service system impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. Mitigation Measures: None Required R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1,2,3,4,5,10 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 1,5 X Rail Corridor Study Page 30 Initial Study Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact indirectly? DISCUSSION: The Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan includes recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for environmental impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The approval of the Study and Vision would not eliminate an important example of California History. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does it have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. The project is located within a fully developed area and will not result in considerable effects to the environment, and therefore, would create less than significant impacts on the quality of the environment. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the Comprehensive Plan would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance 4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001 5. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, May 2012 (www.paloaltorailcorridor.org) 6. Not used 7. Not used 8. Not used 9. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010 10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory 11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance ATTACHMENTS A. Executive Summary from the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, May 2012 Rail Corridor Study Page 31 Initial Study DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ___________________________________ _May 24, 2012_____________________ Project Planner Date ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 9 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: May 30, 2012 SUBJECT: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: Review and Recommendation to the City Council for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommend that the City Council approve a resolution approving the Rail Corridor Study Report (Report) and incorporating the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those improvements may include any or all of the following: Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or High Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant physical component of Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point what the future holds for either High Speed Rail or Caltrain. The intent of the process was to generate a community vision that would provide land use and transportation policies to guide development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to be proactive to changes to the rail system. The Report will guide staff and the City as decisions are made regarding land use and transportation improvements, such as private development and the Capital Improvement Program. Following the Rail Corridor Study Task Force (Task Force) recommendation on the Report, and given the public feedback from the two community workshops, the revised study is presented for a formal recommendation. The Report includes revisions to reflect comments from the Task ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 9 Force, the PTC, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the City Council Rail Committee, various City Board/Committee liaisons and the public. Staff has also coordinated with Caltrain staff on this project. Once the Study is approved by City Council, the next step will be to incorporate the Study as a whole into the Comprehensive Plan by reference. The five goals and related policies would be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the on-going Amendment. The boundaries of the corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits on the south, as shown in the Report (Attachment B and available online at www.paloaltorailcorridor.org). The study area also includes sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation and urban design changes. The plan and implementation measures is proposed to be ultimately be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference and the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are proposed to be incorporated directly into the document. Rail Corridor Study Task Force The Rail Corridor Study Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the City Council authorized Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study with City staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group (BMS). This report represents the consensus of the Task Force as whole, as an outcome of fifteen meetings. Through the Task Force meetings and community workshops, staff has also received detailed feedback on the draft report from the public. The Task Force members also acted as a conduit and a voice for their specific stakeholder groups and for other interested members of the public. The public process also included the input from liaisons of various City boards and commissions to represent their respective groups, including the PTC, the ARB, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). At the final Task Force meeting on May 1, 2012, the Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report, including the Implementation Chapter. Rail Corridor Study Area Tour A study area tour was held on September 10, 2011. A majority of the Task Force and interested members of the public participated in the four hour tour. The tour included a bus tour of the entire length and walk throughs of specific areas within the corridor. The tour provided an opportunity for the Task Force members to view the study area together and to get familiar with areas that they were not as familiar with. Some highlights of the tour included the South of Forest Area, the Homer tunnel, California Avenue, the Churchill Avenue train crossing area, the intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road and the recently developed residential projects in South Palo Alto. The tour enabled the Task Force members to better understand the perspectives from the various areas of the City, especially where crossings are proposed. Rail Corridor Study Process The Rail Corridor Study is a three part process that began in late 2010. Following the City Council decision on the report, the report and any identified changes would be incorporated into and referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as appropriate. The phases consist of the following: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 9 1. Phase I, “Context and Vision”. Establish the background and context for the rail corridor in order to begin developing a preferred vision. 2. Phase II, “Alternatives and Analysis”. Develop and analyze the preferred alternatives. 3. Phase III, “Plan Preparation”. Prepare the Report, obtain feedback and refine alternatives. Now completing Phase III, staff and the consultant will continue to obtain feedback and refine the alternatives given final input from the ARB, Commission, Council and the public. Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and City/School Traffic Safety Committee Joint Meeting A joint meeting with representatives of PABAC and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) was held on February 16, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input the stakeholders’ input on this report. The participants were generally supportive of the work that had been done. Barb Mitchell, the Palo Alto Unified School District Task Force member also was in attendance. Some of the main comments raised at the meeting for follow up include: Encouraging trenching across the entire City Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Encouraging grade separated crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. Improving safety of school children. City Council Rail Committee The Rail Corridor Study was the subject of three meetings before the City Council Rail Committee. A brief update was provided on January 26th, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the first draft of the Rail Corridor Study Report was presented for their review and comments. The March 1st meeting was also attended by four members of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force. The primary comment received was a request to make the references to the future of the rail line more general because the future of the High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects is so unknown and continues to change. The requested change would allow the Report to have greater flexibility and to be used in a variety of scenarios, similar to the other long range City policy documents. The item was continued to give the Committee more time to provide comments. On April 26, 2012, the Committee met and provided final comments. Staff and BMS informed the Committee that various changes had been made to the document in response to their feedback and subsequent comments from the Task Force, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the public. It was emphasized that the report was crafted to be consistent with the City’s position on the High Speed Rail project and the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles. The document was also revised so that it would be as flexible as possible to provide a longer horizon to better respond to the rapidly changing High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects. The Committee was appreciative of the work completed for the project and generally supportive of the document. Community Workshop A second Community Workshop was held on March 29, 2012 at the Lucie Stern Community Center, Community Room. The first Community Workshop was held on May 19, 2011 also at the Lucie Stern Community Room. In order to encourage a greater attendance of this workshop, ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 9 notice cards were mailed out to all property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the rail corridor study area for over 7,000 notice cards. A notice was also published in the Palo Alto Weekly. Staff requested the Task Force members to publicize the meeting and encourage that their neighbors attend the meeting. Announcements of the workshop were also posted at City Hall, the libraries, Lucie Stern and on the City’s websites well in advance of the meeting. In addition, staff sent notices to various merchants and posted announcements on the City’s social network pages. The public outreach drive was successful. Most of the 50 attendees had not previously attended the workshop. There was also a representation of the various parts of Palo Alto, with more than half from residents of South Palo Alto. The community members were generally appreciative and supportive of the report. A few key issues were raised, including safety for children, pedestrians and bicyclists, treatment of all neighborhoods fairly, protecting schools from rail impacts. Some members of the public stated that although additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings were desired, additional vehicular crossings were not. PTC and ARB Hearings The Rail Corridor Study Report was distributed to both the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board for their comments. A study session before the Commission was held on March 14th. The Commission expressed support for the document and provided comments and direction to staff and the consultant. Some of the more important comments included: Have clear, bold vision statements. Provide measurable improvements and implementation steps. Be careful with language to avoid commitment to impractical goals/actions. Include language to prevent narrowing of Alma Street. Discuss open space opportunities. Discuss land use opportunities above trench and alternate ways of designing trench cover. Make City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles more prominent, including incorporating Guiding Principal 3 (equal consideration for all neighborhoods affected by the rail) into the Study’s Goal 1. Support for proposal of future area plans, similar to Concept Plans. Need stronger urban design component, especially for Alma Street and rail right of way. An Architectural Review Board Study Session was held the next day on March 15. The ARB was also supportive of the document and expressed a desire to confirm that this effort would be incorporated and not ignored. The ARB had similar comments to the PTC. The comments included: Appreciated key stone discussion. Need to consider impact on high school. Concerned about trenching roadways rather than train, but should be studied. Great opportunity to improve pedestrian and bike friendly, especially along tracks. Should study potential crossings for pedestrians and bikes, not just for vehicles. Move new Comprehensive Plan policies to front. Clarify what City’s position and reasons regarding rail improvements ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 9 Would like more studies of various scenarios. Would like vision statement for Alma Street. Report should be clear what benefits the City. Implementation plan is very important component. A formal hearing requesting the ARB’s recommendation is scheduled to be held on May 24th. Staff will provide a summary of the outcome of the hearing at the Commission hearing. DISCUSSION: Draft Rail Corridor Study Report The vision of the project, developed with the Task Force and stated in the Report, is to “create a vibrant, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood 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.” The purpose of this document is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The areas that make up the Rail Corridor have been historically viewed as separate disconnected areas. The Report attempts to look at the entire corridor as an interconnected sub-area within the City. This represents challenges because of the diversity of the various components that make up the corridor and the sheer size of the 1,000 acres that comprise it. The intent is also not to analyze in detail the various impacts of the various rail alternatives, such as noise and air quality. The study was also not intended to provide detailed traffic impact analysis. This type of analysis is beyond the scope and resources of this study. BMS will provide a detailed presentation of the Report at the hearing. The Report is divided into seven detailed sections: Executive Summary Introduction Background Issues and Vision Circulation and Connectivity Land Use and Urban Design Implementation and Next Steps Five overall themes developed that became particularly important to the Task Force and the success of this report as a guiding document. Those themes are: 1. East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers should be removed. 2. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved (although this was not unanimous) 3. All residential neighborhoods must be protected and treated equally. 4. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement. 5. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 9 Revisions to Report The most recent City Council position on the High Speed Rail (HSR) project was to oppose it in any form, although there is some support for the blended two-track Caltrain/HSR project. Because this is not a technical study or a feasibility study, the decision was made to focus on two rail configurations that would capture the range of issues that could occur under any of the various alternatives being discussed by the State in order to allow this study to be flexible and able to address multiple scenarios. Those two options are: Trench Below-grade two-track on-grade These two options encompass the conditions that would occur with all the other variations of the rail projects that have been discussed. Following the various hearings, public meetings and the second community workshop, the Report was revised to clarify that the City’s preference is for the trench option only. Various revisions have been made to the report subsequent to the March PTC hearing to address the comments and concerns raised during the public process. The major changes include: Circulation and Connectivity Chapter: Expanded the Alma Street discussion to address more issues and opportunities. Emphasized the importance of maintaining traffic capacity of Alma, which would be impossible if Alma Street was narrowed. Created a concept diagram for Alma Street, similar to the one created for El Camino Real. Incorporated a Corridor-wide design principles and specific improvement recommendations throughout. Discussed connection opportunities along the rail corridor. Opportunities include incorporation of green spaces and other treatments to benefit the City and its occupants either above a covered trench or along the rail corridor. Implementation Chapter: Revised goals and policies in the Implementation Chapter to be more consistent with the format of the Comprehensive Plan Added ball park cost estimates for the Tier 1 Priority Improvements Recommended detailed area studies, similar to the California Avenue Concept Plan for the Downtown/University Mixed Use City Center and the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed Use Center. Recommended a Transportation and Public Improvements Plan for Alma Street. Although the rail projects are still pending, it was discussed that improvements along the right of way could be started and implemented. Recommended a Rail Corridor/Alma Street Crossings Improvements Study and Engineering Studies. All efforts should be coordinated with any rail improvement projects. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 9 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies One of the important components of the implementation of this report is the recommendation of new policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Much of the elements of the study are consistent with goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Five new goals were identified in the Study to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the overall Amendment process to further the goals of the Study. As discussed above, the goals have been modified to respond to comments and to make them more consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. The goals have been endorsed by the Task Force. However, there were some task force members, as well as some members of the public, who supported an at-grade rail system and voted to rewrite Goal 1 to allow it. 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. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 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 crossing. 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 generally being grade separation. 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 High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize future noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts and neighborhood. 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. Goal 4: Provide improved access to parks and 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 9 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. Next Steps The next step will be to bring the PTC’s recommendation and the Report to the City Council for their formal decision whether to adopt a Resolution to approve the Rail Corridor Study. The draft resolution will be provided via email prior to the May 30th hearing and at places. Should the resolution be approved, the Report would be immediately incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan by reference and the five Comprehensive Plan goals/policies would be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, as well as the associated Environmental Impact Report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Report will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use transportation policies to guide the effort for the corridor. The Report is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment Table on page 6.14 for the Study. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, would be considered in conjunction with the Rail Corridor Study. The Vision Statement of the Report would be immediately be amended to Program T1 in the Transportation Element. The new Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and other program recommendations would be part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and/or subsequent studies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: CEQA review for the clearance for Rail Corridor Study is in progress and will be completed prior to the City Council hearing in June. A Negative Declaration (ND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is anticipated. Additional environmental review for individual projects may also be required as those projects are more fully developed for implementation. In addition, CEQA review for the Next Steps and Implementation section will be conducted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff expects Council review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan in the fall of 2012 and review of the EIR and Final Comprehensive Plan in the spring of 2013. PUBLIC OUTREACH: To solicit public feedback, a website and email address has been established for the project. Notices for all meetings are posted on the City’s website in the Know zone (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp) and the City Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org, has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website, ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto Page 9 of 9 www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project website, City Hall, the Development Center and all four public libraries during the process. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report (PTC only. Also available online at www.paloaltorailcorridor.org.) B. City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles C. March 14, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report and Excerpt Minutes D. Public Correspondence COURTESY COPIES: BMS Design Group Rail Corridor Study Task Force Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department/Division Head Approval: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 May 30, 2012 3 4 Rail Corridor Study Report: Review and Recommendation to the City Council for the Palo 5 Alto Rail Corridor Study Report. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Item 2 is a public hearing on the Rail Corridor Study Report or consideration of 8 a resolution and recommendation of this resolution to the Council for approval. We will start 9 with the Staff Report. 10 11 Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. We are returning to 12 you today to request a formal Commission recommendation on the Report. Staff recommends 13 the Commission recommend the Council to approve the negative declaration and resolution 14 approving the Rail Corridor Study Report and to incorporate the Vision Statement and the 15 recommendations for future area improvement studies in greater connectivity into the 16 transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent to the distribution of this report, 17 the Commission was given via e-mail and at places copy of the resolution and the draft negative 18 declaration that was prepared and circulated for this project in conformance with the California 19 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 20 21 Also at places is an e-mail from Beth Bunnenberg, the liaison for the Historic Resources Board 22 expressing her support for the project. Your packet also includes an e-mail from Martin 23 Summer, a Task Force Member with a request for minor revisions including the order and 24 changing Goal 1 to state “the future vertical rail improvements should be constructed in a below 25 grade trench.” Goal 1 currently states that “rail improvements should be constructed in a below 26 grade trench” and was the subject of debate with the Task Force. 27 28 The purpose of tonight’s resolution is for the Commission to make a decision on the Study itself. 29 As a policy document their report identifies recommendations for priorities and the Vision 30 Statement. The Report recommends future actions. It lays down the groundwork or framework 31 to help the City make future decisions regarding implementing the recommended policies and 32 goals identified in the Study. The Commission is being requested to confirm support for the 33 Study. 34 35 The accompanying resolution includes specific policy and programs that would formalize the 36 City’s position on the Report, which enables the City to site the Report as a binding document. 37 The resolution would state the Report was approved to provide policies, that the Vision 38 Statement represents the City’s polices and support for the electrification of Caltrain and that the 39 City would evaluate recommendations in future area improvement studies. The 40 recommendations identify priority improvement projects for safety and connectivity as well as 41 new Comprehensive Plan polices. These are recommendations. The purpose of the document is 42 to identify these as future efforts. The new policies if the study is approved would be 43 incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update similar to other work that has already begun on 44 the update process that the Commission has been involved with. Other future projects would be 45 the part of future area studies, development projects, and the Capital Improvement Program 46 Page 2 (CIP). All these future projects would be subject to future CEQA process including the 1 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is being prepared for the Comprehensive Plan update. 2 That document is anticipated to start work this summer and would be brought back to the 3 Commission for hearing in summer of 2013 along with the Comprehensive Plan Update. 4 5 This Report is the outcome of a nearly two year effort by Staff, BMS Design Group and the 6 Citizen Task Force to study and develop land use and transportation policies for areas along the 7 Rail Corridor. The intent as defined by Council is to generate a community vision for land use, 8 transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Corridor in conjunction with and apart 9 from the various projects. 10 11 Subsequent to the Commission hearing in March, a second community workshop was held to 12 solicit feedback from the public. Staff implemented significant public outreach. We requested 13 the Task Force Members to encourage their fellow stakeholders to attend, sent multiple e-mail 14 announcements, posted flyers at City Hall and all four libraries, sent postcards to residents and 15 occupants within 600 feet of the Corridor for over 7,000 postcards. We’ve also posted meeting 16 notices on the City’s website including social network pages. We also provided the poster for 17 the meeting to local business owners to post in their businesses. As a result the workshop was 18 well attended with approximately over 50 new people along with Task Force Members and some 19 other interested people. BMS would provide a summary of the workshop following Staff’s 20 presentation. The attendees represented various stakeholders of the City including both North 21 and South Palo Alto. 22 23 A final Task Force Meeting was held on May 2nd for their final recommendation. The Report 24 was updated following various meetings and hearings to respond to comments from the public, 25 the Commission, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), as well as City, the City Council Rail 26 Committee. BMS will provide a summary of the changes. 27 28 One of the key outcomes of the process has been an acknowledgement that concerns of both 29 North and South Palo Alto have to be equally addressed throughout this project as we move 30 forward. The changes in the Report include more discussions on urban design, treatment of the 31 corridor, and clarification on the City’s position on the various rail projects. Following an in 32 depth discussion the Task Force voted to recommend approval of the document. However, 33 during the discussion the modifications to Goal 1 regarding the alignment of the high speed rail, 34 not all members supported saying that trench was the only preferred alternative. This was a 35 subject of multiple debates. 36 37 On May 24th an ARB meeting was held on the project. The ARB voted to recommend approval 38 of the document and adoption of the Vision Statement. Judith Wasserman, Chair of the ARB is 39 here tonight to speak about the meeting. BMS will also provide a short summary on the meeting. 40 The ARB did recommend one change, and that was to include the word “safety” into the Vision 41 Statement. Once the Commission makes a recommendation the next step is a Council hearing 42 which has been scheduled for June 25th for their final decision. 43 44 There are also several Task Force Members and Liaisons in the audience. Staff invites them to 45 speak on the process. We’d like to express our appreciation for their hard work throughout this 46 Page 3 process and the large amount of time they have devoted to this. Following this BMS will make 1 their presentation. Both Staff and the consultants are available to answer questions. 2 3 Michael Smiley, BMS Design Group Consultant: Chair Martinez and members of the 4 Commission thank you for having us back again. My name is Michael Smiley, I’m a partner 5 with the firm of BMS Design Group. We are urban designers. With me here this evening also is 6 Paige Martin. So we’ll be jointly, I’ll be handling a short presentation and then jointly we’ll be 7 answering any questions you may have. 8 9 What I am going to do is, this is of course a rather lengthy document and hopefully maybe you 10 had a chance to read it twice now. But I’m going to run through essentially where we’ve been 11 since the last time we saw you and essentially what some of the changes are rather than the full 12 content of the report. 13 14 Since we were here the last time which was on March 14th, you see on this list of meetings, 15 we’ve been through a whole series of additional meetings. We’ve met with the ARB twice now. 16 The first time was the day following our meeting with you. We’ve also held Community 17 Workshop Two. There have been meetings with the Rail Committee and then as Elena 18 mentioned we had a final Task Force meeting #15. 19 20 And on that particular item I’d like to just say that, express our appreciation to the Task Force. 21 Fifteen meetings they did yeoman’s effort. That’s a lot of meetings. That’s a lot of work. We 22 also went out and walked the site on a Saturday one day. This long Corridor we walked large 23 portions of it and we bused other portions. They’ve been a great committee to work with, it’s 24 made our work as consultants and pulling this all together it’s made our work, probably one of 25 the better professional experiences I’ve had working with a committee because they really did 26 coalesce into a group where we had a lot of different opinions but we were able to kind of 27 through a process come together with a lot of recommendations that there was general 28 unanimity. 29 30 Next slide, please. Now just a few words on the Community Workshop, there was a very good 31 attendance at the Community Workshop. I mean 50 people we, we would’ve needed a bigger 32 room to handle any more. It was completely at capacity in the room and those were community 33 attendees and did not include Staff or consultants. Generally speaking, while the meeting was 34 handled a presentation of the findings of the Task Force and then there were boards and panels 35 and so on around the wall for people to review and make comments. The, generally speaking the 36 sense of the meeting, the tone of the meeting there was broad general support for the 37 recommendations of the Task Force. In fact there were few additional comments that really 38 differed from what the Task Force had to say, they tended to be more refinements and so on and 39 added input of things that were already in the Task Force recommendations. 40 41 I think the key thing we came away from this with that was really most important is that we were 42 able to prioritize a set of recommendations through the community process. And that middle 43 slide, I know it’s very difficult to read but in the corner there is a panel and if you squint your 44 eyes you can see a set of dots. We used a dot exercise. Next slide. And essentially each 45 participant was given eight dots and there were 27 subjects that they could place their dots 46 Page 4 against. They ranged everything from rail crossings to El Camino crossings and a variety of 1 other types of improvements. Here you see the top three vote getters in some of these categories 2 related say to the Rail/Alma Street Crossing Improvements, the El Camino Real Intersection 3 Improvements, some of the top vote getters. 4 5 Now this is not a scientific survey obviously, people could put down three dots. They weren’t 6 limited to say you could only put one dot. So they could stack the deck if they so chose. We 7 don’t know if that happened. But for instance what you see in the rail crossings, I think this is 8 not new news. You’ve heard it for years and we heard it all 15 meetings with the Task Force and 9 lengthy conversations. Concern over those three crossings in particular out of 50 people there’s 10 50 votes. And again that doesn’t necessarily mean every person, but a very high vote getter. 11 12 Next slide. Also other intersection improvements that also received high number of dots in the 13 voting exercise and then a few other additional pedestrian/bicycle crossings, the California 14 Avenue refers to improving the existing crossing that’s there today. The additional southern 15 undercrossing relates to the need and the desire, particularly in the South to provide an additional 16 crossing at the tracks, but of course we know there’s a land use constraint there that’s caused by 17 the fact that we have a lot of single family homes all along the tracks. It’s not so much a rail 18 issue; it’s a land use issue. And so the Report as you know recommends that further study be 19 taken to help define some additional locations where that might happen. Next. 20 21 The final Report revisions there’s basically six categories if you like as a result of all those 22 meetings. It includes the input received from you and the input we’ve received from the other 23 meetings and the community meeting. And those include expanded Alma Street 24 recommendations, and that includes recommendations related to setting some design principles 25 for Alma Street. The preferred vertical alignment of the rail was clarified as Elena mentioned, 26 although it wasn’t 100% unanimous it was the majority of the Task Force agreed with that 27 clarification. The Comprehensive Plan policy recommendation that you saw before have been 28 modified slightly. Priority projects were revised slightly from what you saw before. Next Steps, 29 a whole new chapter was added or a whole subsection was added on Next Steps to the 30 Implementation Chapter. There were slight revisions to the appendices. 31 32 So let’s touch on each of these. The Alma Street recommendations included as I mentioned, 33 expanded text which really clarifies the issues and opportunities related to Alma. And then in 34 addition to a concept diagram there are some specific recommendations or broad principles 35 related to functional aesthetic improvements. Some of that is a response directly to some of the 36 things you said here in wanting to set some more clear principles related to what Alma could and 37 might be. And also identifying the key quarter segments, and related to Alma then a specific 38 recommendation for a type of study that should be done for transportation and public 39 improvements along the Alma Corridor. Next. 40 41 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policy Statements, what you saw before had four 42 Goals and their subtext Policy Statements. Goal 1, which essentially combined the statement 43 about the rail vertical alignment, was combined with the Goal 2, of insuring highest safety. And 44 those two were split into two separate goals at this point. And part of the reason for that was that 45 there was a feeling, there was a split as Elena mentioned among the Task Force Members about 46 Page 5 whether the Goal 1 even really needed to be said. That the Report itself stands in terms of the 1 various recommendations and so on and because we don’t really know what rail configuration is 2 coming the goals and recommendations of the Report would apply regardless of what the trench 3 configuration would be. However, there were some that felt that it was important to make the 4 statement about the preference for below grade trench because that’s consistent with existing 5 City, at least City Council statements. The Goal 2 is really the most important in some ways. 6 It’s certainly a very important one and the Task Force felt very strongly about this safety at the 7 rail crossings issue. Next slide. 8 9 I mentioned that there was a whole new subsection added to the Implementation Chapter, these 10 are the topics that are in that. It touches on the Comprehensive Plan, policy modifications, it 11 mentions specific, these are some early action things that will happen right now. The input to the 12 California Avenue concept plan process that’s going on now, which this plan can provide. It also 13 discusses the need to, or the next step, to actually prepare some detailed area plan studies. 14 Similar to the California Avenue area study that’s going on now, in the North, in the mixed use 15 area that’s been defined, and in the South, Palo Alto area around the triangle which these other 16 two mixed use centers and the need to move into some more detailed studies in those locations. 17 18 As you know, there are some specific, what we call keystone block areas that are, that in this 19 study recommend those as prime opportunity areas for looking into. The Alma Street 20 Transportation and Public Improvements Plan I mentioned to you already now, and then I also 21 mentioned the third from the bottom Rail Corridor Alma Street Crossing opportunities. This 22 would be looking for locations, particularly in the South where some additional opportunities 23 could be created. And then finally, input to the Engineering Studies this would be input to 24 Engineering Studies that actually others are doing, Caltrain, High Speed Rail Joint Powers 25 Authority and so on. And then finally to continue the work that’s been done with the Stanford 26 intersection, Stanford Avenue intersection and consider, continue with the El Camino Real 27 intersection and improvements. Next. 28 29 The priority projects were confirmed by the Task Force with one modification and that was to 30 move the, what was a tier 3 priority of investigating these southern crossings, moving it up to a 31 tier 2 priority. Next slide. 32 33 And then finally there were some minor modifications to the Appendices, essentially 34 clarifications of the four rail alternatives that are already being evaluated and some additional 35 explanation related to the Guiding Principles of the Rail Committee. Next. 36 37 The ARB at their hearing on the 24th last week formally recommended approval of the, of this 38 document. Similar to the kind of approval you’re being asked to give tonight with one 39 amendment that would actually in the Vision Statement add the word “safe” to the Vision 40 Statement. There were some other comments; I would call those minor comments that can be 41 incorporated into the Report. Generally there was unanimous support for the Report and 42 findings. But the third bullet you see there a few miscellaneous specific comments. And one of 43 the, I would say that there was a broad feeling and this being the design review board I think was 44 very appropriate to consider the attractiveness of the design of infrastructure. We’re talking 45 about some big infrastructure projects here and their aesthetic character is as important as there 46 Page 6 vertical alignment. And maybe there can be some language about that in this Report, and related 1 to that, the incorporation of public art, particularly in the public infrastructure, and public spaces, 2 and public projects. There was also a very important word “follow through” that means there’s 3 an intense desire to see this not sit on a shelf. It was expressed many times not just like any other 4 report, we’d like to see this, some of this get done. And that’s where the Next Steps and some of 5 these policy documents become very important. Next. 6 7 So here you see it’s the Vision Statement that’s in the Report, it’s always been in the Report. 8 Here is the change with the word “safe” added, “to create a vibrant, safe, attractive transit rich 9 area within the City,” and I won’t read through the whole thing. But, it’s the Vision Statement 10 for the entire corridor. Next. 11 12 So this is my last slide. Just to repeat the Staff recommendation to you is seeking that you 13 review and recommend to the City Council that the Council approve a resolution approving the 14 Light Rail Corridor Study and incorporating the Vision Statement and the Report. Essentially it 15 becomes a component of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, so 16 we will be available for questions and any of your comments. 17 18 Chair Martinez: Thank you Michael. I’d like to before we open up to the public to give the Chair 19 of the ARB a chance to comment because she said that she isn’t going to be able to stay long. 20 For her? 21 22 Judith Wasserman, Chair of the ARB: Thank you Chair Martinez. 23 24 Chair Martinez: Excuse me Judith, and anyone else that cares to speak you still have an 25 opportunity to submit a speaker card. Thank you, dear Judith. 26 27 Ms. Wasserman: Thank you Chair Martinez, I’m Judith Wasserman Chair of the ARB. And 28 thank you for inviting me to your meeting. Greetings Commissioners. We welcome this Rail 29 Corridor Study for a number of reasons. It’s not the first time that the Corridor has been looked 30 at but this is the first time it’s been looked at I think in such a broad way and I mean that 31 geographically. That it did not simply look at the train tracks, but it looked at the City from 32 Alma Street to El Camino on both sides. And by doing so it gave the City an opportunity to 33 examine what has been sort of put together haphazardly over the years. 34 35 If High Speed Rail has done any good, and so far in is process it has that it, it has been that it’s 36 called attention to this major asset in the community, which is also a major obstacle. And when 37 we had our design workshop three years ago we called it “Together Again for the First Time,” 38 because this is a chance for us to knit our community together across the east and west direction. 39 I mean we can go north and south, you know, rather easily on any number of large streets, but 40 getting across the train tracks on Alma Street and El Camino is kind of a hard job. So, one of the 41 things that we really liked about the Rail Corridor Study was that it gave us an excellent 42 framework for urban design examination of this area, you know, from boarder to boarder in the 43 City. We liked the way it structured the divisions. The El Camino design guidelines do that a 44 little bit but they don’t do it as well as this Study does it and in fact I thought it was interesting 45 that Commissioner Fineberg brought up the El Camino design guidelines because we have 46 Page 7 intention to reexamine them. They are not working as well as they should. They work in some 1 ways; they don’t work in other ways. There are different land uses, works well for some land 2 uses and not for others, and so by using this structure of the divisions of the areas we can 3 examine the guidelines in a better way. 4 5 The other thing that I felt was very important about the Study was the instruction from the 6 Council to look at the Rail Corridor with or without the rail. Because it’s gonna be here with or 7 without the rail. And we’re gonna have to deal with the grade crossings with the Caltrain 8 upgrades whether we have high speed trains or not. And this Study gives us a framework in 9 which to do that as well. And I think that’s probably the most important single item in the Rail 10 Corridor Study is to, is dealing with the grade crossings because that’s become a real, you know, 11 life safety issue in town. If we can’t deal with our life safety issues what can we deal with? So I 12 enjoin you all to examine it carefully and join us in supporting this Study and recommending it 13 to the Council. Thank you. If you have any questions I’ll be happy to answer them, but I can’t 14 stay for long. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much Judith. Just before we open the public hearing, I’d like to 17 hear from our City Attorney on the resolution and sort of what is it meant to achieve? 18 19 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Chair Martinez. Cara Silver, Senior 20 Assistant City Attorney. The resolution that was prepared attempts to incorporate some of the 21 comments that we received back from the Planning & Transportation Commission last time, 22 which was that the Commission wanted the document to have some sort of regulatory teeth. And 23 so, the way we accomplished that is to incorporate some of the major principles of this Study 24 particularly the vision statement and some of the overriding principles into particular aspects of 25 the Comprehensive Plan. And there are also some pieces of the Study that we do anticipate will 26 be flushed out later on down the road and those will be analyzed separately and will be 27 incorporated, some of them will be incorporated as polices, new polices in the Comprehensive 28 Plan, but we are not able to incorporate all of them at this stage because we anticipate there will 29 be some additional environmental analysis that will need to be conducted and it would be more 30 appropriate to analyze some of those new policies in connection with the Transportation Element 31 update that is ongoing. But, this resolution adopts some of the policies that can be adopted at 32 this stage with nominal environmental review. 33 34 Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Let’s go to our, hear from the public. We have two speakers so 35 far. Vice Chair. 36 37 Vice Chair Fineberg: Irvin Dawid to be followed by Bill Cutler. 38 39 Mr. Irvin Dawid: Thank you Chairman Martinez, Vice Chairperson Fineberg. You’ve got my 40 comments that are in the packet that I made to the ARB. I wanted, Irvin Dawid, one the two 41 Environmental Members of the Task Force. I wanted to change them a little bit, especially as I 42 listened to Michael and Elena speak on the project and I think it is really important that this just 43 not be another study that goes into the bin and maybe they use a resolution or not. I mean, I 44 can’t help but think if something really big came out of this that would be good. 45 46 Page 8 And, when I’m thinking of something big I can’t help but think of what we just saw this past 1 Sunday, the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge opening. You know, and whether you 2 like the project or not Governor Brown used the opportunity to reference High Speed Rail. Now, 3 I think we can understand his analogy to it, but here in Palo Alto what can we reference as sort of 4 a big project that relates to our priorities and what this Study covered? It comes down to what 5 ARB Chair Wasserman I think said. And that’s the intersections. I’d like you to think back, 6 where do we have great intersections on this line in the Palo Alto? When were they constructed 7 and how did they get done? 8 9 Now recently we saw another grade separation done. It was a new one, it’s right by my house, 10 it’s the Homer Avenue tunnel. And now there’s a possibility we can get one in South Palo Alto, 11 but let’s face it, we need something much bigger than that that appeals to all of Palo Alto. And 12 you saw it from those dots, there are two grade crossings now that are hazardous that really stand 13 out in people’s minds. And wouldn’t it be great if something like this Study was used to actually 14 put forward a project, a Capital Improvement Project that did something about them, much like 15 the way the City of Bart their residents went to the ballot box and supported a bond measure to 16 put all of Bart underground. Now, I’m not saying to depress the whole trench the right of way. I 17 am saying address one or address two of those grade separations. I think that would be huge and 18 I’d urge you to think big. Thank you. 19 20 Vice Chair Fineberg: Bill Cutler. 21 22 Chair Martinez: Ok, well I want to thank Irvin for speaking again. And it appears that Bill 23 Cutler isn’t present so we are going to close the public hearing and sort of take a round of 24 questions to Staff or the consultant. Commissioners. Commissioner Tuma do you want to? 25 You’re ready to go, you want to wait? Commissioner Michael. 26 27 Commissioner Michael: So having spent some time with Commissioner Tanaka in the 28 Infrastructure Commission, I find the report of the Rail Corridor Commission profoundly 29 impressive. I’m sort of envious and jealous of the quality of analysis and presentation and the 30 clarity and when I read it in March and read through it again, I had very few if any questions. I 31 think it’s excellent, excellent work and we should move this forward to the Council for approval. 32 33 I think that the other experience in the Infrastructure Commission is the notion that there, it’s one 34 thing to identify the importance of a project, or even to identify how it might be funded or what 35 the issues might be in terms of its impact on the community or the approval. It’s another thing to 36 get it actually done. So I think that, you know, the potential for this to be of great benefit to the 37 community when and if it’s done is pretty exciting. I think it’s very thoughtful and I’m trying in 38 my mind to imagine what the construction process would be like, when you have to operate the 39 north/south commute while you’re digging the open trench. But having lived in San Francisco 40 when they trenched under Market Street it can be done, and after it’s finished it will be lovely. 41 So thanks for all the hard work and I’m intending to vote in favor. 42 43 Chair Martinez: Can I ask the kind of Staff to clarify something? We have a recommendation 44 that we recommend approval of the report and its adoption incorporation into the current 45 Comprehensive Plan, and we have along with the Vision Statement and recommended polices 46 Page 9 and goals, and then we have a resolution which also has recommended policies and goals and 1 they’re not the same. Is that intentional or? 2 3 Ms. Lee: Thank you Chair, yes that was intentional. The purpose of this resolution as Cara 4 mentioned is to give some weight to this document, so we are basically in the resolution we are 5 saying that the Study Report has been approved by the City, that the Report is consistent with 6 various existing policies as well as the entire Comprehensive Plan and that we’re adopting the 7 Vision Statement and that we are identifying future studies that we’re undertaking to help 8 implement this study, which contains all these recommendations. So some of the 9 recommendations included in the Study would be future Comprehensive Plan goals and policies 10 that would be potentially included into the Transportation Element, but those policies are part of 11 the future actions that this Report is recommending. So, as Cara mentioned that would also 12 require a substantial CEQA analysis, which is why we’re not proposing that and the intention is 13 for those future studies to be incorporated into future processes that would go through the 14 additional Staff work as well as returning to the Commission and the Commission subcommittee 15 as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan update. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Very good, thank you. Commissioner Keller. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So, I noticed that the grade separation was a policy in terms 20 of the Rail Corridor Study document. However, the idea of not building aerial railroad structures 21 is listed under a program in the notes. So in some sense in the commentary in page 2 of the not 22 yet approved resolution amending the Comp Plan. And I’m wondering the extent to which a 23 note that is perhaps slightly ambiguously worded saying “represents the City’s current support, 24 the City’s opposition to the above grade aerial high speed rail options.” I’m wondering if that is 25 sufficient weight to such a statement as opposed to the wording that’s in Policy 1.1 and whether 26 it should be elevated to the policy level as opposed to a program level. And have the wording of 27 1.1 that’s in here and in the Attachment A. And perhaps that’s a question for our City Attorney 28 to address. 29 30 Ms. Silver: I think that’s a policy call and either proposal would be fine from a legal standpoint. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: So it wouldn’t, it wouldn’t harm the CEQA analysis in order to essentially 33 insert a policy in the Comp Plan with the wording of Policy 1.1 in this document. That would be 34 acceptable for the process? 35 36 Ms. Silver: I’m sorry. I thought that you were referencing language that was already in the 37 resolution. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: No, I’m not referencing, I was first referencing language in the resolution 40 which is kind of ambiguous saying as well as the City’s opposition to the, to above grade aerial 41 high speed rail options, but that is a statement of a program that indicates our opposition as 42 opposed to necessarily a policy statement that says we’re opposed to it. And so my question is, 43 can we explicitly state that policy by saying Policy 1.1 and this, and incorporate that at the policy 44 level as opposed to the program level. 45 46 Page 10 Ms. Silver: I think the concern is that the first sentence of that policy is something that has not 1 yet been fully analyzed in an EIR document and we would anticipate that that would be more 2 fully analyzed through a CEQA process. The second sentence is not problematic. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So we could have a policy added to the Comp Plan with a new number or 5 maybe an A after it indicating it’s inserted into the sequence or perhaps somewhere else in the 6 policy level that is the wording of the second sentence of Policy 1.1 and that would be 7 acceptable? 8 9 Ms. Silver: Yes, I don’t think that would raise CEQA concerns. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: And would that have stronger weight in terms of expressing the policies of 12 the City of Palo Alto than putting it as a comment in the program? 13 14 Ms. Silver: Probably. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 17 18 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg had a question. 19 20 Vice Chair Fineberg: Same question but can you apply it generally to all the four sections of 21 specific language in the resolution where the text has been added as the kind of flowery 22 descriptive text under a specific program, would it be stronger, not allowed, or no difference if 23 all of that language was inserted as a new policy or a new program? Look at the fourth one, the 24 same kind of thing, where we’re saying the vision, we’re talking about the Vision Statement, 25 would that be stronger, weaker, or no difference if it wasn’t an amendment to Policy T28, but if 26 it was T x+5? Could you answer that for all four? 27 28 Ms. Silver: You know, I think that a court would give sufficient weight to the concepts that are 29 here as codified as notes to policies or as stand-alone policies. What the court will do is look at 30 the City’s overall record in terms of its intent. The reason why we had structured it this way is 31 that we don’t want to at this stage completely overhaul the numbering system, etcetera, that 32 people have been accustomed to with the Transportation Element. We thought it would be more 33 appropriate to do that at the, you know, more formal Comp Plan update stage. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, so I guess I also share Commissioner Michael’s feeling about the 38 Rail Corridor Study. It looks very well done. It’s also my second time looking at it and it looks 39 even better, so good work. I didn’t have a lot of questions on this; I’m inclined to also support it 40 as well. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Ok, Vice Chair I think it’s your turn. Are you ready? 43 44 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’d like to start by thanking the members of the public who’ve served on 45 the Rail Corridor Task Force and members of the public who have attended the community 46 Page 11 meetings. It’s huge to have so many people coming and sharing what their hopes and dreams are 1 for the City and giving feedback and helping shape that future rather than having the future 2 happen without input of the people who live and work here. So, many, many thanks from all of 3 us. 4 5 I appreciate the changes that have happened with the texts and the resolution since our last 6 review. I think the document is getting better and better. I too will be in support of moving it 7 forward to Council. There are a few areas where I just want to bring up some questions and I’m 8 not sure if there are some easy fixes or just maybe a little more consideration. One sort of global 9 question I have is we have our at places tonight, so I guess that means people can, if they are 10 playing that weekly drinking game they get a beer because I just said “at places.” There was a 11 notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration. Are we supposed to be, reviewed that or 12 comment on it, or is that just courtesy to inform us that it’s there? 13 14 Ms. Lee: We actually are requesting the Commission to review it and comment on it. We 15 understand that it was brought to you late but it’s a general negative declaration which 16 demonstrates that the policies that are being recommended to be adopted will not have an impact 17 on the environment. 18 19 Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok, I’m not sure I’m in a position to comment on it because I haven’t had a 20 chance to review it. So, I don’t know if we need to take later a quiet 5 minutes and I’ll leaf 21 through it or we can do it during the rest of the communications but I think that should be 22 addressed and how we’ll handle it. 23 24 Chair Martinez: Yeah, I’m inclined to take a 5 or 10 minute break so that we can say that we’ve 25 looked at it. We can do that after additional comments, questions. Just take a break for that. 26 27 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. A lot of us have talked about, you know, on that last item the 28 east/west crossings and our north/south capacity. I appreciate that this plan addresses that. 29 There are a couple small points. Let me run through this quickly. One, we need to have a name 30 change for what they call this “South Palo Alto Neighborhood Center.” That’s sort of a mixed 31 use district at El Camino Way. Just calling it a South Palo Alto Neighborhood Center just 32 doesn’t feel like it’s talking about what that area is. So, I don’t know what it should be. I don’t 33 know if the Rail Corridor Task Force talked about that, but that isn’t a South Palo Alto 34 Neighborhood Center. It just doesn’t work for anybody I’ve talked to just in terms of the 35 nomenclature. 36 37 On Page 5.12 there’s a specific policy that talks about encouraging the relocation of auto 38 oriented and auto serving businesses, specifically the auto repair and sales to other less 39 pedestrian oriented locations in the City. I agree with that in principle, but specifically what 40 they’re talking about is the Mclaren-Fisker Dealership and the Volvo Dealership and we have 41 conflicting policies from Council to maintain auto dealerships because they’re sales tax revenue 42 producing. I don’t know what other neighborhoods we would have that would have auto 43 dealerships, so I think we’ve sort of created a conflict. How it should be resolved, I don’t have 44 the answers tonight, but I think we need to look at that. 45 46 Page 12 And then there’s also I’m seeing in multiple places within the documents where they’re talking 1 about the depth on the west of El Camino or on the east of Alma. In some places I’m seeing 2 references for one block. In other places I’m seeing one parcel. In some places that’s the same, 3 but in other places it’s not. The parcel doesn’t go the whole block, so I think we need to get a 4 little more consistency there. And otherwise, thank you. I’m looking forward to it moving 5 forward. 6 7 Chair Martinez: We’re tired I think. Commissioner Tuma did you want to pick it up? 8 9 Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I had a question for Staff and I don’t know that there’s a particular 10 answer to, but I just wanted to get more of the thoughts on it. Which is, not to compare this 11 Study with the IBRC Study directly, but coming out of the IBRC Study I felt like there was an 12 assessment of where we were, what was going on, and while there was nothing definitive there 13 were a series of suggestions that seemed to be a little bit more concrete in terms of where do we 14 go from here? The sort of the “so what” coming out of the Study. When I read this Study, a lot 15 of what the next steps are, are more studies. More plans, more things to look at. And I’m 16 mindful of what some of the previous speakers said in terms of don’t just put this on the shelf, 17 don’t just have it be a study that has all this information in it but where’s the “so what?” Where 18 do we go from here? And I know, like I said I don’t think there was any definitive specific 19 answer, but is there some way to make some of the output here a little bit more concrete? Or is it 20 just really that a lot of this feeds into these various different plans and studies and other things 21 that we’re gonna do? Just your thoughts on that? 22 23 Mr. Williams: I’ll take a shot at that. I think this is really much more of a policy oriented 24 document than IBRC which was very, not project specific but, you know, very concrete so to 25 speak. The, so we have a policy framework that’s essentially been developed with this Study to 26 set out some overarching policies that we hope we can use in number one responding to any rail 27 suggestions. Number two, developing then subsequent work programs to implement some of 28 these polices. And Number three establishing priorities as we move through CIP reviews in the 29 future. 30 31 So as Michael indicated we have a few additional studies to come down. One of those, I mean 32 three of those relate to the three sort of sub areas and land uses. Cal Avenue is under way 33 already. I think this helps them sort of bolster that. The downtown one, I think a lot of what’s 34 been discussed here will come out of the 27 University Avenue analysis that’s under way that ex-35 Commissioner Garber is working very diligently on because that is really turning into I think 36 more of a community, you know, how does it benefit the community type of exercise than a 37 private development proposal would be. So we have that. So I think what’s left then is the south 38 or the El Camino Way neighborhood area, and, you know, that was already identified to some 39 extent in the existing Comp Plan. But I do think that will then target that as we move into 40 subsequent phases of where should we do area studies? I think that’s the next one. It has to be 41 or maybe even expanded South El Camino Real type study that we’ve talked about before. So I 42 think it lends credence to that. 43 44 The implementation program specifies these different tiers of improvements and so I think that 45 feeds into directly the Capital Improvements Program and which projects should we be looking 46 Page 13 at first? Now, there still are too many of those to deal with in terms of any reasonable budget at 1 this point. But, I think what we probably will do is we’ll probably put some kind of, you know, 2 in the short term, put some kind of feasibility money in there or money to look at feasibility 3 studies of some of these key crossing locations. And that and then go from there as far as 4 identifying which ones are most appropriate to go. So I think there’s a game plan here, but 5 you’re right it’s not maybe as specifically laid out at this point as we’d like but I think that’s sort 6 of the nature of getting these policy framework in place initially. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Well, good segue-way for me because my question to the consultant first is, I 9 can see where you’re very happy with having survived working in Palo Alto. But on the other 10 hand, does the Report really achieve what it set out to do? Does it give us some buffer to the 11 High Speed Rail project? Does it speak to the environmental sensitive areas of the community? 12 Does it protect neighborhoods? Does it give us a defense when we sit down at the table with 13 High Speed Rail? 14 15 Mr. Smiley: I think it does. And, I think that the conversation that we’re having here and that we 16 had also with the ARB and the general concern about whether there’s enough, I mean it relates 17 back to that question of whether there’s enough that makes this useful and not something that 18 will just sit on the shelf. I think that one of the things that we did, it was certainly an effort that 19 we felt was part of our brief and it was something that the Task Force came to get on board with, 20 there’s that pun again. Was that this project isn’t about the high speed train. It’s, the train is one 21 piece of a very complex urban environment. And it’s a very rich environment; it’s got many, 22 many things going on. And it happens that that train is probably the biggest single piece of 23 infrastructure coming down potential in the future if it comes. And so it’s a very important part. 24 And dealing with that whether it’s the high speed train itself, or whether its Caltrain 25 improvements dealing with that question, I think, is very important. And it has emerged that a 26 tremendous amount of that has to do with east/west connectivity, tying the City back together. 27 28 But it also deals with where are the opportunities for us to build upon the existing rail 29 infrastructure, the stations and so on that we have available now at California Avenue for 30 example, and at the downtown station. And are there opportunities to go forward in those areas 31 beyond perhaps thinking about those areas beyond perhaps what’s been done today, and provide 32 some input to future thinking. 33 34 I would have to say from my perspective if I were, well, I’ll start by saying that one of the 35 thoughts that we had as the, if you like, the interpreters of what the Task Force was saying and 36 then advancing that and bringing our value added, if you like, to the process, is that a simple 37 policy document goes so far. And I think that it covers a variety of policies that will help work 38 with the update of the Comprehensive Plan and so on. 39 40 But I think it goes beyond that because if I were to then be asked to prepare a Transportation and 41 Public Improvements Plan for the Alma Street Corridor, what I might be asked if I was the 42 consultant brought into that project, it might be a blank slate. And say, ok we got this grant, 43 we’re going to, we’re now going to do a Transportation Plan for the Alma Street Corridor and 44 it’s going to have component pedestrianization all the various modes of transportation. We also 45 Page 14 want to do some beautification and a variety of things, we don’t know if the train’s gonna come, 1 but we know there’s certain things we can do today. 2 3 I could start from scratch and I could say, well it breaks it down and we see that it breaks down 4 into certain components and there are certain values that we bring to it. This Study sets some of 5 those values already. It gives instruction to the next consultant, so it goes beyond a policy 6 document. It starts giving instructions to what future plans might think about and those who will 7 come after us who may get asked to do those plans. In that respect I think it goes beyond a 8 policy document. And I think it does provide, in some areas more specifically than others, but I 9 believe it does provide some guidance in a variety of specific areas on how, for those who will 10 come, who will follow us and for you to be able to evaluate and set the brief for those, as you 11 evaluate those projects. 12 13 Chair Martinez: I think you’re right. I think it does set the values, which is the most important 14 part of a planning process, but is it enough when there’s another set of values coming down the 15 tracks? To our Senior Assistant City Attorney, is the resolution enough? Does it do what we 16 need to do in establishing those values and in establishing the precedent for what would work in 17 this community? 18 19 Ms. Silver: You know I think I think it’s a very good first step and there is certainly a process in 20 place and from what I’m hearing some momentum to move it forward to the next step of the 21 Comprehensive update process. And actually adds some new policies into the Comprehensive 22 Plan and analyze those, yeah, in connection with all of the other transportation policies that 23 you’ll be considering. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Can we really say that we are opposed to above, whatever, raised structures for 26 High Speed Rail, and for that to mean anything in terms of it going to court or it being the 27 precedent of this City, or in any other manner carrying the weight that we want it carry? Or is it 28 simply after the fact in defense of what we would like to see? 29 30 Ms. Silver: Well it’s rather an open ended question; I’m not sure exactly how to respond. But 31 certainly when, if you’re just looking to defend this City against a, you know, above grade High 32 Speed Rail project, what the court would do is look at the whole range of policy documents that 33 the City has in place and will look at whether that particular project is consistent with those 34 policy documents and whether the High Speed Rail project, excuse me, had taken or can take 35 additional steps to mitigate in a way to make the project compatible with the existing policy 36 documents. 37 38 Mr. Williams: If I could just add that we also did visit with the Council’s Rail Committee, the 39 four Council Members, and I think this is very consistent with where they saw this effort going, 40 which was to set some sort of general policies on the trench versus at grade versus aerial type of 41 approach. But in a kind of generic way because the rail project is always in such a state of flux, 42 so they steered us towards, you know, more of this kind of approach but felt like it was important 43 and that it was useful to have this kind of language there to refer to as we respond to proposals 44 from whether it’s Caltrain or from High Speed Rail for improvements along the tracks. 45 46 Page 15 Chair Martinez: Well, I don’t know. I can see that we do want to establish this policy, I would 1 like to see in the policy or in the plan that there’s really something that says for the sake of the 2 City that is above grade structures is the worst possible alternative. And nothing in the plan or in 3 the resolution even leans that way. We count on reasonableness and good planning and 4 5 Mr. Williams: Well we can certainly add some, but I thought we already have some, I mean we 6 do have something in the resolutions that says that references the Vision Statement represents the 7 City’s opposition to the above grade aerial High Speed Rail options and also in the plan there’s 8 language as well. 9 10 Mr. Smiley: Yes, Goal 1, Policy 1.1. And I think that gets to the second sentence that 11 Commissioner Keller was referring to. It specifically says the City is opposed to an elevated 12 alignment of the High Speed Rail Caltrain. So it’s a very, and if I understood correctly, 13 Commissioner Keller was raising the possibility that that one sentence become a policy rather 14 than a program statement. So that is in the plan, or in the Report, and I think that’s where the 15 conversation earlier was about making that a part of the resolution as well as a policy. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair with a follow up. 18 19 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m wondering what different it makes, or if it makes the difference that 20 there is or is not a Vision Statement or whether the Vision Statement matters. When we as a City 21 Planning Commission do a project level review, we’ve been instructed repeatedly that the Vision 22 Statement of our Comprehensive Plan is irrelevant, it’s nice, it sets the tone, but it’s not what we 23 look to when we evaluate a project. So the Vision Statement says, you know, the things about 24 the vibrant, attractive, safe, transit rich things. I think those are the things that Chair Martinez is 25 wanting to see with teeth in detail. So does referring to the Vision Statement in a policy 26 somehow give that a force in law and make it be something that has to be considered at a project 27 level review, or is the Vision Statement still just flowery prose that has no standing even if we 28 refer to it in a policy? I don’t know if that’s getting at your question. I think that gets it at Chair 29 Martinez’s question. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Yes, it does, thank you. 32 33 Mr. Williams: And I’ll let the City Attorney respond as far as the legal force of something, but, 34 you know, I think, I don’t think this resolution can create the specifics of where you want to go 35 with this. And I think its step one, got plan, got the policies. Step two, you’ve got a resolution 36 that references that plan and Vision Statements at this point. Step three, we incorporate those 37 more specifically into Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Transportation Element. And step 38 four, we then take the steps we need to implement through additional area plans, Capitol 39 Improvement Programs, etcetera. 40 41 So, I understand it’s frustrating not to get, you know, to a certain level with this, but I think you 42 have to establish this initially as that overall framework and I think the Vision Statement is very 43 pertinent. I think it was very important to the Task Force and I think it’s important to have it 44 here even though you’re right, I mean it’s a general statement but everything else kind of feeds 45 off it so you have to go back to it and say this is overall vision and then ultimately the thing 46 Page 16 that’s most enforceable is when we get specific Comprehensive Plan policies and then specific 1 land use changes or projects through the CIP that are implemented to do this. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael. 4 5 Commissioner Michael: Yes, my question is maybe just a request to clarify something which I’m 6 a little bit confused. Looking at the language of the proposed resolution there were, when you 7 get to the “now therefore” there are four sections. And Section 3 talks about modifying Program 8 T21 to study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under the Alma Street and 9 Caltrain tracks and implement a feasible. And then looking at the Report, and I’m just looking 10 right now in the sort of the Vision and the executive summary it talks about the preferred 11 alternative for any rail improvements or expansions to below grade open trench. And then 12 thinking about sort of what’s gonna go on in the practicalities of the CIP process, if you’re gonna 13 create the open trench and put the rail line down then you will not have wanted to put all the 14 pedestrian and bike transportations down because then you obsolete those and so it’s not a good 15 use of public funds. So if we’re strongly supporting the report, which I for one am. I’m looking 16 at the resolution in Section three about the undergrounding the bikeways and walkways. I’m just 17 confused why you have that. 18 19 Mr. Williams: I think that’s a very good point. I think we should change that. We need to make 20 it emphasize that what we’re really looking for is separating the traffic level, whether that 21 happens with a train below and a crossing above or vice versa. That’s what we’re looking for is 22 that grade separation of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the train crossing. So that’s a 23 very good point. Also, in the one above that, that Section two that we talked about before with 24 the Vision Statement represents the City’s current, I think that is incomplete and that we ought to 25 really be saying represents the City’s current preference for the below grade alignment. I’m not 26 sure about, I guess we could say and support of the Caltrain two track on grade electrification as 27 well as the City’s opposition to the above grade. So I think we’ve left out the preference for the 28 below grade alignment in there and we should add that to that item. 29 30 Chair Martinez: If I can just sort of finish my comments. I support the report so I’m just kind of 31 moody, ok? You know words are important, but to have a goal that says we oppose above grade 32 isn’t as powerful as something that said this is an environmentally sensitive area that this, that 33 could only support something that doesn’t, you know, tower above houses as I picture them at 34 Churchill and along Alma. It just seems that capturing really what is that outcome is much more 35 important and much more powerful than just saying we oppose this. I know everyone we know 36 knows we oppose it. So I was looking for something out of the study that really nailed why this 37 is not a good idea. And I would still urge you to go back and just look at that, you know, the 38 hours of work that you did to find that, you know, that really one item that nails it for us. I don’t 39 know what it is, I would think there would be a lot of things, but just stating we oppose it I think 40 doesn’t even get us to the table in terms of trying to get this to go in the direction we want it to 41 go. And I know High Speed Rail is sort of, we don’t, it’s uncertain, but what’s uncertain is 42 probably the worst that we can imagine so we should be looking at that, not just the uncertainty. 43 But I’m prepared to support this if this is what Council, our City Attorney, and consultants are 44 expressing is the best way we should go. 45 46 Page 17 Did you? Commissioner Keller you had something else to say first and then 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Yeah there’s been a lot of discussion on that end of the table and very 3 little on this end of the table. Yeah, for once. But a couple of things. 4 5 So let’s talk about the distinction between “no this” versus “preference for that.” I happen to be 6 allergic to chocolate. So if somebody says to me “would you like vanilla or chocolate?” I’m not 7 gonna say I prefer vanilla, because if they give me chocolate I’m gonna get allergic reaction. 8 I’m gonna say, “no chocolate. I’m allergic to it. Don’t give it to me, it’ll cause me to get ill.” 9 Ok? There’s a big difference between saying, you know, if you say, “I prefer vanilla,” well, you 10 know somebody hands me chocolate anyway I’m not gonna eat it. So there’s a big difference 11 between stating a preference and stating a prohibition. And a preference is, just doesn’t have the 12 weight. That’s the first comment. 13 14 The second comment about this is when I read the rail, the High Speed Rail Alternatives Report 15 two years ago or so when it first came out, three years, I’m not sure how long. A while ago 16 when it first came out I remember there being a point in there saying that something was rejected 17 because it was not compatible with local land use plans. Well, if you want to make sure that it’s 18 compatible, what we do here is compatible with local land use plans then be explicit. Don’t beat 19 around the bush. Ok? Be explicit. If we really mean no aerial railroad structures we should say 20 so. In particular when the City of Palo Alto created Planning Commission, Council, when the 21 Council created the Guiding Principles which are attachment B to our Staff Report, Principle #1 22 is the City is opposed to an elevated alignment of High Speed Rail Caltrain in Palo Alto. Ok? 23 We should say that. Explicitly, no beating around the bush, make it clear, that’s their language. 24 Use it. 25 26 The second thing is that somehow missing from all the goals and policies that are in the High 27 Speed Rail document the City’s Guiding Principle #3 seems to be missing. It says “all 28 neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by High Speed Rail Caltrain shall be treated with equal 29 consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.” Now that’s written in the positive 30 language that I think that our Chair prefers, but it somehow is lost in terms of the goals and 31 policies that are in the High Speed Rail document. 32 33 In addition, one that seems to be a corollary of a bunch of stuff but hasn’t been stated, is that all 34 four at grade vehicular crossings should be remain open to vehicular traffic. We have a crossing 35 at Palo Alto Avenue, we have a crossing at Churchill, we have a crossing at Charleston, and a 36 crossing at Meadow. There’s no statement that these should remain open and I think that’s a 37 critical thing. If you’re gonna be changing alignments or things like that we should certainly 38 keep those four open and I’d like to see a statement to that effect, certainly in as one of the 39 policies or goals in the High Speed Rail and in terms of this overall Rail Corridor Study. And 40 that seems to be missing. 41 42 It’s been mentioned a couple of times the idea of a lattice cover, and that you don’t have to have 43 gaps, you can cover part of High Speed, of the Rail Corridor. You don’t, you know, while you 44 have to have 1,400 feet of distance that’s not covered, that 1,400 feet doesn’t have to be the full 45 width of the trench. You could have like a zippering effect going, a lattice going back and forth 46 Page 18 where part of it is covered on one side, part of it is covered on the other side. And I don’t see 1 particular mention of that idea as one of the possibilities which would enable a north to south 2 class one bike facility, which you do talk about, but you talk about primarily when in the Alma 3 Street right of way where there’s no, not much room. But if it’s over a lattice that lines back and 4 forth there is room for it on top of this cover. And so that idea isn’t mentioned. 5 6 In Figure 4.5 there’s impact on Alma not only at Palo Alto Avenue but there’s impact on Alma at 7 Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston. Somehow the impacts on Alma, those ears that go either 8 direction, those wings if you will to one side or the other, those need to continue on Alma on 9 those three current grade crossings. They can’t, just as it is on Alma and Palo Alto Avenue they 10 would continue on those three intersections. 11 12 If you look at the alternative, either alternative 2 or 2b, the two alternatives that are not aerial 13 structures through Palo Alto by High Speed Rail, when you go under Embarcadero Road it 14 involves bringing, when High Speed Rail or Caltrain goes under Embarcadero Road it involves 15 brining Embarcadero road to an at grade traffic light intersection with Alma. Ok? And the 16 descriptions of the, the descriptions of what happens to the intersection basically doesn’t take 17 into account that design reality of High Speed Rail. And the opportunities that that presents in 18 terms of better, better connectivity between Alma Street and, for example, Stanford or El 19 Camino. And the idea right now the main way you go is on Churchill or you go around this kind 20 of crazy loop on Lincoln, which doesn’t make much sense. You know, that, this would be a 21 considerable improvement. 22 23 The other issue is that rail under Oregon/Page Mill Road means no change to the Oregon/Page 24 Mill Road intersection because you have to go underneath that. You’re not gonna completely, 25 you’re not gonna make that an at grade intersection, that’s not feasible. That’s, the traffic would 26 not handle that. But also in terms of the mat that goes on there there’s no need to go as far 27 underneath when you get past meter level, meter #1890. When you’re going past there, you 28 don’t have to go far down you could go somewhat shallower in terms of building that. 29 30 It’s very important to there to be engineering analysis of the rail grade separations to the extent 31 that anything were to be built that would involve grade separations of one kind or another. There 32 are dollar figures in here, but I don’t think that those dollar figures, I’m not sure where they came 33 from. I don’t believe that they are that accurate because an undercrossing under Charleston and 34 Meadows and Churchill that does not connect with Alma does involve property losses. In 35 particular if it goes under Alma then it’s gonna have to go, it’s gonna have to come to grade, 36 come to surface past Alma and at Churchill, at East Meadow, at Charleston, there are properties 37 on either side, on one or both sides of the crossing that would lose their access to their driveways 38 and that’s a problem. So there would, you can’t say well you can keep your house but you can’t 39 get out of it. Sorry, you have no access to your driveway. So, there would necessarily have to be 40 a some sort of condemnation of those properties because you essentially made those properties 41 inaccessible. And the same thing is true to some extent with the side that is west of the train 42 tracks. Some of those properties would also be inaccessible with a depressed configuration. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Are you almost done? 45 46 Page 19 Commissioner Keller: I’m almost done, thank you. In terms of RC-T-1, on page 6.06 1b and the 1 other ones of those, you know, that has to be, those have to be changed page 6.06 because those 2 essentially indicate that there is no loss of property and condemnation and that can’t possibly be 3 the case because of the analysis I’ve just described. 4 5 And the last thing is that in terms of the Comp Plan process here, in terms of the Comp Plan 6 process in terms of the revision, there’s a description here in terms of goals and policies. Well, 7 the Comp Plan has a hierarchy of vision, goal, policy, program. It’s highly unlikely that you 8 would have for High Speed Rail or the Rail Corridor have five policy level, sorry five goal level 9 entries in the Comp Plan. You might have one goal level entry in the Comp Plan, a number of 10 policy level things in the Comp Plan and below that a number of program level things in a 11 hierarchy. But the way this is written, will have to require a translation by the Transportation 12 Comp Plan subcommittee to handle that. I don’t know if you want to take a stab at trying to 13 convert that, if you want to leave that for the Comp Plan subcommittee to take a stab at that, but 14 in some sense some translation is needed because it doesn’t directly apply. 15 16 I would actually like to make a Motion if I may? 17 18 Chair Martinez: Sure, are we making Motions tonight Planning Director? 19 20 Mr. Williams: Yes. 21 22 Chair Martinez: Ok. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: You want to say something first? 25 26 Vice Chair Fineberg: We need to take a five minute break, unless your Motion is not gonna 27 include the neg. dec.? 28 29 Commissioner Keller: I’m happy to take a 5 minute break and then come back to my Motion if 30 that’s ok. 31 32 Chair Martinez: I’m just looking at it. Let’s make it a 10 minute break. Thank you. 33 34 BREAK 35 36 Chair Martinez: Ok, we’re back. We’re ready to go. What were we talking about again? 37 Actually before your Motion, Commissioner Tuma you had wanted to say something earlier? 38 39 Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, it was just dovetailing on what several others had said about 40 whether this is strong enough or, you know, above grade is a no no, blah, blah, blah. I was 41 looking at the Staff Report on page 6 at the top, under “Revisions to Report” and it says “the 42 most recent City Council position on High Speed Rail was to oppose it in any form,” and then it 43 goes on to say “but the decision was made to focus on two rail configurations.” So, this City 44 Council position, is that a position that they’ve taken formally? That they are opposed to High 45 Speed Rail in any form? Is that something that was voted on? Is that, how much weight does 46 Page 20 that position, cause it also says “although there is some support for blended two track Caltrain.” 1 So, how much weight should we and will they give to that current position? And if the answer is 2 significant then instead of saying that we oppose the above grade aerial configuration, should 3 there be something about opposing High Speed Rail? 4 5 Mr. Williams: Well, a couple answers to that. One is that we’ve tried not to necessarily say High 6 Speed Rail on here so the configurations aren’t specific necessarily to High Speed Rail versus 7 Caltrain electrification as well, which could be in a trench or in a at grade configuration. The 8 other thing is that, you know, the Council I believe that is an official position of the Council to 9 oppose High Speed Rail. It’s primarily based, or a lot of it is based on the business plan and 10 some of the other assumptions and costs that go around that. And we’re aware of that and 11 presented this to them and to the committee, the Council Rail Committee, and they felt 12 comfortable with leaving it like this. I think they wanted to just leave themselves the flexibility 13 to, you know, say what they want to say on High Speed Rail as opposed to formalizing 14 something in this document about High Speed Rail. 15 Commissioner Tuma: I guess what’s inconsistent with that is that in Section two we’re adding 16 this specific thing that says “City’s opposition to above grade aerial High Speed Rail options.” 17 So that seems to, we’re saying something specific about that, but that’s much more narrow. 18 19 Mr. Williams: We should delete High Speed Rail from that comment entirely. I mean we should 20 just say “alignment,” “opposition to above grade aerial alignment,” or something like that. 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: Ok. I mean if Council’s comfortable with that, it just seems like that’s 23 they’ve taken this very public position on being against High Speed Rail period, and here we’re 24 sort of dancing around that. But if you, if, I think it’s worth at least at the meeting brining that 25 up again and saying this is your policy, this is what we’re doing here, are you guys putting that 26 together and saying yeah, that’s the right way to go. 27 28 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller, you got the Motion? 29 30 MOTION 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Thank you and I’ve actually thanks to Commissioner Tuma’s comments 33 slightly modified my Motion. Perhaps not in ways that he expects. So, my Motion is three parts. 34 The first part is to approve, sorry to recommend approval of the negative declaration with 35 addendum. And I’ll talk about the addendum later. 36 37 The second is, the second part of the Motion is to recommend approval of the resolution of the 38 City Council for the Rail Corridor Study Report with the change that an additional 39 Comprehensive Plan policy is to be added which has these three parts. The first part is the City 40 is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. The second part is that all 41 neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail should be treated with equal consideration with 42 respect to vertical alignment impacts. And the third part is that all four existing at grade rail 43 crossings shall remain open to vehicular traffic. 44 45 Page 21 And the third part of the Motion is that the Planning Commission, I’m not sure if this has to be a 1 third part of the Motion, but essentially that we want to recommend approval of the Rail Corridor 2 Study with textual amendments as to accommodate the comments we’ve made. 3 4 Chair Martinez: And your addendum? 5 6 Commissioner Keller: The addendum is to the negative declaration is that the negative 7 declaration texturally addresses the, textually addresses the resolution. And because I’m 8 recommending a change to the resolution, the addendum to the negative declaration has to reflect 9 the change to the resolution, so that’s the, that’s the… 10 11 Chair Martinez: Ok. Is there a second to the Motion? 12 13 SECOND 14 15 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Michael seconds the Motion. You care to speak to your 16 Motion briefly? 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Yes, so I think that, first of all I’d like to thank all the people who have 19 been participating in the Study for their work on it. I’ve certainly seen improvements to the 20 Study in the six or so months that I’ve participated and working on it. Actually it’s been longer 21 than six months the work that I’ve done with the as a Liaison to the Rail Corridor Study. 22 23 And even though the City has expressed its policy that it is opposed to High Speed Rail if you 24 say, if somebody says to you do you want A or B and you say neither, you may get A or you may 25 get B anyway. It is not, I don’t think it’s the place of the Comp Plan to put a statement that says 26 we’re opposed to High Speed Rail. But on the other hand, in the Comp Plan is the place to say 27 well, we are opposed to B and we will, and, you can, at further City documents say you don’t 28 want A either but the issue is that, in terms of how this is worded A may be desirable for Caltrain 29 improvements independent of High Speed Rail. So, that’s why I’ve described this this way and I 30 also will entertain other amendments that people wish to consider. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael? 33 34 Commissioner Michael: So I support the Motion by Commissioner Keller who has skillfully 35 identified the procedural aspects of what we should do to get this correct. And I would hope that 36 at a policy level this is excellent work. I hope that it translates into action with the community 37 supporting the benefits that are visualized in this project that clearly are gonna require further 38 study and I guess not the least of which is a study of the funding for the CIP’s that would be 39 involved. But I can imagine that if the community understands and gets behind all this that it 40 will be potentially transformational, so I support the Motion. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Right. Vice Chair Fineberg. 43 44 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 45 46 Page 22 Vice Chair Fineberg: I support the Motion. I’d like to make a Friendly Amendment. In the 1 Section 1 where you recommending approval of the neg. dec. with addendums, I would like to 2 add an additional addendum that the language in Sections 2 and 3, so Programs T17 and T21 be 3 amended to reflect the language that will match what’s in the resolution itself regarding the 4 below grade preference for the, on T17, Mr. Williams had talked about the language being 5 incomplete and that the language being changed to say that the preference is for below grade so 6 that the language that goes into the amended resolution will be mirrored in the resolution 7 language of the neg. dec. and the same thing on T21 where we’re deleting the word 8 “undercrossing” and making it just be a separated grade crossing. Again, the language in the 9 neg. dec. match what will be in the amended resolution and those changes be incorporated into 10 the second part of the Motion, which was the recommendation for approval of the resolution. So 11 that we’re picking up those changes in the resolution and the neg. dec. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Does Staff have that change? 14 15 Mr. Williams: Yes we do. I did have. Oh, I’m sorry go ahead. So I just wanted to be sure we’re 16 understanding your Motion. The last part of it said something about making changes in the text 17 per Commission comments. Are these the changes you were talking about? Or are you talking 18 about the text of the Report. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: I was talking about the text of the Report itself. We had made comments 21 about the Report. 22 23 Mr. Williams: Ok, well I don’t, I mean I think we would need to know what, I mean if they were 24 specifically corrections or something that’s one thing, but like the, so, I mean, but you had a lot 25 of comments about we should have more study of the grade crossings or engineering 26 information. So if it’s some of the corrections that were mentioned we’ll pull those out and get 27 those. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Yeah, I was only, I was referring to the corrections like to Figure 4.5 and 30 to how Embarcadero Road was handled and the, our, the Page 6.06 and things like that. Those 31 are the kinds of things I’m talking about correcting. 32 33 Mr. Williams: Ok. We’ll look at those. Thank you. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Cara, does this strengthen the resolution? Are you, are you good with it? 36 37 Ms. Silver: Yes, I think it does. And it’s consistent with the report and prior comments. 38 39 Chair Martinez: Commissioner, yes. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: I will accept Commissioner, Vice Chair Fineberg’s Amendment, Friendly 42 Amendment. 43 44 Commissioner Michael: Likewise. 45 46 Page 23 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Keller the, can you reread the policy about the equal impacts 1 on of the alignments? I wasn’t clear about that. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Yes, it’s actually, it’s actually read word for word in the Guiding 4 Principles #3 in this document. The only change I’ve made is I’ve replaced High Speed Rail 5 HSR/Caltrain with rail. That’s the only textual change I made to that. And similarly to policy, 6 to Guiding Principle #1 the only change I made was the same change to that one. Thank you. 7 8 VOTE 9 10 Chair Martinez: Ok. Thank you. Commissioner? We ready for a vote? Last chance? All those 11 in favor of the Motion say Aye. Aye. Those opposed? The Motion Passes unanimously. Thank 12 you very much. Thanks to our crack consultants, appreciate it. Elena, as usual. Thank you all. 13 Goodnight. 14 15 10PLN-00198 Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: May 24, 2012 To: Architectural Review Board From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: Review and Recommendation to the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommend that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Rail Corridor Study Report. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those improvements may include any or all of the following: Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or High Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant physical component of Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point what the future holds for either High Speed Rail or Caltrain. The intent is to generate a community vision that would provide land use and transportation policies to guide development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to be proactive to changes to the rail system. This document will guide staff and the City as decisions are made regarding land use and transportation improvements, such as private development and the Capital Improvement Program. Following a recommendation made by the Rail Corridor Study Task Force and public feedback from the two community workshops, the revised Rail Corridor Study Report is being proposed for a formal recommendation. The Rail Corridor Study Report includes revisions to reflect comments from the Task Force, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, the City Council Rail Committee, various City Board/Committee liaisons and the public. Staff has also coordinated with Caltrain staff on this project. Once the Study is approved by City Council, the next step will be to incorporate the Study as a whole into the 10PLN-00198 Page 2 of 9 Comprehensive Plan by reference. The five goals and related policies would be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the on-going Amendment. The boundaries of the corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits on the south, as shown in the Report (Attachment B and available online at www.paloaltorailcorridor.org). The study area also includes sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation and urban design changes. The plan and implementation measures is proposed to be ultimately be incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference as a whole and the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are proposed to be incorporated directly into the document. Rail Corridor Study Task Force The Rail Corridor Study Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the City Council authorized Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study with City staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group (BMS). This report represents the consensus of the Task Force as whole, a result of fifteen meetings. Through the Task Force meetings and community workshops, staff has also received detailed feedback on the draft report from the public. The public process also included the input from liaisons of various City boards and commissions to represent their respective groups, including the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, Utilities Advisory Commission, the Historic Resources Board and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee. At the final Task Force meeting on May 1, 2012, the Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report, including the Implementation Chapter. Rail Corridor Study Area Tour A study area tour was held on September 10, 2011. A majority of the Task Force, as well as interested members of the public participated. The approximately four hour tour comprised of a bus tour of the entire length and walk throughs of specific areas within the corridor. It provided an opportunity for the Task Force members to view the study area together and to get familiar with areas that they were not as familiar with. Some highlights of the tour included the South of Forest Area, the Homer tunnel, California Avenue, the Churchill Avenue train crossing area, the intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road and the recently developed residential projects in South Palo Alto. The tour enabled the Task Force members to better understand the perspectives from the various areas of the City, especially where crossings are proposed. Rail Corridor Study Process The Rail Corridor Study is a three part process that began in late 2010. Following the City Council decision on the report, the report and any identified changes would be incorporated into and referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as appropriate. The phases consist of the following: 1. Phase I, “Context and Vision”. Establishment of the background and context for the rail corridor in order to begin developing a preferred vision. 2. Phase II, “Alternatives and Analysis”. Development and analysis of preferred 10PLN-00198 Page 3 of 9 alternatives. 3. Phase III, “Plan Preparation”. Preparation of the Report. Staff and the consultant will continue to refine the alternatives and obtain feedback from the Task Force, Commission, Council and the public. Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and City/School Traffic Safety Committee Joint Meeting A joint meeting with representatives of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) was held on February 16, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input from those stakeholders on this report. The attendees were generally supportive of the work that had been done. Barb Mitchell, the Palo Alto Unified School District Task Force member also was in attendance. Some of the main comments raised at the meeting for follow up include: Encouraging trenching across the entire City Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Encouraging grade separated crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. Improving safety of school children. City Council Rail Committee The Rail Corridor Study was the subject of three meetings before the City Council Rail Committee. A brief update was provided on January 26th, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the first draft of the Rail Corridor Study Report was presented for their review and comments. The March 1st meeting was also attended by four members of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force. The primary comment received was a request to make the references to the future of the rail line more general because the future of the High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects is so unknown and continues to change. The change would allow the Rail Study Report to have greater flexibility and to be used in a variety of scenarios, similar to the other long range City policy documents. The item was continued to give the Committee more time to provide comments. The item returned to the April 26, 2012 Rail Committee for final comments. Staff and BMS informed the Committee that various changes had been made to the document in response to their feedback and subsequent comments from the Task Force, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the public. It was emphasized that the report was crafted to be consistent with the City’s position on the High Speed Rail project and the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles. The document was also revised so that it would be as flexible as possible to provide a longer horizon to better respond to the rapidly changing High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects. The Committee was appreciative of the work completed for the project and generally supportive of the document. Community Workshop A second Community Workshop was held on March 29, 2012 at the Lucie Stern Community Center. The first Community Workshop was held on May 19, 2011 at the Lucie Stern Community Room. In order to encourage a greater attendance of this workshop, notice cards were mailed out to all property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the rail corridor study area for over 7,000 notice cards. A notice was also published in the Palo Alto Weekly. Staff 10PLN-00198 Page 4 of 9 requested the Task Force members to publicize the meeting and encourage that their neighbors attend the meeting. Announcements of the workshop were also posted at City Hall, the libraries, Lucie Stern and on the City’s websites well in advance of the meeting. In addition, staff sent notices to various merchants and posted announcements on the City’s social network pages. The public outreach drive was successful. Over fifty members of the public, most of whom had not been previously involved, attended the workshop. There was also a representation of the various parts of Palo Alto, with more than half from residents of South Palo Alto. The community members were generally appreciative and supportive of the report. There were a few key issues that were raised. Those issues included safety for children, pedestrians and bicyclists, treatment of all neighborhoods fairly, protecting schools from rail impacts. Some members of the public stated that although additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings were desired, additional vehicular crossings were not. PTC and ARB Hearings The Rail Corridor Study Report was distributed to both the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board for their comments. A study session before the PTC was held on March 14. The PTC expressed support for the document and provided comments and direction to staff and the consultant. Some of the more important comments included: Have clear, bold vision statements. Provide measurable improvements and implementation steps. Be careful with language to avoid commitment to impractical goals/actions. Include language to prevent narrowing of Alma Street. Discuss open space opportunities. Discuss land use opportunities above trench and alternate ways of designing trench cover. Make City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles more prominent, including incorporating Guiding Principal 3 (equal consideration for all neighborhoods affected by the rail) into the Study’s Goal 1. Support for proposal of future area plans, similar to Concept Plans. Need stronger urban design component, especially for Alma Street and rail right of way. An Architectural Review Board Study Session was held the next day on March 15. The ARB was also supportive of the document and expressed a desire to confirm that this effort would be incorporated and not ignored. The ARB had similar comments to the PTC. The comments included: Appreciated key stone discussion. Need to consider impact on high school. Concerned about trenching roadways rather than train, but should be studied. Great opportunity to improve pedestrian and bike friendly, especially along tracks. Should study potential crossings for pedestrians and bikes, not just for vehicles. Move new Comprehensive Plan policies to front. 10PLN-00198 Page 5 of 9 Clarify what City’s position and reasons regarding rail improvements Would like more studies of various scenarios. Would like vision statement for Alma Street. Report should be clear what benefits the City. Implementation plan is very important component. DISCUSSION: Draft Rail Corridor Study Report The vision of the project, developed with the Task Force and stated in the Rail Corridor Study Report, is to “create a vibrant, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood 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.” The purpose of this document is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The areas that make up the Rail Corridor have been historically viewed as separate disconnected areas. This report attempts to look at the entire corridor as an interconnected subarea within the City. This represents challenges because of the diversity of the various components that make up the corridor and the sheer size of the 1,000 acres that comprise it. The intent is also not to analyze in detail the various impacts of the various rail alternatives, such as noise and air quality. The study was also not intended to provide detailed traffic impact analysis. This type of analysis is beyond the scope and resources of this study. BMS will provide a detailed presentation on the report at the hearing. The report is divided into seven detailed sections: Executive Summary Introduction Background Issues and Vision Circulation and Connectivity Land Use and Urban Design Implementation and Next Steps Five overall themes developed that became particularly important to the Task Force and the success of this report as a guiding document. Those themes are: 1. East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers should be removed. 2. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved (although this was not unanimous) 3. All residential neighborhoods must be protected and treated equally. 4. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement. 5. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings. 10PLN-00198 Page 6 of 9 Revisions to Report The most recent City Council position on the High Speed Rail (HSR) project was to oppose it in any form, although there is some support for the blended two-track Caltrain/HSR project. Because this is not a technical study or a feasibility study, the decision was made to focus on two rail configurations that would capture the range of issues that could occur under any of the various alternatives being discussed by the State in order to allow this study to be flexible and able to address multiple scenarios. Those two options are: Trench Below-grade two-track on-grade These two options encompass the conditions that would occur with all the other variations of the rail projects that have been discussed. Following the various hearings, public meetings and the second community workshop, the report was revised to clarify that the City’s preference is for the trench option only. Various revisions have been made to the report subsequent to the Planning and Transportation PTC hearing in March to address the comments and concerns raised during the public process. The major changes include: Circulation and Connectivity Chapter: The Alma Street discussion has been expanded to address more issues and opportunities. The importance of maintaining traffic capacity of Alma was emphasized, which would be impossible if Alma Street was narrowed. A concept diagram for Alma Street was created, similar to the one created for El Camino Real. Corridor-wide design principles and specific improvement recommendations were incorporated throughout. Connection opportunities along the rail corridor are discussed. Opportunities include incorporation of green spaces and other treatments to benefit the City and its occupants either above a covered trench or along the rail corridor. Implementation Chapter: The goals and policies in the Implementation Chapter were revised to be more consistent with the format of the Comprehensive Plan Ball park cost estimates were added for the Tier 1 Priority Improvements Detailed area studies, similar to the California Avenue Concept Plan, were recommended for the Downtown/University Mixed Use City Center and the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed Use Center. A Transportation and Public Improvements Plan for Alma Street was recommended. Although the rail projects are still pending, it was discussed that improvements along the right of way could be started and implemented. A Rail Corridor/Alma Street Crossings Improvements Study and Engineering Studies are also recommended. All efforts should be coordinated with any rail improvement projects. 10PLN-00198 Page 7 of 9 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies One of the important components of the implementation of this report is the recommendation of new policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Much of the elements of the study are consistent with goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Five new goals were identified in the Study to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the overall Amendment process to further the goals of the Study. As discussed above, the goals have been modified to respond to comments and to make them more consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. The goals have been endorsed by the Task Force. However, there were some task force members, as well as some members of the public, who supported Goal 1 to allow an at-grade rail system. 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. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 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 crossing. 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 generally being grade separation. 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 High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize future noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts and neighborhood. 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. Goal 4: Provide improved access to parks and recreation facilities and schools and assess future needs for these facilities. 10PLN-00198 Page 8 of 9 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. Next Steps The next step will be to bring the ARB’s recommendation and the report to the PTC on May 30, 2012 for their formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the Rail Corridor Study. Should the Study be approved, it would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan by reference and the five Comprehensive Plan goals/policies would be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, as well as the associated Environmental Impact Report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Study will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use transportation policies to guide the effort for the corridor. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, will be considered in conjunction with the Rail Corridor Study. The Study is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment Table on page 6.14 for the Study. PUBLIC OUTREACH: To solicit public feedback, a website and email address has been established for the project. Notices for all meetings are posted on the City’s website in the Know zone (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp) and the City Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org, has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website, www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project website, City Hall, the Development Center and all four public libraries during the process. 10PLN-00198 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report (ARB only. Also available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp and www.paloaltorailcorridor.org.) B. City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles C. March 14, 2011 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report D. Public Correspondence COURTESY COPIES: BMS Design Group Rail Corridor Study Task Force Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Manager Review: Amy French, Current Planning Manager/Acting Assistant Planning Director City of Palo Alto Page 1 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: Review and Recommendation to the City Council and Planning 1 and Transportation Commission for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report. 2 3 Chair Wasserman: We are up to Item #3. We, Russ? You want, would you like, are you going 4 away? Oh, Ok. We’ll miss you. Yeah. Are you coming back for the other ones? Ok, ok. 5 You’re gonna leave us on our own? You trust us? Ok. This is item #3, it’s a major review of 6 the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, in which we are asked to review and recommend to the City 7 Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) this Rail Corridor 8 Study Report. We also have with us Eduardo Martinez from the Planning and Transportation 9 Commission should he have words of wisdom for us as any time. And do we have a Staff 10 report? 11 12 Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Wasserman and Board Members. We are returning 13 to you today to request formal Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation on the Rail 14 Corridor Study Report. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend to the Commission and 15 Council to prove a resolution approving the Study and to incorporate the Vision Statement into 16 the Comprehensive Plan. 17 18 This Report is the outcome of a nearly two year process by Staff, BMS Design Group, and the 19 Citizen Task Force to study and develop land use and transportation policies for the Corridor. 20 The intent as defined by Council is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation, 21 and urban design opportunities along the Corridor in conjunction with and apart from the various 22 rail projects. 23 24 Subsequent to the ARB hearing in March, a second Community Workshop was held on March 25 29th to help solicit feedback from the public. To encourage attendance Staff implemented 26 significant public outreach process. We requested the Task Force reach out to their stakeholders 27 to encourage them to attend, we mailed out multiple e-mail announcements, we sent out 28 postcards to residents and occupants within 600 feet for a total of over 7,000 postcards. We 29 posted the meeting on the website, the social network pages; we printed an ad in the paper. We 30 also worked with business owners to give them copies of the posters for them to post. And as a 31 result we did have a much better attended Workshop. We had over, probably a little over 50 new 32 people attending the workshop as well as Task Force Members so it was a full room. And BMS 33 will provide a summary of the results of the Workshop. But the attendees represented various 34 stakeholders and they represented both South and North Palo Alto, and they generally expressed 35 support for the project and really focused on safety improvements especially for kids on the 36 school corridors. 37 38 A final Task Force Meeting was held on May 2nd for their final recommendation. The Report 39 was updated following those meetings, the workshops, and to respond to comments from the 40 public, Commission, and the ARB. BMS will provide a summary of the changes and it’s also 41 listed in the Staff report. 42 43 The changes include a discussion on urban design, treatment of the corridor, and clarification of 44 the City’s position on the various rail projects. The intent of this Study is to be a higher level 45 City of Palo Alto Page 2 study and because of limited time and resources issues were identified and also identified were 1 future actions to help address those issues that cannot be resolved within this time frame. 2 3 And at the final Task Force meeting the Task Force Members did vote in favor of recommending 4 approval of the project. However, during the discussion of the project, especially modifications 5 to Goal 1 regarding the alignment of the high speed rail project, not all members supported 6 saying that trench was the only preferred alternative, which is consistent with past discussions. 7 And however, they did vote in favor of Goal 1 as written in your current report. 8 9 Staff would also like to draw attention to a subsequent e-mail sent by Beth Bunnenberg, Liaison 10 from Nature, recommending her support for the project. Also in your packet was an e-mail from 11 Martin Summer, a Task Force Member who was unable to attend today. Specifically requesting 12 that everyone consider changing Goal 1 and Goal 2 so Goal 2 would become Goal 1 and vice 13 versa. Not changing the content, but just changing the order of it to prioritize safety over the 14 alignment of the rail. 15 16 The Report’s recommendations identify priority improvement projects for safety and 17 connectivity. The Report also recommends new Comprehensive Plan polices. The purpose of 18 this document as discussed before is to identify these as future efforts. The new policies if 19 approved will be incorporated into the upcoming Comprehensive Plan, or ongoing 20 Comprehensive Plan update process. Other future projects would become part of future area 21 studies, development projects as appropriate, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 22 However these future projects would be subject to separate California Environmental Quality 23 Act (CEQA) process including the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the 24 Comp Plan update. 25 26 There are several Task Force, well there is at least one Task Force Member in the audience, Staff 27 invites them to speak on the process. We would also like to express our appreciation for their 28 hard work throughout the process and the enormous amount of time they devoted to this. The 29 next steps would be a Planning and Transportation Commission hearing on May 30th and Chair 30 Martinez is here in the audience. Following this BMS will make their presentation. And 31 Council is scheduled for June 25th. Both Staff and consultant are available to answer questions. 32 Thank you. 33 34 Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. If there is anyone in the audience who is going to 35 want to speak to this later could you put a card in please? And can we have the presentation? 36 My understanding is that you asked for 15 minutes and I cleared you for 15 minutes. 37 38 Michael Smiley, BMS Consultant: Ok, well thank you. I’ll try to do it in less because 39 40 Chair Wasserman: That’d be good. 41 42 Mr. Smiley: I have 11 slides. My name is Michael Smiley I’m a partner with BMS Design 43 Group. With me here today is also is Paige Martin, with the firm and between the two of us we 44 will present essentially what we’re going to present here to you, or what I’m going to present to 45 you now is the mostly an overview of some of the modifications in response to the comments we 46 City of Palo Alto Page 3 received both from you and from the community, Commission, and other comments that were 1 received. So we, it’s not my intent to go through the details of all those, but just a broad 2 overview of the kinds of modifications that were made and then we can answer your questions. 3 4 Before I start I would also like to reiterate what Elena said about the work of the Task Force. 5 Fifteen meetings, about a year and a half, and it was really yeoman’s effort. It made our work 6 certainly a lot easier to again a lot of people, but interpreting and bringing something together 7 with a lot of input and very good regular attendance. So I think the Task Force really needs to be 8 commended because we haven’t had that kind of working group. I think mostly my entire 9 political career we haven’t had that so, not political career, excuse me, professional career. So it 10 was great. 11 12 Elena briefly went through the review process. This was a third review draft review that of the 13 document you saw before in the various meetings we’ve held and the dates up until the last Task 14 Force meeting on May 1st when the Task Force approved or endorsed the recommendations 15 represented in this report, which was then republished, if you like, on May 16th and that’s the 16 document you have now. Next slide. 17 18 Now the last, just a comment about the Community Workshop, which Elena also mentioned. We 19 had quite good attendance and one of the things that was also very nice about that is that we 20 asked for a show of hands of the proportion of the crowd that was from South Palo Alto, from 21 the southern area of the Corridor because there was some concern that there may not be adequate 22 representation there. And it was something in the order of two thirds of the crowd came from the 23 southern, California Avenue South and that was really terrific that we had that kind of 24 attendance. Generally speaking what we did was we presented of course the overall findings and 25 we also had as you can see from the photos we had had various in the various categories land 26 use, urban design, implementation strategies and then some response panels related to the Rail 27 Corridor itself. We asked people to review those and place comments, written comments and so 28 on. And generally speaking, I’d say that there was broad support for the findings and the 29 recommendations of the Task Force. In fact there was very little dissent of any kind that we can 30 think of that related, of the findings of the Task Force. So the, the attendees were quite pleased 31 with the work the Task Force had done and really probably the most important thing to come out 32 of that was that we did, went through the dot exercise and that allowed us to prioritize some of 33 the recommendations that became the priority projects in the report. Next. 34 35 Here you see the summary of this; it was not a scientific survey of course. We gave each 36 attendee eight dots and there were 27 subjects that they could put dots on. We did not restrict 37 them to one dot per subject, so if you wanted to load an area with three dots you could. We 38 don’t know how many people did that, but generally speaking we think people kind of spread 39 their dots around. But there were a few of the recommendations of the priority projects that 40 clearly emerged. They were covered with dots. And here you see those, there are some that are 41 not surprising at all, for instance this has long been a topic the three rail crossings of concern to 42 the neighbors and particularly those in the south. And so you see out of 27 subjects, 50 43 attendees, you have eight dots there’s 50 votes just for the Charleston rail crossing. So it, not a 44 surprise. Again and you see here some of the others related to the intersections that were felt to 45 be most important for improvement on El Camino Real. Next slide. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 And then various other locations for intersection improvements, again University at El Camino 2 Real and those crossings at Embarcadero crossing right directly adjacent to the High School. 3 And then a couple of other votes about improvements to the California Avenue tunnel and a 4 desire for an additional southern undercrossing. The, as you’ll recall the recommendation the 5 Task Force show one made in the vicinity of Materdero Creek but there’s also a very strong 6 recommendation that additional investigations be made for further crossings assuming we can 7 solve the land use constraints of adjacent neighborhoods. Next. 8 9 Some of the final Report revisions I’m gonna just touch on these briefly, this is a little bit of a 10 table of contents if you like, that we received a lot of comments before about Alma in the various 11 meetings both from here and from the Commission. And so I wanted to expand a little bit about 12 the recommendations about Alma itself and various other things related to the Rail 13 Comprehensive Plan policy recommendations, priority policies. And one of the things we did 14 add is a whole new chapter on next steps, or a subchapter, and that’s in there. And I’ll touch on 15 these so we can, let’s go to the next slide. 16 17 The Alma Street recommendations basically there was a desire in a lot of the comments we see 18 from the various meetings and so on that there be more information and more guidance related to 19 Alma itself. And so there is an expanded text related to the issues and opportunities there. There 20 is concept diagram now that’s very similar to the kind of a concept drawing that was done for El 21 Camino Real showing the priority crossings for Alma and as they might relate to the rail. And 22 then a few additional specific recommendations that are in those sub-bullets you see here. One 23 was the idea of providing continuous Class 1 bicycle facility along the entire Alma corridor and 24 part of this would be, would be the way it it’s structured here is it needs to be considered as part 25 of the rail improvements and has the total right of way of both facilities. So it’s associated with 26 Alma, but it’s something that would be, is going to require a look at the right of way in both 27 facilities. 28 29 The other thing there’s conversation about preparing a Transportation and Public Improvements 30 Plan. Now that plan is not here, but there’s strong recommendations that as a next step an actual 31 Transportation and Public Improvements Plan be prepared for Alma as a next step. That would 32 include measures of beautification and there is also clear identification of the two corridor 33 segments of Alma. Now the sort of the downtown segment and what we’re calling the more high 34 traffic volume primary quarter segment and there’s better definition of that in the current Report 35 as well today. And then, as I mentioned, a recommendation that future studies be conducted. 36 Particularly a Transportation and Public Improvements Plan. Next. 37 38 The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policy statements were modified really, this ended up being 39 a rather significant conversation topic among the Task Force but the modification that was made 40 is where Goal 1 and 2 you see here today is now broken out as two separate goals. They were, in 41 the prior document, one. And the emphasis was to one, to make a statement more clearly about 42 what the, the rail facility itself, the preferred option for the rail facility might be. Now this 43 caused some discussion and it’s in your packets that not all Task Force Members were 44 completely concerned that the actual rail configuration be necessarily in a trench. It could 45 possibly be a surface improvement. But generally speaking it actually went to a consensus vote 46 City of Palo Alto Page 5 and it generally was favored to say something that was consistent with current City policy, a 1 preference for the trench. 2 3 Having said that Goal 2 was something that people were very strongly in favor of, and that’s a 4 very strong goal that talks about safety, and making sure we’re very clear about we want the 5 highest possible level of safety regardless of what the vertical alignment of that rail is. And that 6 gets back to things we saw in the community meeting where 50 people said we’ve got some 7 crossings we’re very concerned about and we need to fix those and it’s more important we get 8 those fixed then we talk about all day right now about the vertical alignment because there’s too 9 much we don’t know about the vertical alignment yet. Otherwise the goals remain the same as 10 they were in your prior document. Next slide. 11 12 Now I mentioned that we added, this is a subchapter, Next Steps, to the Implementation Chapter 13 and these are the basic headings that are in that. It goes into a series of, it of course has the 14 Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements are part of that chapter and it just mentions that yes that’s 15 a very important first step is let’s roll this into the Comp Plan update process as well as input to 16 the California Avenue Concept Plan which is in process now. The, you’ll see, the preparing 17 detail area concept studies the idea that particularly in the California, I’m sorry in the northern 18 mixed use center that we’ve described around University Avenue and El Camino Park and Way. 19 And in the south, that some detail concept area plan work be done in those two places similar to 20 what’s being done in California Avenue today that’s more detailed look. Palo, the Alma Street 21 Transportation and Public Improvements Plan, I mentioned that. 22 23 Now the second, the, I guess they’d be the fifth and sixth relate to the Alma and Rail Corridor 24 crossings themselves and their two different things. One is something the City can begin a 25 process now is to identify where some additional crossing opportunities might be particularly in 26 the south, and begin a process maybe working with neighborhoods and property owners. The 27 sixth bullet there, input to the engineering studies this is something that the City needs to be an 28 active part in working with the engineers, the High Speed Rail Authority, Caltrain and so on 29 playing an active role in those engineering studies, which really aren’t going to be conducted by 30 the City likely, that work is going to be done by the engineers for the rail, the rail engineers, but 31 to actively participate in that beginning now. And to the extent that you already are, that’s good, 32 but keep that going. And then continue the El Camino Real intersection improvements 33 particularly the priority intersections that came out of the community process. Next. 34 35 The priority projects were, are generally the same as you saw in the prior document they have 36 not changed except that the, there was in the third tier it was mentioned in the prior document in 37 the third tier of projects was this idea of finding a additional southern crossings. That was 38 moved to a second tier priority. And that’s what that second point mentions. And then finally 39 next line. I believe there were a few minor edits in the Appendices, mostly they related to 40 clarifications of the four rail alternatives of High Speed Rail and the surface alternative and add a 41 bit of additional explanation relating to the role and Guiding Principles of the Rail Committee 42 itself. 43 44 Finally I’ll just mention here, this is the last slide, that we will be going to the Planning and 45 Transportation Commission on May 30th and on June 25th is the City Council. So we are 46 City of Palo Alto Page 6 available for questions. I believe there are some others that you’d like to have speak first but 1 then we can answer questions however. 2 3 Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much, and thank you for doing this enormous job. Eduardo, 4 did you want to speak at this point about what the Planning and Transportation Commission said 5 and then we’ll hear from Irvin Dawid who put in a card to speak. Anybody else want to speak 6 on this get your cards in now. Going, going, gone. 7 8 Eduardo Martinez, Chair of Planning and Transportation Commission: Ok, thank you Chair 9 Wasserman and Board Members. I’m Eduardo Martinez, Chair of Planning and Transportation 10 Commission. The most important think that will come out of this is the adoption of the plan, not 11 just the policies and goals, but the adoption of the plan itself, of this Study into the 12 Comprehensive Plan update. And that’s huge; I mean that’s like a big thing for the next 10 years 13 of our City. Because every year we will go back to the Comprehensive Plan and say, well what 14 does the Rail Corridor Study say about what we’re going to do? And, so the goals, the policies 15 that have been stated in the plan are really the most critical elements and we want to make sure 16 we get them right. We want to make sure that we really want to emphasize public safety at the 17 crossings and how that’s important for when, in some future day another authority comes and say 18 we want to do rail this way. That we’re fortified with the argument to say it has to address this. 19 And that includes urban design, the historic element of the Corridor, public safety of the 20 crossings, and things of that nature. 21 22 So your weigh in at this point and hopefully in a future meeting is really, really important to us 23 on the Planning Commission to help us strengthen how we’re going to look at this. We, we 24 don’t want to have a policy that says the Corridor must be safe. I mean that’s our intention but 25 that’s not good enough. We really want to say, these, we want to create a strong connectivity 26 east and west to our City and this is potentially how we want to do it and things of that nature. 27 So I really encourage you to weigh in on what is being proposed and how we could make that 28 stronger. 29 30 The Commission did weigh in and greatly supported the work of the consultant, Task Force, and 31 Staff on this. We think it was, as you’ve stated an overwhelming job of pulling this all together. 32 But now it’s our work, the Board and our Commission, to really step back and say, well how can 33 we really put this to work? Because they’re going to be in front of us great challenges. I want to 34 say to what the future of this Rail Corridor is gonna be so we might need to make this Comp Plan 35 recommendations as strong as possible. And I agree with what your consultant just said that 36 really we need to look at these next steps of really creating a plan. A plan based on these 37 policies and programs and goals, and be prepared to support and defend that plan going forward 38 in the next five to ten years. Thank you. 39 40 Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your coming and sitting through 41 this with us. Irvin Dawid. 42 43 Irvin Dawid: Thank you Chair Wasserman and Commission Members. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma. 44 I was one of two Task Force Members assigned from the environmental community. It was a 45 real positive experience participating on this Task Force, which we always generally got between 46 City of Palo Alto Page 7 10 and 15 members, very diverse opinions. You know I remember when one of the first Council 1 meetings where there was a report, some members of the public accused us of being 2 representative of the development community. You know nothing could be further from the 3 truth. We, if there were representatives from all sectors but one thing that was very clear was 4 that everybody drew upon their own experience as a Palo Alto resident and their images of the 5 Corridor. 6 7 I think Martin, Elena mentioned I think that Martin suggested that polices one and two be 8 reversed. Martin was clearly one of the more outspoken members of the Task Force, and 9 unfortunately I did not get to attend the final meeting on May 1st. I was out of town, but I think 10 when you look at these policies, if you look at policy 1.1, 2.1, and 2.1 the one thing that really 11 hits you, certainly it hits me is that they’re contradictory. If you’ve ever been on the Belmont to 12 San Carlos elevated, the berm, and there, it’s the ultimate in safety in all existing rail crossings. 13 Plus if you biked along that on the east side, or even on the El Camino side, but mostly on the 14 east side, I think it’s called County Road, what you’ll see is that there are ped. bike tunnels. You 15 know, in both Belmont and San Carlos that went in there simply because it was elevated. 16 17 So, if, the way I, I mean, I, we also took a tour of, we took a bus tour of it. And the one thing 18 that I really got out of it is that our existing grade crossings really are not safe, they are not safe 19 from, I mean most recently there was a fatality of somebody who was from out of town on one of 20 the two, I forget whether it was Charleston or Meadow. I was just on a train just last month, 21 although we, the train swiped a motorist, this was at Ravenswood in Menlo Park, but I ended up 22 sitting in the train for an hour opposite El Camino Park because they couldn’t, they wouldn’t let 23 us out while they investigated. If Palo Alto insists that above all our highest thing is we will 24 have to have under grade, then they really have to commit to paying for it. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else from the public who would like 27 to speak to this subject? Ok. Oops, sorry. The thing you’ve asked us to vote on is accepting the 28 Vision Statement into the Comp Plan, plus the Report. But that was a specific request? So I’m 29 gonna, is that correct? 30 31 Ms. Lee: Yes. That was. 32 33 Chair Wasserman: Ok, I’m gonna read that one so that we know what the vision is and then 34 everybody can talk about anything they want and we’ll get back to voting on the Vision 35 Statement. This is on Page 3.03. “The overall vision is to create a vibrant, attractive, transit rich 36 area with City and neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly 37 places that serve the community and beyond and to connect the east and west portions of the City 38 through an improved circulation network that binds the City together in all directions.” Doesn’t 39 seem to mention safety? But that’s what it is here and that’s, so I will just now open it up to the 40 Board for their comments. Lee. 41 42 Board Member Lippert: First of all Mr. Smiley I want to thank you and your consultancy for the 43 work that you’ve done with the corridor in terms of facilitating the meetings and everything. 44 I’ve attended several of the meetings and for a group that was rather, how should we say? Going 45 City of Palo Alto Page 8 in many different directions you managed to get everybody pretty much moving in one direction, 1 which I think is a task by itself. It’s remarkable. 2 3 When the City Council started this project they put together their Guiding Principles so to speak, 4 and probably what’s the most significant thing out of this is to have a group of citizens now able 5 to come up with their thoughts and be able to run it through a variety of boards, commissions, 6 etcetera. And then bring it back to the City Council for ultimately their final blessing, you know, 7 on what’s being proposed here. And that’s really what’s pretty important here. You know, in 8 some ways this community was blindsided by High Speed Rail. And when I say blindsided the 9 voters voted for it, we thought it was a great idea in terms of being able to travel from San 10 Francisco to L.A. in two hours and 40 minutes. What wasn’t understood at the time was that it 11 was going to be bisecting our community at the time and ultimately making land use decisions 12 for us on the adjacent properties and how the City functions. 13 14 And with this Report what it does is it adds legs to the CEQA process that was initially started 15 when we were first introduced to what High Speed Rail meant to this community. And taking 16 out of the equation High Speed Rail allowed us to look at what the community wanted in terms 17 of being able to knit the community back together again, how we wanted our community to 18 function and ultimately then give direction back to the High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain as 19 how we want the train to come through Palo Alto. And so with regard to what’s being presented 20 in this report, they are important. I look at this as being the beginning. It is our vision, it can be 21 incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, it has gone through a process which has engaged the 22 citizens and the leadership and Staff in this community. And ultimately what I would hope is 23 that it would be served back to the High Speed Rail Authority and the, and Caltrain in terms of 24 us saying this is the way we view this Rail Corridor in Palo Alto. 25 26 And finally one last step is that ultimately in the CEQA process probably it is the State 27 Legislature that will have the final word as to what’s going to happen, but these are elected 28 officials. And they need to know how Palo Alto feels about High Speed Rail and this Corridor 29 as well. And because they have to prepare, if they’re not in agreement, their statement of 30 overriding considerations. And so this document in some ways is our Bible. It is our, it is our 31 plan and if people are in variance to it they have to give good reason. 32 33 So I’m in support of what you have here. I think the Vision Statement is just fine. I don’t have 34 any need to tinker with it although I have things that I see here that could be improved. As far as 35 the document’s concerned it’s very complete. I’m glad that not everybody was in complete 36 agreement with regard to a trench solution. I think that it’s a process, it’s an evolution as they 37 say, so ultimately, you know, it’s gonna be on the surface for now and at some point portions of 38 it may wind up going in a trench and some portions of it may in fact wind up going underground. 39 We don’t know, but at least the plan addresses that. 40 41 And I think lastly, I think that Eduardo Martinez has hit the nail on the head with regard to his 42 comment with regard to, Chair Martinez has hit the nail on the head with regard to, this is a plan 43 and what needs to happen is that it needs to be reviewed on a periodic basis and now we need to 44 begin to flush out the specifics of how the mechanics are gonna work. The physical mechanics. 45 46 City of Palo Alto Page 9 And I’m just gonna give you one example, just quickly, is at Oregon Expressway. Right now we 1 have Oregon Expressway goes down underneath, you know, and with the train going above. It’s 2 a really great opportunity to sort of flip things around if they do take us up on our word and say, 3 gee, you know we can trench everything, we’re gonna find that road has to go somewhere. It can 4 either go deep or it can be elevated. That’s a real important note as far as I’m concerned in the 5 entire City, because first of all it basically represents the midpoint of Palo Alto if you were to 6 take, drive from University Avenue where the City North boundary south, Cal Ave. is about 7 midpoint of the City. Everybody goes to midtown whether you’re coming from the north or the 8 south. It’s an exit off of the freeway, it leads out to the Research Park. So in some ways it’s a 9 crossroad at that point. It bridges residential neighborhood with a commercial business district. 10 It has far more opportunity than the downtown ever has in the way of future because downtown 11 was already pretty much built out. We have in place the opportunity for pedestrian transit 12 overlay district which allows for higher density as well as people being able to hop on Caltrain as 13 well as grab the bus, the express bus if we have a future high speed bus there. So, I think that 14 that might be one area that we actually begin to target or flush out in terms of the mechanics or 15 the details that I think would be a really great starting point as far as the City’s concerned. And 16 so if anything, because of a lot of things happening in that area I would just say that that’s where 17 the mechanics should begin. Thank you. 18 19 Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. 20 21 Ms. Lee: Chair Wasserman? 22 23 Chair Wasserman: Oh, yes Elena. 24 25 Ms. Lee: I’m sorry. I’m sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to clarify for the members of the 26 public the Vision Statement is on Page 5 of the Staff Report. So directly under the first section 27 under “Discussion.” So just so the public can also read the statement. 28 29 Chair Wasserman: Page 5 of the Staff Report says that… oh, it’s in quotes. Yes. Yes, it’s the 30 same, it’s the same wording but it is in quotes at the, yeah, at the under “Discussion” on Page 5. 31 Thank you. Alex. 32 33 Board Member Lew: So I just want to thank BMS and also the Task Force. I mean the document 34 is really, really just is great, I mean, this is amazing that you went through all of Palo Alto’s 35 many, many plans and looked at it all comprehensively together. I realize that was a huge, huge 36 undertaking. The improvements that you’ve made since the last draft that we reviewed are 37 substantial. I mean, I think that the last draft that you gave us had a lot of information, but it was 38 sort of missing some of the implementation and, you know, and just, you know, just general 39 attitude and I think you have that in this document. And I think is all very good. 40 41 In reading the document this time around I can’t help but thinking of, you know, going even, you 42 know, further like next steps, and some of the things that came to my mind, just as a were like 43 some of the neighborhood groups wanted like neighborhood markets. And then I look at like the 44 size of the population of some of these neighborhoods, maybe like 2,000 people and, you know, 45 they’re not really big enough to support a market in terms of, you know, market area and 46 City of Palo Alto Page 10 catchment area. And then they’re also opposed to say like additional auto crossings across Alma 1 so that’s gonna limits the market for say like a grocery store. So I think that there are some 2 things in here in the document that are very interesting to me that I think should, wouldn’t 3 warrant further studies and I think that that you have sort of put that in there as like specific, you 4 know, specific area plans and stuff. And I think that that would be the right way of pursuing it. 5 But it seems like that there’s really in the Corridor area that they’re really, it is ripe for more 6 improvements and I’m not sure that, you know, in the scope of this Study that you could’ve 7 really, you know, you couldn’t really address them but, I mean my take on it is like, you know, 8 like a, like a like if like transit stops. Like more so trolleys than Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), but I 9 mean they’re usually like in Portland and stuff they actually attract development in mixed use 10 developments around there and we don’t really have any we’ve haven’t really touched on that. 11 You know, what happens when you know BRT comes in. You know, like does that give us 12 more opportunity to do some of the things that the communities want. 13 14 And then also just have some detail questions for you. The, so I think the Task Force was 15 recommending like 15 foot wide sidewalks and I was wondering where that came, magic number 16 came from because we, I mean the City and elsewhere like in downtown and El Camino we’ve 17 been doing 12 feet. And I also looked on the, you know, the Grand Boulevard Initiative they 18 have a boilerplate design guidelines and I think if I can recall correctly I think they were 19 recommending 19 feet. Just as a magic number, to you know, just as a generic number to use. 20 And I was wondering where the 15 foot recommendation came from? 21 22 Mr. Smiley: Fifteen, is this on? Yes. Fifteen feet, we happen to do as another part of what we 23 do we do a lot of street design work and fifteen feet is a number that is true there isn’t real 100% 24 consensus on what an ideal number is, but fifteen feet tends to be a number that you can settle in 25 on. We know ten is typically too narrow, particularly if you have got, if you break a sidewalk 26 say into the three zones, either a curbside zone and a main pedestrian zone, and then some 27 building zone. Twelve becomes a number that’s often used and it’s right on the minimum 28 threshold really. Nineteen is very generous actually, I mean you can that starts to get to a scale 29 that’s very comfortable. So fifteen is kind of a middle zone in there, it’s a middle, let’s call it a 30 middle generous zone. In a sidewalk that doesn’t need or is not intended to carry a great deal of 31 traffic you can get away with ten or twelve. You can get away with it, but if you’re trying to 32 create activities you need to meet a threshold of, we’ve found that you need to meet a threshold 33 of somewhere around fifteen feet. 34 35 Now that doesn’t, having said that in relation to this particular document it isn’t that the Task 36 Force said that’s what they want. We suggested that as we did a variety of other things in our 37 role as the professional consultants here and that became a part of the document that the Task 38 Force endorsed. 39 40 Board Member Lew: Ok. Would it make sense to, I mean in the recommendation the 15 feet to 41 include a range of what you said just now, like 12 foot minimum, just so that we have an idea of 42 what are acceptable standards? I mean cause it’s, we have, I mean as we come, as projects come 43 to us we usually have to fight for every, to get the 12 feet as is today. And I don’t disagree with 44 you though wider would be nicer but, or just if you could, if it’s, I mean it seems to me that it’s a, 45 if it’s a recommendation that’s fine because I mean it just means that we have to do further 46 City of Palo Alto Page 11 study. But it seems like it would be, I don’t know, it would be useful to understand where that 1 came from in the document, but that’s a minor point I think. 2 3 Mr. Smiley: well we can certainly discuss that with Staff and how they want to handle it because 4 it may be something that you also want to, it might apply to other documents so that you would 5 have a way to, maybe more clear guidance. Particularly in some of the detailed area plans that 6 might be done in the future there might be certain specific areas that would be handled one way 7 and others would be handled another way. That would often be the way that it would be done in 8 any case. 9 10 Board Member Lew: Ok, and think should move on to the next one which is, I’ll give you a page 11 number, Page Number 5.09. This is in the California Avenue Area. I was actually looking at the 12 Fry’s area. And, so you’re showing like a new connection at Fry’s to El Camino, or an 13 enhanced, some you know, connection there. And right next to there, there’s the, you know, old 14 railroad spur that cross, that used to cross El Camino to the Bol Park path. And I did see that in 15 like, in our old Bike Plan, like I think maybe in the 2003 Bike Plan there was some mention of 16 connecting the Bol Park Bike Path through the Stanford Research Park. And I could see and 17 they could continue all the way to maybe the Cal Avenue Train Station and I’m not sure that that 18 actually continued on into the current Bike Plan, you know, document. I didn’t see it the last 19 time I looked. But I was wondering if there was any, if that had come up in any of your planning 20 discussions? 21 22 Ms Lee: Raphael Ruis from Transportation Division is here and he confirms that it is included in 23 the new Bike Plan as well. 24 25 Board Member Lew: Ok. Great. Thank you. So did that come up in any of the discussions? It’s 26 been 27 28 Mr. Smiley: No, not with the Task Force that specific connection did not. 29 30 Board Member Lew: Ok. I would, you know I don’t know, you know, the, you know how 31 feasible that thing is but I would say like in the in Berkley at like the North Berkley Bay Area 32 Rapid Transit (BART) Station there is a whole green way system to get to the BART Station and 33 it’s really fabulous. I mean it’s just like sort of the nicest way you could, you know, take to get 34 to the, you know, to get to the BART Station. And if we have something like that, this would 35 connect potentially connect Los Altos Hills and Barron Park and everything into the Cal Avenue 36 area without having to go on like Page Mill Road or, you know. And so, it seems like to me to 37 be a huge opportunity. 38 39 I think, I mean diagrammatically you’re showing a new connection through Fry’s and what is it, 40 Hansen Way or something? So I mean I think in terms of the document I think it’s probably ok. 41 I mean it’s like a block, you’re showing something a block away so that’s it seems like you could 42 be covering the bike path. But the idea of like a green way and stuff is really compelling to me. 43 44 Mr. Smiley: I’ll make a comment on that we could we can go back and look at the Bike Plan 45 also and make sure there’s good coordination there with those two. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. And then on the Comp Plan polices the Comp Plan goals 2 6.03, something popped into my head when Eduardo Martinez was speaking and that was just 3 about like the attractiveness of infrastructure projects. I was wondering if it made sense to add 4 something about, you know, attractive design with regard to infrastructure if it’s not already 5 covered elsewhere in the Comp Plan or say like the 1% for art for public projects. 6 7 What’s coming, what comes to my mind is things like I think in Phoenix, you know they have 8 overpasses that are attractively designed. They’re not just the standard cookie cutter overpasses. 9 Or say like there’s the sound wall that was built along Highway 85 in Mountain View. You 10 know it’s just like, you know, typical concrete sound wall but actually has art pieces embedded 11 into it. It seems to me that a lot of the infrastructure things that I see, like I’m thinking of 12 Millbrae BART Station has an art piece but also, you know, there are a lot of outlying buildings 13 for BART. I don’t know what they are if they’re air, you know, like say if it’s in a covered 14 trench then they need air intake or something. Usually though they’ll have all the little things 15 that pop up. And most of the time they’re designed by engineering firms and they’re really ugly. 16 I don’t know that we would actually, you know, if we would actually have any, if the City here if 17 any of our processes would have oversight over the design of that and if they don’t I would like 18 to have, you know, something to fall back on somewhere maybe in the Comp Plan or elsewhere. 19 20 But infrastructure can be really beautiful it doesn’t have to be ugly. If you look at like the 21 Golden Gate Bridge and you know the anniversary of that the original design of that was not 22 nearly so attractive. And so, I don’t know that was just food for thought. And I’d like to maybe 23 hear what the other Board Members have to say about that. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Wasserman: Thank you Alex. Clare. 26 27 Vice Chair Malone Prichard: Well I have far less to say than my colleagues. I’m very much in 28 support of what you have done here and I’m particularly appreciative of the expansion you did in 29 the Alma section regarding the whole Alma Study and putting together a plan for the street. And 30 as far as what Alex had to say, yes I would definitely be in support of having some kind of 31 language in here regarding infrastructure because I suspect we do not get to review that and it’ll 32 just get put in however the Authority chooses to put it in. But I think that generally this is ready 33 to go ahead and get moved on to and get it all put into the Comp Plan. 34 35 Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much Clare. I, I think this is a wonderful document. I, I just 36 want to say I also think that it is graphically really elegant and I actually could read it. Somehow 37 the graphic elements did not fight with the text, which seems to be a popular problem nowadays. 38 So I think it’s good looking, easy to read, and the content is very significant and I think you guys 39 did a really excellent job. I did a little proofreading there’s some really small errors like 40 Castilleja is a High School not an Elementary School. There’s something on Page 5.01 that calls 41 it a landscape perspective, I think it’s supposed to mean land use perspective. 42 43 And then there were a couple of things that were missing, that I thought needed to be just 44 mentioned somehow. One is that the present pedestrian bicycle undercrossing at California 45 Avenue is not Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. It’s a mess. It’s a danger and 46 City of Palo Alto Page 13 a hazard and it’s a pain in the neck for a bicycle to go through there. And it was just sort of 1 listed as existing and I think existing is putting it a little too nicely. Also Alma Street, the best 2 thing about Alma Street is that row of trees on the train right of way and that, there should be 3 something mentioned about trying to protect that as much as possible. 4 5 I would like to second Alex’s call for public art. In the Comp Plan itself there’s a lot of talk 6 about gateways and public art at gateways and public art in almost anything and I know that 7 because I threw it in there when the Comp Plan was being written. So, I would just pick it up 8 please and put the public art in. You know, you talk about the identity of the mixed use centers. 9 Public art has been traditionally used to do that. Whether it’s the guy on the horse, or a fountain, 10 or you know, elegant paving or whatever. It’s a good way to do it. 11 12 On Page 5.09 there’s a, there’s a bike path that’s shown that runs, runs more or less parallel to 13 the train tracks and it needs to make the connection across California Avenue. I didn’t know 14 whether that was just a printing mistake or something but it would be 15 16 Board Member Lew: You’re saying Ash and not Park, or both? 17 18 Chair Wasserman: Well, no there’s one, what are all those little dots? Existing and planned 19 bicycle facility boulevard route, the little round blue dots that runs along Park and it runs along 20 Park on both sides of Cal Avenue and it’s not, it needs to be shown connected, that’s all. And 21 the square one that runs on Ash doesn’t seem to go anywhere, it sort of dies at California 22 Avenue. I think that’s a problem with the bike paths in general. The one, I mean, there’s there, I 23 just want to stay in this project area. 24 25 And also while we’re talking about bikes in this Corridor, the Fairmeadow Circles is a little bit of 26 a nightmare. I have never been able to pick the right turn to pick up the bike trail through the 27 Circles. It needs a sign, at least two or three, because once you get on the Circles you don’t 28 know how to get off and it’s just, it’s really it’s silly. 29 30 I’m gonna come back to the land use in a minute. Yeah, there are a couple of crossings that, that 31 were not mentioned. There’s one in this Cal Avenue section from if you go up Matadero and 32 cross the tracks there’s a parking lot. You can pick that up pretty easily with an easement. I 33 think you may lose one parking space to go through there with a bicycle, so that, you might just 34 look at that again. And public art. And also I thought that your study of the Comp Plan was 35 really excellent. I mean that, that’s a hell of a document and you really went through it with a 36 fine toothed comb and did a great job on that. 37 38 So here’s the part of this whole thing that disturbs me. And it was the slide that you showed 39 about the, the implementation. I think it’s a slide, that one. It’s all about studies and plans. 40 There’s actually, except for the last one that says, “Continue these intersection improvements.” 41 It’s yet another tier of studies and plans. And concept area plans and concept area plans in this 42 town have a special place at the bottom of the drawer in the back. And I, I can’t tell you how 43 many charrettes I have been to that have come out with wonderful plans full of trees and café’s 44 and plazas and God knows what and none of them have been implemented. The only one that 45 got anywhere was the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Plan and that was because there was an 46 City of Palo Alto Page 14 imminent development. There were, you know, thousands, you know, tens of thousands of 1 square feet coming down and people ready to build right on top of them and then needed a plan 2 and they used it. But we’ve done this, the Fabian, the East Meadow Circle plan we’ve done 3 twice. Both of them are completely different. One had housing one had none. The Cal Ave. 4 plan I think has been done before. I don’t know, I don’t know where that’s gonna get us and that 5 really concerns me. 6 7 And the other thing that I wanted to ask about was there are recommendations for land use from 8 mixed use areas that I think is great, but I have no idea how to achieve it. The plan says, you 9 know, we need this and we need that and we need housing and retail, and I have no, and in some 10 place it says, offer incentives for some of these things. And if you could just give me an 11 example of one location and one kind of incentive that could, cause we talk, we have these 12 community meetings and everyone wants a grocery store, right? And how do you get a grocery 13 store? How does the City get a grocery store? So, help. You’ve got, can you, can you tell me 14 how that’s done? 15 16 Mr. Smiley: Well I can, let me one that’s a little easier than a grocery store because of course 17 there has to be enough as they say rooftops to support a grocery store in the first place. And it 18 isn’t necessarily the case that there’s enough of those in any given catchment area where it’s kind 19 of the Trader Joe’s problem that lots of communities have. Lots of people want Trader Joe’s but 20 Trader Joe’s doesn’t want to go to all communities, right? 21 22 Chair Wasserman: Exactly. 23 24 Mr. Smiley: But an example that I think is rather striking is in the California Avenue area 25 between Oregon Expressway and California Avenue you’ve got large numbers of parking lots in 26 there. Now these are, where I’m gonna go with this I of course don’t have the history that you 27 all have and much of this has presumably been discussed before, but I’m going to restate some of 28 it and bring something maybe new. There is of course a fair amount of publicly owned land in 29 there with parking lots. And that seems with the value of land, not just from a dollar perspective 30 but from a use perspective, the immense value to a community of land in this Corridor it seems 31 that parking one layer of cars seems like a rather underutilized way to be using land. So the City 32 does control that land and can initiate some things themselves with that land. 33 34 The other thing is there are some County agencies in there. And one of those is I believe it’s the 35 Mental Health Services or something of that type building. It’s a one story building and sitting 36 in a great grassy lawn. And, I was trained as a landscape architect and so I have nothing against 37 landscape but again, I’m not sure that lawn doesn’t really get used by anybody. It’s just strictly 38 decorative. And then there’s a very large building that’s about three or four stories tall and it sits 39 at an angle in a parcel also with surface parking. 40 41 And so if you take the entire area what you’ve got is you’ve got immense amount of publicly 42 owned land and yes, it’s gonna take a considerable amount of community discussion to 43 determine how to best use that land but there’s opportunities for what this Report refers to as 44 both public/public and public/private partnerships to reuse some of that land. That does not 45 mean removing those public services that are necessary. It doesn’t necessarily even mean 46 City of Palo Alto Page 15 removing a rather tall building that’s there. That’s an important investment but the land certainly 1 could be used in a much more efficient way and that could be through public, through joint 2 development opportunities engaging both the County and the City and the private sector in 3 supporting the goals of both this Plan and some of the other goals that you have that relate to, as 4 I can’t remember now who said it, but the importance of the California Avenue as being the 5 midtown area. Yeah. Commissioner, I mean Board Member Lippert as you said. So that is an 6 opportunity area that this touches on but there needs to be some additional work done to start a 7 dialogue about how we’re gonna go about that. And I think there’s tremendous opportunity there 8 to get going on some real activities that will start to make and you control so much of that land. 9 10 Chair Wasserman: Well, we… 11 12 Mr. Smiley: I mean the City. 13 14 Chair Wasserman: Yes. Yeah, well that does help me because this kind of thing has been going 15 on forever and nothing ever happens. Elena. 16 17 Ms. Lee: Chair Wasserman the Study does identify future studies and part of that is because we 18 have limited resources and time. But what this does is it, it identifies priorities. It gives us 19 background document to return to the various boards and Commission and to Council to help us 20 identify what they want us to tackle next. We have a document with public input to show that 21 there is at least some public support to move forward on these items so, it gives us a list to start 22 working from and our goal would be to start working on implementing these in appropriate time 23 frames. But the intention is to follow up and we are continuing with a Cal Ave. Concept Plan. A 24 lot of what’s been discussed here will be folded into that process. And we’ll be bringing that 25 back to the public and back to the Commission and the Council so we have full intention of 26 following up on these items, which is why they’re being incorporated into a resolution to give it 27 teeth so that we know that we do have to follow up on these items. 28 29 Chair Wasserman: Oh, good. And the Cal Ave. Plan, it sort of is pressed by the Fry’s lease or 30 the some, something that expires in the Fry’s zoning problem. And that may actually make 31 something happen. 32 33 Ms. Lee: Yes, you’re referring to the limit of the retail uses on the Fry’s side. That limitation 34 was actually removed, but what the new property owners . Sobrato, waiting for is that Fry’s has a 35 lease, an option to extend that lease and they haven’t expressed a desire either way and we may 36 not know for about a year or so, but we fully anticipate that once they make a decision that we 37 will get some sort of response back from the property owner about what they want to do. But, 38 both Fry’s as well as the property owners are involved in the concept plan and they have been, 39 they will continue to be involved whether they want to respond to us or not. 40 41 Chair Wasserman: So when they, when their deadline comes up something will happen? 42 43 Ms. Lee: That is our hope. 44 45 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Wasserman: Ok. That’s nice. Alright. Well I think that was pretty much my take on this. 1 I, I’m really impressed with the quality of the document both content and the appearance. And 2 so we actually there were a couple of things that you asked us to specifically comment on. One 3 was the Vision Statement and except for the missing word “safety,” you know, where it lists the 4 qualities of the, it was like I can’t find it anymore. The qualities of the Corridor that it should be 5 transit rich and all that, I think that the word “safe” should just be inserted there because I 6 personally would reverse Goals 1 and 2. And that, say safety first because regardless of what the 7 train does we need to address those crossings. Because even if the High Speed Rail never comes 8 through here Caltrain is always gonna come through here, I hope, and if it increases its service to 9 more trains per hour, not only will the safety factor get worse but nobody will ever be able to 10 cross the train tracks again because there will always be trains there. So something has to be 11 done at the crossings. And so I personally have to take a poll of my colleagues think that that 12 should be the first item. 13 14 So anybody else want to comment on the Vision Statement and the order of the Goals? 15 16 Mr. Martinez: Can I say something? 17 18 Chair Wasserman: Yes. Yes, please say something. 19 20 Mr. Martinez: Ok, again Chair Eduardo Martinez, Planning Transportation Commission. I’ve 21 served on the subcommittee for the Comp Plan Update for two years. And in reordering the 22 Comp Plan one of the things we’ve done is compacted a lot of things. So, this Rail Corridor 23 Study will likely be incorporated into the Transportation Element. The Transportation Element 24 has a Vision Statement, or will have a Vision Statement. And while this Vision Statement is 25 very inspiring, very nice, it probably won’t be the over umbrella Vision Statement, or it will be a 26 part of the Vision Statement. So, that’s one item. 27 28 The other is that they’ll probably be one goal for it’s like a chapter. One goal for the Rail 29 Corridor Study, not two, three, or four goals. And so the remaining goals will probably be 30 adopted as policies or programs or suggested programs. So I don’t know where the idea of 31 having, it’s as if they were a separate element for the Rail Corridor Study and that isn’t gonna 32 happen. It’s gonna be part of something else. So I would recommend, you know, supporting 33 this because those are good ideas and intentions but they’re gonna be in all likelihood rewritten 34 and have a different form as they are incorporated into the Comp Plan Update. That’s all. Thank 35 you. 36 37 Chair Wasserman: So what you’re suggesting is that our detailed editing is probably premature. 38 39 Mr. Martinez: Yeah and you won’t appreciate it when you see it come back to you because it 40 will have a different form. 41 42 Chair Wasserman: Ok. 43 44 Board Member Lippert: I have a different take on that which is that this is a distinct document by 45 itself. If you look at the SOFA two coordinated area plan, the SOFA coordinated area plan, it 46 City of Palo Alto Page 17 exists in its own little document. It, you know, when people say well the zoning ordinance, this 1 is the zoning ordinance and you go to SOFA, well no. SOFA has its own zoning. And in this 2 case here this is a Rail Corridor Study with its own outcomes and Vision Statement. To dilute it, 3 I think, begins to take the work that’s been done here and in some ways dismiss, you know, a lot 4 of the work and comments that have gone into it. It is a document by itself and whether we 5 comment on it and massage it a little bit and the Planning and Transportation Commission takes 6 it up and the City Council takes it up is their business. For us, we’re, our basis of what we’re 7 doing here is reviewing it and commenting and if we think that what they’ve done in terms of 8 flipping the guide, the Guiding Principles, you know, that’s our business. 9 10 Chair Wasserman: Ok. 11 12 Mr. Martinez: I think you’re right. And that’s not what I was saying because I fully support the 13 Report and the work that’s been done. I’m saying as it goes forth to be adopted as part of the 14 Comp Plan it’s going to change in form and hopefully it’ll all be included there but it will be 15 rewritten and adopted in a different manner than, as a part of the Comp Plan then what you’re 16 seeing here today. But you’re right, that’s totally separate than our support of the plan. 17 18 Chair Wasserman: I also think that, that the two things are not mutually exclusive. That, I think 19 you’re correct. I think we should make our comments and recommendations as we see fit and 20 then what this will have, what I’m getting from Eduardo is that this will have, in addition to be a 21 the stand alone document it will have Comp Plan teeth. Whatever that gets us. Ok. So and so 22 what is your view on the Vision Statement and the order of the Goals? 23 24 Board Member Lippert: I think what you’ve suggested here is perfectly fine. I would adopt that, 25 I would in fact if you want to include something about safety I think that that’s, you know, 26 important too in the Vision Statement. You had something very specific in mind. 27 28 One thing that it doesn’t say in here which I think is equally important is the number of young 29 citizens here and troubled individuals have committed suicide on the railroad tracks and while 30 safety is not implicit in that because if you choose to jump on the rail line it’s not gonna stop 31 you. What is gonna stop you is physical barriers, and it’s hard to implement those physical 32 barriers without doing something about the grade separation. And so 33 Chair Wasserman: Bingo. 34 35 Board Member Lippert: Right. And so that’s not in here but it’s a, but it is a significant issue in 36 our community. 37 38 Chair Wasserman: And you are the first one who’s actually said it out loud in public. I have 39 been to zillions of meetings and everybody’s walked around this. So I think it’s important that it 40 be said and I believe that safety has been the euphemism for suicide prevention and that’s ok 41 with me at this point. 42 43 Board Member Lippert: Yeah, let me just say that, you know, what the inconsistency is here is 44 that when you say, when you talk about suicide on the rail road tracks the easy solution is we just 45 elevate the railroad or we put it underground. And that’s in some ways, you know the 46 City of Palo Alto Page 18 community has really pushed back in terms of elevating the railroad; it’s not a good solution. 1 And in some ways, that’s the direction that people are forced to go in and I think that’s a false 2 choice. And so, I think just by talking about it and getting it into the report doesn’t necessarily 3 say that that’s what we want is elevated railroads. Or elevated, you know, what do they call it, 4 Great Wall of Palo Alto. 5 6 Chair Wasserman: Ok, Alex do you want to chime in on the two items in question, the Vision 7 Statement and the order of the two Goals? 8 9 Board Member Lew: I think the Vision Statement is fine as, and would support your proposed 10 addition of safety. And I think that the Goals, in my mind, are fine as enumerated. It seems like 11 Goal #1 is, to me, when I look at that it includes a whole bunch of things in addition to safety. 12 Say like, visual impacts, noise impacts and stuff like that. So I’m fine with, and those are 13 substantial and so it seems to me that that, I’m actually fine with having that as Goal #1 instead 14 of Goal #2. 15 16 Chair Wasserman: And so what happens if there is no High Speed Rail? And the whole question 17 of changing the rail the rail alignment goes away, then what do you do with your primary Goal? 18 You still have other issues. 19 20 Board Member Lew: Right, but it’s not like any of the other Goals go away, right? 21 22 Chair Wasserman: Ok. 23 24 Board Member Lew: Right? I mean they’re still… 25 26 Chair Wasserman: Yeah, Clare. 27 28 Vice Chair Malone Prichard: I don’t see anything here that says this is a prioritized list. It’s just 29 a list of five things. I don’t think that one has priority over two, three, or four. So I don’t think it 30 matters what order they’re in. 31 32 Chair Wasserman: Ok. We are asked for a recommendation. That means you want us to vote on 33 something, yes? Ok. Can we have a Motion on this please? Don’t all jump at once, c’mon 34 guys. 35 36 Board Member Lippert: You had something very specific in terms of how you wanted to 37 incorporate safety into the Vision Statement. So why don’t you 38 39 Chair Wasserman: Ok let me find the Vision Statement again. 40 41 Board Member Lew: I think it’s 303. 42 43 Chair Wasserman: Ok. I found, yeah. So where it says, “to create a vibrant, transit rich area 44 with mixed use centers,” I would say, “create a vibrant, safe, and transit rich area.” Just to get it 45 City of Palo Alto Page 19 up front. That was, that was my, and then I’m not very strongly, I don’t have strong feelings 1 about the Goal segment. I’ll go with the Board. 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Vice Chair Malone Prichard: So I move that we recommend approval of this document with the 6 addition of “safe” as Judith just stated. 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Board Member Lippert: I’ll second that. 11 12 VOTE 13 14 Chair Wasserman: Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? No. You’re good to go. 15 16 MOTION PASSED (4-0-0) 17 18 Ms. Lee: I’m sorry, one clarifying question. Are you, do you want to remove the word 19 “attractive” or is it, “vibrant, safe, attractive, transit rich area?” 20 21 Chair Wasserman: I, well there were some, there were some other recommendations about 22 including public art and attractiveness. I don’t think that we need to actually vote on that. I 23 think that’s just sort of a standard. Oh attractive, attractive is in the document? But not in the 24 Staff Report. 25 26 Ms. Lee: Right, that was a mistake. 27 28 Chair Wasserman: Oooh. Ok. So it is attractive. Good. I read the other one it was my mistake. 29 Pretend I read that one. Yeah. I don’t think we have to, you know, say that you as a condition 30 that public art has to be included but I would highly recommend that, I mean there are enough of 31 us to believe in it. That we should really do it. Yeah, so that was, that was four to nothing. 32 Thank you all and I really hope that this has more fruit than most of our trees that we plant 33 around here. 34 35 Mr. Smiley: We certainly do too. 36 37 Chair Wasserman: Thank you. And thank you very much Chair Martinez, you are always 38 welcome at our meeting, early morning meetings and we don’t serve coffee. 39 40 41 1 PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES Role and Authority of the Rail Committee The Committee shall advise the City Council on high speed rail (HSR), Caltrain and related rail transit matters and provide the community with appropriate forums for the discussion of such issues. The Committee shall keep the full Council informed on a regular basis. The Committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City on HSR, Caltrain and related rail transit matters when there is not sufficient time to refer a particular issue to the full City Council before action is needed. However, the Committee shall forward their recommendations to the Council for final action if the Committee determines that it is feasible to do within the time available. Such actions by the Committee shall include, but not be limited to, advocacy to the state legislature, the HSR Authority, Caltrain Joint Powers Board, Congress and other pertinent governmental agencies. Such actions by the Committee shall be consistent with the following policies of the City: Background In November 2008 California voters approved Prop 1A, a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure, the primary purpose of which is to develop HSR service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The High Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) has decided that the route HSR will take from San Jose to San Francisco is along the Caltrain right of way (ROW), including the portion of the ROW that runs through Palo Alto. However, the Environmental Impact Report used by the Authority in making this decision has been de‐certified per court order. Many issues, such as the vertical alignment of the HSR, remain undecided. Recognizing that HSR could have significant impacts on Palo Alto, the City Council on May 18, 2009 created an ad hoc High Speed Rail Subcommittee of four Council Members, (since changed to a standing committee and renamed the Rail Committee). The Council also adopted a set of Guiding Principles which allowed the Committee to take a variety of actions in the name of the City without action of the full Council. Subsequently, the Committee‐‐‐ indeed the entire community‐‐‐ has learned a great deal about HSR and many HSR related actions have taken place. The Authority has selected the central valley as their first construction segment which allows for more a more deliberative and collaborative consideration of alternatives on the peninsula. Additionally, an alternative for a limited “blended” rail system along the Caltrain corridor has 2 been proposed along with a corresponding limited EIR. This proposal limits the scale of rail on the peninsula. The Authority in November 2011 issued its revised Business Plan showing that the cost of HSR would be $98 billion dollars. In the revised Business Plan the Authority used the same ridership forecast model as it had in the past and did not address numerous flaws identified by many experts who found the Authority’s projections to be unfounded and unreliable. Guiding Principles The City Council therefore, adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the actions of the Committee: The City of Palo Alto believes that the High Speed Rail (HSR) Project should be terminated for the following reasons: 1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Prop. 1A in 2008. 2. The Business Plan is fatally flawed and not credible. In November 2008, the voters passed a bond measure for a HSR project based on: • Grossly understated construction costs, • Understated fares and overstated ridership, • Operating without a government subsidy, and • A Funding Plan legally required to identify funding sources and achieve environmental review prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment (IOS). Since the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given accurate information during the 2008 election to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California. If the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR: 1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR/Caltrain should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts. 3 4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor and the HSR Peer Review Committee which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority’s Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, identification of sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operations of HSR. 6. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the HSR Peer Review Committee authorized by AB 3034. 7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of the transit corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of our Comprehensive Plan. 8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and Caltrain that is effectively funded and implemented by the Authority. 9. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected Cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions. 10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the Authority or Caltrain should provide realistic renderings of the various alternatives and also provide simulations that would help to provide an understanding of the sound and vibrations. 11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or improved levels of service. 12. Palo Alto also supports the modernization of Caltrain, and/or as the lead agent for a phased alignment with but independent of HSR. 13. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and Caltrain issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium. 14. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain active. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train service from current 2011 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, 4 and East Charleston crossings that are effectively funded and implemented by the lead agency 15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted written comments to the Authority, the Caltrain Joint Powers Board, and other relevant agencies. In case of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails. Updated: December 19, 2011 (previously updated October 12, 2011 and May 17, 2010) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3140) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/18/2012 Summary Title: Workplan and Schedule for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure Title: Approval of Work Plan and Schedule for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure for the November 2014 Ballot From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review and discuss the plan and timeline (Attachment B) and adopt a plan to place potential infrastructure finance measure(s) on the November 2014 ballot. Background For the past two years, the City Council has placed its aging infrastructure and the need to invest in the City’s future among its top priorities. Beginning in October 2010, the City Council appointed a 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to analyze and make recommendations to the City Council for meeting the challenges and improving the City’s extensive infrastructure inventory. On December 22, 2011, the IBRC issued its final report, Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead. The report identified an infrastructure backlog and on-going maintenance needs of $95 million, and an additional $210 million in new projects for a total of $305 million. It was found approximately $4.2 million would be necessary each year for the next ten years to "catch up" on the infrastructure backlog that has been historically underfunded totaling approximately $42 million. Once the City’s infrastructure is brought up to the appropriate level, the Commission estimated $2.2 million a year for the next 25 years for a total of nearly $54 million to maintain or "keep up" the City’s infrastructure to avoid another backlog in the future. Separate from this the report identified $95 million in funding needs for large, once-in-a-generation-type investments. For example, our fire stations, new public safety building, municipal services center, treatment plant, civic center, and bike/pedestrian bridges, as identified by the Commission. While the estimated costs of these projects continue to be refined and may be offset by other revenue sources, these significant projects were estimated to total over $200 million and excluded some known potential project areas (like Cubberley Community Center). Mayor Yeh declared 2012 as the "year of infrastructure renewal and investment,” focusing efforts on the important task of identifying long-term revenue sources to renew the City’s physical assets. In 2012, the City Council held four retreats to focus on the IBRC’s recommendations. Attachment A provides a summary of the public meetings that have been conducted since the release of the IBRC report and the City Council’s key decisions, including links to the staff reports and minutes as available at the time of the release of this report. The City Council, at its meeting on May 8, 2012, directed staff to develop a plan and timeline for a 2014 election to include financial considerations, identification of potential assets to be constructed or remodeled, appropriate polling and identification of potential revenue sources, and to bring the plan and timeline to Council for approval by September 2012, and to include the identification of potential projects and the estimated costs as the first task accomplished under the timeline. Discussion To develop this recommended plan and timeline to place a potential infrastructure finance measure on the November 2014 ballot, staff evaluated best management practices for placing successful finance measures on the ballot. In addition, staff analyzed the City’s past experience placing finance measures on the ballot, what worked, what did not work, and the strategies that influenced success or failure. Over the past two decades, Palo Alto placed several finance measures on ballots including two infrastructure bond measures. In November 2002, the City placed an infrastructure measure on the ballot (Measure D) for a 30-year bond totaling $49.1 million to improve and expand the Children’s Library and to construct a new combined Mitchell Park Library and Community Center on the ballot. The measure failed with 61.7% affirmative votes, short of the 2/3 super majority required for passage. In November 2008, the City placed Measure N on the ballot, a $76 million infrastructure bond (requiring 2/3 approval) measure to fund major facility improvements to three libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. Measure N passed with 69% of the voters supporting the bond. Key dates actions beginning with the defeat in November 2002 to the successful passage of Measure N in 2008 and additional background information on the 2008 Library Bond Measure can be found on the City’s website at: Key Dates and Actions on Measure D and Measure 2008 Library Bond Background There are several factors that influenced the success of the measures such as: the degree of the City’s overall planning and financial investment during the early stages of preparation, whether the community was knowledgeable about the issues and engaged in the processes, how the measures were crafted and the type of funding measures selected, extent of community and media support, and the viability of the community campaigns. Notably, there was a significant grass roots effort in 2008 with the successful passage of Measure B. Research for this strategy points to four fundamental tracks to position the City for success with a potential finance measure on the November 2014 ballot: 1. Strategic Planning/Opinion Research 2. Community Outreach 3. Plan/Design Review 4. Ballot Preparation Below, specific actions for each track are identified. Attachment B provides a summary level schedule of the timing of the components leading up to the November 2014 election. 1. Initial Planning & Strategy Development/ Opinion Research Assemble Core Strategy Team - A core staff strategy team will be assembled consisting of affected departments, communications staff, City Manager’s Office, and the City Attorney’s Office. Council may also want to consider establishing a Council subcommittee or identify a Council Committee to vet key policy issues. A Council sub-committee was formed for the 2008 library bond measure to discuss issues like polling questions and developing the process for writing arguments in favor of the bond. Identify Potential Projects & Costs -The IBRC’s recommendations form the foundation for the potential projects and their costs. Since the release of the report, costs have continued to be refined and some additional projects have been added. At the Council’s last retreat, Council Members’ were asked to provide some very preliminary thinking on potential project priorities. These were individual perspectives and thoughts. The Council did not work through any collective process to refine these priorities and generate a formal Council perspective. The next section of the report provides the results of this prioritization exercise, list of the potential projects, their estimated cost, and various funding options including potential variables, cost reduction options, and other funding streams that may reduce the need for finance measures. Council’s continued discussion and input on the priorities will inform subsequent public opinion research on our community’s priorities, and the level of support for various tax/bond measure thresholds and funding mechanisms. It is important to note that this will be an iterative process and there will be multiple policy decision points that Council will be reviewing as the potential project list is further refined. The schedule anticipates that Council will make a final policy decision in late June 2014 on whether to place a finance measure on the November 2014 ballot. Council will then need to take an official action in late July to adopt an ordinance calling the election. The measure needs to be submitted to the County of Santa Clara in early August 2014 to be officially placed in the November 2014 election. Retain Professional Expertise - Staff recommends retaining assistance of outside experts in two areas: communication strategist and public opinion research. If the City pursues a general obligation bond measure, we may also engage the City’s financial advisor for financial advice. Conduct Feasibility Research - In August, the City issued a request for proposals for professional polling and public opinion research services. Proposals are due September 24, 2012. Staff anticipates having a firm under contract and commencing work by November 2012. This firm, interfacing with the communication strategist, will assist the City with public opinion research to identify project(s) that are community priorities, the type of funding mechanisms and the level of tax threshold the community is willing to support, election timing issues, and effective public communication themes and messages. Assess Results for Feasibility - The draft schedule assumes conducting an initial baseline survey in the spring of 2013, evaluating the results for the feasibility of a measure(s), and Council making decisions about next steps. However, staff anticipates that the City’s polling expert will make recommendations about poll timing taking into consideration factors such as the economy and other factors that may influence voter opinions. As indicated in the summary level schedule included as attachment B, it is projected that subsequent “tracking polls” will be conducted as needed to assess the community’s ongoing support of potential finance measures. Staff may also utilize other forms of opinion research such as focus groups and/or other innovative social media tools. The schedule also assumes conducting final feasibility testing in the spring of 2014 to inform Council’s final decision about placing a measure on the November 2014 ballot and if so, the recommended scope. 2. Community Outreach Hire Communications Strategist - Staff recommends hiring a communications strategist. The outside firm will work with the City and with the City’s polling firm to develop and manage strategies focused on finance measure feasibility; support the development of survey instruments and tracking polls for communications and messaging, analyses and application of results, and recommend how to structure/define the finance measure(s); develop, refine, and target key messages and themes for the City’s finance measure(s); develop a communications plan; implement community outreach and education activities prior to Council’s decision to place a measure(s) on the ballot, including designing and developing materials. Develop Communication Plan & Implement Outreach Campaign - The City’s 2008 Library Bond Measure supported an aggressive community outreach and education program prior to placement of a measure on the ballot. This is the portion of the campaign that can be City funded and is designed to build educational awareness of the City’s infrastructure and fiscal needs. It is anticipated that the City will implement a preliminary outreach campaign to begin educating the community on infrastructure needs and provide early input on priorities, and implement a robust community education and engagement plan once potential measures are more clearly defined. After Council takes action to place a measure on the ballot, the City cannot be engaged in an advocacy campaign. Any campaign must be carried forward by community stakeholders and a campaign committee. The City’s successful 2008 Library Bond Measure included the hiring of a communications consultant and the development of direct mailers, speaker’s bureau, video, City web-site, and media relations campaign at a cost of approximately $300,000. While professional assistance to develop strategies and key messages was critical with the 2008 Library Bond measure, it was found that it was integral that City staff, the Council and community stakeholders, as stewards of the City’s infrastructure, deliver information and messages to the community in the outreach phases. Engage Citizen Advisory Committee - To be most effective, it will be important to engage stakeholders and the community on the “front-end” of the process. As was clear from the 2008 Library Bond Measure, the quality and effectiveness of the community’s campaign was key. The purpose of the advisory committee is to supplement city leadership with external community partners and leaders to build broad based consensus, provide input to finance measure planning, and to be partners in educating the community about our infrastructure needs. City staff held a meeting in early September with members of the IBRC to seek input on the plan and strategy for a potential 2014 finance measure and to discuss their interest in a continued role. Several members of the IBRC expressed potential interest in sitting on a citizen advisory committee, but more importantly ensuring a continued role in advising Council on their report recommendations. If Council is interested, staff recommends returning to Council with a recruitment/selection process for a Citizen Advisory Committee for review and approval. 3. Plan/Design/Environmental Review (as required) The level of project design and environmental review that must be completed before a finance measure is placed on the ballot depends on several variables including the desire to provide information to the public in advance of the election. In general, the City should build in some costs for conceptual design services and possible environmental clearance for those projects which are clearly identified. On one end of the spectrum, for very discrete projects it will be important to have some design work completed so the City can feel confident of the project costs and residents can feel confident about where their money will be going for specific projects. On the other end of the spectrum, the City could pursue a finance measure for some general categories of infrastructure projects (such as future street replacements) where detailed design and environmental review is better deferred to the future. We expect that as priority projects are defined they will be reviewed by appropriate boards, committees and commissions such as the ARB, PTC, and appropriate City Commissions. 4. Ballot Preparation Council’s potential action in July of 2014 to place a measure on the ballot would trigger two key next steps: preparation of ballot measure language and formation of a non-City sponsored campaign. Once the Council officially acts to place a measure on the ballot State law prohibits use of City funds for any advocacy work. If Council acts to place a measure on the ballot there are a number of steps in ballot preparation that will be required leading up to election day. If an infrastructure bond is pursued and successfully passes there are also a number of steps to be taken to issue the bonds and have funds available for construction. This process takes approximately three months. Attachment C provides a summary of the key steps and the general timeline. Some of the key steps to ballot preparation include preparing the ballot measure and synopsis, Council adopting a resolution of necessity and an ordinance calling the election, filing ordinance with the county, and developing arguments for and against the measure. Projects, Costs and Potential Funding Sources Since the release of the IBRC report, the Council has discussed potential projects and their costs at several public meetings as summarized in Attachment A. At the Council’s last retreat held on June 14, 2012, for purposes of generating discussion and providing preliminary guidance on project prioritization, Council members participated in an exercise designed to identify and prioritize projects that might be considered for a November 2014 infrastructure finance measure. Staff has applied a simple numerical ranking to the results of the retreat exercise that allows the projects to be shown in the order of priority assigned by the overall Council’s preliminary thinking. It would be fair to say that this list was a quick, first cut at where individual Council members think the greatest needs are, but it is clearly subject to possibly significant change, as Council discussion unfolds and more detailed information becomes available. The prioritized list is as follows: Table 1. Project Prioritization from Retreat #4 Project 1. Public Safety Building 2. Fire Stations 3. Byxbee Park 4. Bike/Pedestrian Plan and Bike Bridge 5. Surface Catch-up 6. Parks Catch-up 7. Buildings Catch-up 8. Post Office 9. Charleston/Arastradero 10. Cubberley Replace/Expand 11. Cubberley deferred maintenance 12. Animal Services 13. Civic Center 14. LA Treatment Plant (general fund and refuse fund) 15. Airport (enterprise fund) 16. Municipal Services Center (majority enterprise fund) 17. Regional Water Quality Control Plant (enterprise fund) 18. Compost Facility (enterprise fund) 19. Golf Course (self-funded by golf revenues)* 20. Playing Fields (at golf course – funding to be identified)* *The Golf Course and Playing Fields projects were added to the project list after the 4th Council Retreat. The Airport, Municipal Services Center, Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and Compost Facility projects (in italics) were included in the Council exercise, but are expected to be funded by Enterprise Funds and are not likely to be considered for a potential 2014 finance measure. These projects are included in the project list because they are significant projects that reflect the scope of the City’s infrastructure needs and have been recently discussed by IBRC and by the Council. To support the Council’s continued discussion on a potential finance measure(s) for the November 2014 ballot, Attachment D provides a one-page summary sheet describing the projects that are listed in Table 1. Each of the project summary sheets include a project description, the estimated project cost and basis of the estimate, information on identified and potential funding sources that may offset the need for public financing, and other variables or considerations that may affect the project timing, cost, or viability. Also included in Attachment D is a figure that shows the sum of the additional funding needs for the set of projects, which totals $231 million. Although Attachment D contains sheets for Enterprise Fund projects, those project costs are not included in the $231 million total because it is assumed that they will be funded through Utility Revenue Bonds or other mechanisms that do not impact the General Fund. These summary sheets and the summary figure are intended to provide Council with staff’s best information on the range of projects and the total funding needed to complete them. As discussed below, there are potential funding sources and other variables at play that may influence the cost of the projects as well as which projects are ultimately pursued. Table 2 provides a list of potential funding sources that could be used for infrastructure projects that are in addition to the funding sources listed on the summary sheets provided in Attachment D. These are funding sources that are not project-specific and could, at Council’s discretion, be directed to provide the additional funding needs for the projects. For example, the Bike Bridge project summary sheet includes the $4 million grant application that was submitted to Santa Clara County as a funding source, and shows an additional funding need of $5 million. Funds from the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement for Sustainability or the Infrastructure Reserve, as described in Table 2, could be directed to provide the additional $5 million funding. Table 2. Potential Funding Sources Funding Source Description Amount Stanford Development Agreement Infrastructure The Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement provides payment of $23.2M for use in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. Two payments of $7.7M have been received and the third is estimated to be received in January 2018. $23.2M Stanford Development Agreement Sustainability The Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement provides payment of $23.2M for use in projects and programs for a sustainable community. Two payments of $4M have been received and the third is estimated to be received in January 2018. $12M Funding Source Description Amount Infrastructure Reserve The Infrastructure Reserve was created as a mechanism to accumulate funding for infrastructure projects, and is funded each year by a transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund. The Infrastructure Reserve balance at the end of FY2013 is projected to be $5.9M. Staff recommends that $1.5M to $2M be kept in reserves for unanticipated capital expenses. $5.9M Community Centers Development Impact Fee These fees are intended to fund development and improvements to community centers, art centers, nature centers, civic theatres or other facilities that can host classes, studios and educational exhibits for public enjoyment, recreation and education. The fund currently contains $1.6M that is not allocated to specific projects. $1.6M Parks Development Impact Fee These fees are intended used to fund acquisition of land for new or expanded parks and for improvements for neighborhood and district parks in order to expand the recreational capacity of the park or provide new sports and recreation facilities. The intent of the fee is to mitigate for the expansion of the population by new development with the creation of new recreational facilities. The fund currently contains $0.7M that is not allocated to specific projects. $0.7M One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) OBAP is a new program administered by VTA that will fund local road reconstruction and rehabilitation, bicycle, pedestrian, streetscape, and Safe-Routes-to-School projects that are eligible for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) or Transportation. Palo Alto’s share of the funds is expected to be a total of $0.7M to be used over the next four years. $0.7M Vehicle Registration Fee Guarantee Fund The new $10 addition to vehicle license fees passed by voters will be used to fund local road improvements and repairs. Palo Alto is expected to receive $0.36M per year with no sunset date, resulting in funding of $1.8M over the course of the FY13-17 CIP Plan. $1.8M The project list, descriptions, cost estimates, and potential revenue sources presented in Attachment D and in Table 2 represent staff’s best information at this time. Both project costs and potential revenue have a number of moving parts. As new and more precise information becomes available and decisions are made, staff will continue to refine the estimates. Council may remember that IBRC’s final report included a recommendation that the Cubberley Lease not be renewed, which could make $7 million per year available for infrastructure purposes. Staff has not addressed this recommendation in the discussion of funding sources because Council, at the first infrastructure retreat, decided to wait for the recommendation of the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee in early 2013. There are also a number of other variables and factors at play that may offset the cost of projects and/or reduce the need for a finance measure. A list of these variables and factors includes the potential public/private partnership with Jay Paul to provide a public safety building, the Santa Clara County grant application for bike bridge funding, potential redirection of present CIP funding to address priorities, the disposition of the postal building, Cubberley negotiations, revenue that might be result from leasing of the current police building, and the present CIP and year end surpluses. There may also be future revenue enhancements that would impact the City’s help to fund projects on the list such as the possibility of a digital readerboard along the Highway 101 corridor. In addition, there may be operational savings as a result of the implementation of some of the projects. The polling results will heavily inform Council’s decision to pursue public financing for specific projects or a combination of projects. To help facilitate Council’s continued discussion on project priorities, staff has provided a suggested project list below as a starting point for the discussion. Staff made some assumptions in identifying these projects. In particular, it is believed projects that improve individual well-being and quality of life, and are transformative and much needed investments may have stronger community support for a potential finance measure. Reprioritizing the current CIP may also be considered as some items such as street resurfacing have been found to be important issues for the community. Given issues such as timing and certainty of projects, and potential for community support, staff suggests looking at other potential revenue sources for the Post Office, Cubberley deferred maintenance, Civic Center, Building Catch-up and LA Treatment Plant. In addition, enterprise funded projects are excluded. While these are significant projects that reflect the scope of the City’s infrastructure needs, it’s not likely that these projects would be considered for a potential 2014 finance measure. Pending Council discussion and direction, staff would anticipate using the list as a starting point for discussions with the City’s public opinion research firm on the polling strategy and further testing with the City’s community group. Table 3. Suggested Project List Projects for Continued Discussion & Prioritization 1. Public Safety Building 2. Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects for Continued Discussion & Prioritization 3. Bike Bridge 4. Byxbee Park 5. Fire Stations 6. Streets (accelerate resurfacing & Charleston/Arastradero) 7. Sidewalks (surface catch-up) 8. Cubberley (replace/expand) 9. Parks 10. Animal Services 11. Playing Fields Timeline and Resource Impact A summary level schedule leading up to a potential finance measure for the 2014 election is included as Attachment B. It is anticipated that a more detailed timeline and schedule will be developed once the City obtains the expertise of a communications strategist and a plan for public opinion research is in place. Some key milestones (understanding Council direction may add new tasks) through year end include: Council approves strategy and summary timeline September 2012 Council awards public opinion research contract November 2012 Staff initiates solicition for communiication strategist November 2012 Council considers plan and schedule for public opinion research, December 2012 recommendations for forming Citizen Advisory Committee Council, and preliminary outreach plan on infrastructure needs and priorities Council awards communication strategist January 2013 Staff will also seek approval for the resources needed to attain outside expertise for public opinion research and a communciation strategist once the solicitations close and staff advances the contracts to Council for consideration. Resource needs for design and environmental review will also be brought forward as priority projects are defined. The resources expended for the 2008 Library Bond measure were approximately $1.9 million, with $1.55 million in design and environmental review costs for Mitchell, main, and downtown libraries. The remaining expenses funded a baseline and final tracking poll, as well as, a communication strategist and design and implementations costs for direct mailers, development of a speaker’s bureau, web-site, and video. Staff will develop a more detailed budget once more initial Council direction is given. It is anticipated that the resources needed to plan the finance measure will be drawn from the general fund budget stabilization reserve and the capital reserve Given the amount of information that will be provided through November 2014 related to this work, staff has provided a binder for Council to organize information. The binder provides some baseline information that has already been provided to Council at previous public meetings. A copy of the binder may be found in the Clerk’s Office to be viewed by the public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed earlier, the appropriate level of environmental review needed prior to the Council’s decision to place an infrastructure measure on the ballot will be decided as the project list is further defined. Attachments: Attachment A. Summary of 2012 Council Retreat Meetings (PDF) Attachment B. 2014 Finance Measure Schedule (PDF) Attachment C. Ballot Preparation and Bond Issuance Schedule (PDF) Attachment D. Infrastructure Projects (PDF) Prepared By: Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager Department Head: James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A Summary of Public Meetings and Key Decisions Since Release of IBRC Report Since the release of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s (IBRC) report in December 2011, the City Council has held four retreats to focus on infrastructure and the report recommendations and deferred some items to Council’s Policy and Services Committee. The following provides a summary of the public meetings that have been conducted since the release of the IBRC report and the City Council’s key decisions. January 17, 2012 Council Meeting – The City Council first discussed the IBRC report at their January 21, 2012 City Council meeting. The IBRC co-chairs provided an overview and discussed the report findings and recommendations. The City Council acknowledged the IBRC for their outstanding work and discharged the Commission from their official duties. Discussions between staff and Council were deferred to the Council’s Annual Retreat. 01/17/2012 Meeting Minutes January 21, 2012 City Council Retreat #1 – The City Council discussed Council Priorities for 2012, topics for future Council Retreats, and the IBRC’s Report findings, recommendations, and next steps. Staff provided responses to Council questions raised at the January 17, 2012 meeting. The Council decided to schedule three additional Council retreats in addition to regular meetings with a focus on infrastructure and next steps on the IBRC recommendations, and agreed the future of the Cubberley Community Center would be made by and through the established Cubberley process with the Palo Alto Unified School District, and integrated by staff into infrastructure process and discussion. Council further directed staff to return to Council with a revised Public Safety Building Plan, information on the disposition of the downtown Post Office and any other potential sites for a public safety building, and additional information on funding options for the IBRC recommendations. 01-21-2012 Meeting Minutes March 26, 2012 City Council Retreat #2 – The City Council held its second retreat for further discussion on infrastructure and renewal. Staff sought direction on revenue generating uses for Bayshore sites, the City’s service delivery model for animal service, and utilization of the Municipal Services Center site (MSC). The Council also continued discussions on finance options to fund infrastructure needs. The Council referred to the Council’s Policy &Services Committee continued discussions on animal services and potential infrastructure funding options for the November ballot. However, given the near term timeliness of funding options for a revenue measure for the November 2012 general election, the Council resumed discussions on funding options at its retreat on April 30, 2012. Discussions on animal services proceeded through the established budget process. 03-26-2012 Meeting Minutes April 30, 2012 City Council Retreat #3 – The City Council held its third retreat for further discussion on investment and renewal. Staff presented additional information on catch-up, keep-up, new projects, prioritization and the timing of a 2012 election schedule and answered questions. No Council action was taken. Through the FY 2013 budget process, the City Council approved a $449,105 reduction to the net cost of Animal Services to the City. Staff sought feedback from a Citizen Stakeholder Group to discuss and determine how best to reduce the budget, increase revenues and engage in partnership while still providing the high level of service the community has experienced in past years. Through this process, staff developed a proposal to achieve the budget reduction with on-going, structural expenditure reductions, fee revenue increases and the one-time use of donation revenue. Additional cost reduction strategies will be evaluated in future budget cycles. 04-3002012 Meeting Minutes Attachment A May 8, 2012 Policy & Services Committee Meeting - The Committee continued discussions on tax funding options for the November general election related to infrastructure needs. Staff also provided the Committee with Best Practices for Successful Finance Measures prepared by the League of California Cities. The Policy & Services Committee recommended that the City Council: 1) not place a bond measure or other revenue measure on the November 2012 General Election, 2) direct staff to start planning for a 2014 election, 3) direct staff to develop a detailed plan and timeline for a 2014 election to include financial considerations, identification of potential assets to be constructed or remodeled, appropriate polling and identification of potential revenue sources, and to bring the plan and timeline to Council for approval by September 1, 2012, and 4) direct staff to include the identification of potential projects and the estimated costs as the first task accomplished under the timeline. May 21, 2012 City Council Meeting – The City Council discussed the Policy and Services Committee’s May 8th recommendations and directed staff to develop a detailed plan and timeline for a 2014 election to include financial considerations, identification of potential assets to be constructed or remodeled, appropriate polling and identification of potential revenue sources, and to bring the plan and timeline to Council for approval by September 2012, and to include the identification of potential projects and the estimated costs as the first task accomplished under the timeline. June 13, 2012 City Council Retreat #4 - The City Council held its fourth retreat on infrastructure and renewal. Staff presented and Council discussed four potential development and cost scenarios for the public safety building, and potential projects for further analysis for a potential 2014 revenue measure(s). Council Members’ provided their preliminary thinking on project priorities. The results of this exercise are included in the staff report. In addition, on June 18, 2012 through the FY 2013 budget process, Council added $2.2 million in additional funding to the Capital Budget to begin to address some of the IBRC recommendations. Attachment B 1 | Page Summary Level Schedule for November 2014 Finance Measure 20 1 3 J F M A M J J A S O N D J 20 1 4 J F M A M J J A S O N 20 1 5 Community Outreach •Retain Communications Strategist • Conduct Preliminary Community Outreach •Develop Communication Plan • Implement Outreach & Engagement Program •Engage Citizen Advisory Committee Opinion Research/ Strategic Planning • Assemble Core Team •Identify Priority Projects & Costs •Retain Expertise • Conduct Feasibility Research • Assess Baseline Results for Feasibility •Track/Re‐asses Support •Act to Place Measure on Ballot (Policy ‐June/ Official ‐July 2014) Plan/Design Review(as applicable) •Refine Project Costs • Develop/Update Schematic Designs • Conduct Environmental Review • Council & Committee Review/Approval Ballot Preparation • Prepare Ballot Measure • Prepare Synopsis •Adopt Resolution of Necessity •Adopt Ordinance Calling Election • File Ordinance •Hold Election RFP RFP Preliminary Attachment C. Estimated Timeframe November 2014 Election Activity Late June Council Takes Policy Action to Place Measure on the BallotPreparation of "Synopsis of Ballot Measure" Mid July City Council adopts Resolution of Necessity (2/3 vote)/Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election (Include 75 word synopses/description of ballot measure) Late July City Council adopts Ordinance Calling Election Early August Last day for City Clerk to file Ordinance and request for consolidation with Board of Supervisors and County Clerk November Election Mid-November or later Initiate bond document process (if applicable) Mid December Certified statement of election results by County Clerk City Council adopts resolution declaring election results Late December or later Council meeting to approve GO issuance, POS, and sale of bonds Early January or later Meet with rating agencies Mid-January or later Receive ratings Early February or later Bond sale Mid-February Bond closing with proceeds available for construction Ballot Measure Preparation and General Obligation Bond Issuance Schedule Note: It takes approximately 3 months to issue bonds and have funds available for construction Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Public Safety Building Construction of a new public safety building approximately 44,420 SF with 147 secured parking spaces. The building and parking area is comparable to the program verification study prepared by Ross Druilis Cusenberry Architecture in May 2012 which includes Fire Administration. The IBRC 2011 Report found that the current facility failed to meet essential building codes and OSHA requirements, had insufficient space, inadequate and difficult to use EOC. Funding Source: This worksheet displays the project costs included in the Jay Paul public/private partnership proposal that was presented to Council on 9/10/12 and would only be applicable if a public/private partnership is pursued. If pursued, City costs for the project may change based on negotiation of public benefits for the proposed project. The City cost could go down. At the same time, if this approaches evaporates, the City could be faced with funding the $47 million cost through a Finance measure. The greater cost and size of the project will limit the flexibility of options the City may be able to choose from. *Developer estimate, does not include contingency Other Considerations City staff estimate the project cost for a typical design‐bid‐build project implementation for a building of approximately the same size, including land acquisition, to be $57M. Although staff have not conducted a detailed review of the public/private partnership project cost estimate of $47M, it appears that the $10M difference may be due to lack of contingencies and estimated soft costs, $27M $20M Public Safety Building Total Estimate: $47M* Public/Private Partnership Total Additional Need Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. such as design, environmental assessment, and construction management, that are lower than those the City uses in its cost estimates. Additionally, the developer’s cost estimate for the project incorporates their stated ability to build the project more cheaply and efficiently. Relocation of the police department to a new public safety building would make approximately 22,600 of the current public safety building available for lease. Leased at $5/SF, this could generate $1.4M/year in revenue that could be used to fund projects or to leverage Certificates of Participation, depending on the size of the funding needed. Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Fire Stations Two Fire Stations, numbers 3 and 4, have been identified as needing replacement. Fire Station #3, known as the Rinconada Fire Station and located at 799 Embarcadero Road, was constructed in 1948. Station #4, known as the Middlefield Fire Station, is located at 3600 Middlefield Road and was constructed in 1953. A needs assessment study by RRM Design Group in April 2005 determined that both buildings had structural deficiencies and that the sites had a potential for liquefaction (ground instability) during a seismic event. Neither building meets the current building code for essential services facilities Funding Sources: No project‐specific funding sources have currently been identified. Potential funding sources include: federal, state, and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds and public/ private partnerships *Fire Station #3 estimated at $6.7M, Station #4 estimated at $7.5M Other Considerations At the fourth Council Retreat on infrastructure, there was enthusiasm for the idea of using replacement of the fire stations to incorporate community health services that would reflect Palo Alto’s changing demographics. Some potential funding sources include: federal, state, and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds and public/ private partnerships $14.2M Total Cost: $14.2M* Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Byxbee Park As envisioned by the original artist and landscape architect, the completion of Byxbee Park would occur following capping of the remainder of the landfill (Phase 2C) and would consist of a network of white oyster shell‐lined trails with wooden viewing platforms. The hilltops would also be accented with small soil mounds called “hillocks” to be used for planting wildflowers. Additionally, the parking lot for the park would be expanded Funding Sources: No project‐specific funding sources have currently been identified. Potential funding sources include: federal, state, and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds and public/ private partnerships * Staff revision of 1991 estimate by Hargreaves Associates. Other Considerations Final closure (capping) of the landfill was postponed by Council until the 2013 construction season to allow consideration of an Energy/Compost Facility following the passage of Measure E in 2011. CIP PE‐13020, Byxbee Park Trails, was budgeted at $250,000 in FY2013 to begin constructing trails on the recently opened former landfill areas (Phase 2A and 2B). Total Cost: $3.6M* $3.6M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Bike/ Pedestrian Plan The new Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 expands the City’s existing bicycle infrastructure and proposes to implement a network of new on‐street and off‐street facilities for all user levels. Key components of the plan include 52 miles of new or enhanced multi‐use paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle boulevards, and new barrier crossings at a number of locations. Barrier crossings account for about three‐fourths of the total estimated cost for implementing the plan. Funding Sources: A $10.4M grant application was submitted to Santa Clara County in September 2012, of which $1.2M was identified to fund the Matadero Creek Trail. Additional potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Planning level estimate from Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan completed in 2012 Other Considerations The estimated cost of $25M differs from the previous figure of $35M because the $10M Highway 101 at Adobe Creek Bike Bridge project, which is shown as a separate project, is part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and was included in the original $35M estimate. $1.2M $23.8M Total Cost: $25M* Grant Funding Total Additional Need Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Bike Bridge This project would build a year‐round, grade‐separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Highway 101 at Adobe Creek to connect South Palo Alto neighborhoods with the Baylands Nature Preserve and recreational and employment opportunities. The overcrossing is generally proposed as a 12‐18’ wide pedestrian and bicycle bridge which would include a minimum 10’ wide travel way that would allow for a shared facility. Preliminary design and environmental assessment started in July 2012. Funding Sources: A $10.4M grant application was submitted to Santa Clara County in September 2012, of which $4M was identified to fund the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing. The grant proposal included a commitment of $1M from Development Impact Fees to further the design. Additional potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Feasibility Study completed in 2011, estimated at $6‐10 Million, including $2M for design Other Considerations $1M $4M $5M Total Cost $10M* Grant Funding Impact Fees Total Additional Need Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Surface Catch Up IBRC evaluated the maintenance needs of City streets and sidewalks as well as other surface facilities such as parking lots and off‐road trails. The Surface Catch‐up estimate includes all deferred maintenance that is not currently scheduled in the FY13‐17 CIP Plan. The surface needs include $3.7M in sidewalk repairs, resurfacing of over 30 parking lots, approximately 9 miles of off‐road trail repairs, traffic signals, intersection improvements and traffic calming improvements. The estimate does not include annual street maintenance. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Staff Estimate based on 2011 construction costs. Other Considerations Total Cost: $8.8M* $8.7M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Parks Catch‐up IBRC evaluated the maintenance needs of City parks and open space facilities. The Parks Catch‐up estimate includes all deferred maintenance that is not currently scheduled in the FY13‐17 CIP Plan. The parks and open space needs include turf, irrigation and playground replacement, pathway, tennis and basketball court resurfacing, and replacement of miscellaneous amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, lighting, signage, and trash receptacles. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Staff Estimate based on 2011 construction costs. Other Considerations Parks catch‐up is reduced from the $14.5M figure used by IBRC due to Parks projects added to the FY13‐17 CIP Plan. Total Cost: $9.8M* $9.8M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Buildings Catch‐up IBRC evaluated the maintenance needs of all City buildings. The Buildings Catch‐up estimate includes all deferred maintenance that is not currently scheduled in the FY13‐17 CIP Plan, with the exception of deferred maintenance for Cubberley Community Center. Deferred maintenance requirements include roofing, HVAC, electrical and plumbing replacements. Interior and exterior improvements such as painting and carpet replacement are also included. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Kitchell Report completed in 2008 with IBRC and staff assessment. Other Considerations The Catch‐up estimate includes about $900,000 for Municipal Services Center (MSC) deferred maintenance. This deferred maintenance would not be needed if a decision is made to move forward with replacement of the MSC. Additionally, staff will evaluate whether MSC deferred maintenance should be funded by the General Fund CIP Program. Total Cost: $4.5M* $4.5M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Post Office Acquisition of post office property and renovation of existing building. Funding Sources: Potential annual lease payments of $1.2M/year could be used if Development Center and Elwell Ct. office space uses were to be relocated to a City‐acquired Post Office building. * Staff Estimate Other Considerations Potential for avoided annual lease payments of $1.2M if Development Center and Elwell Court office space were to be relocated to City‐acquired Post Office Total Cost: $10M* $10M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Charleston/ Arastradero Landscaping, lighting and signal and signage improvements along the entire Charleston/Arastradero Corridor will allow for up to 7‐8 feet bike lanes on both sides of the street. The landscape median provides a permanent improvement to transition from four travel lanes to three along the entire corridor. Addition of pedestrian crossing refuge islands, enhanced crosswalks, bulb‐outs and bike boulevard signage are also included. The project’s goals are to reduce commute speeds and improve school related traffic congestion. Funding Sources: A Safe Routes to School grant was approved in the amount of $450K to improve Charleston Road from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. *Staff prepared cost estimate in 2009 Other Considerations Project cost increased from $6.1M because scheduled Charleston work was removed from the FY13‐17 CIP Plan. $450,000 $9.3M Total Cost $9.75M* Grant Funding Total Additional Need Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Cubberley Replace/ Expand This project would completely replace the existing Cubberley Community Center with a new community center on the City‐owned portion and new middle and high schools on the PAUSD‐owned portion. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. The City’s share of the project for the Community Center is $83M of the $200M. * Planning level estimate completed in 2012. Other Considerations Project would be coordinated in cooperation with PAUSD if the Cubberley process ultimately yields a decision to pursue [up to] complete replacement and expansion of Cubberley Community Center. The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee is expected to make its recommendations in early 2013. $117M $83M Total Cost: $200M* School District Total Additional Need Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Cubberley Deferred Maintenance All maintenance required for Cubberley Community Center including HVAC, electrical and plumbing replacements, parking lot resurfacing, tennis courts and field repairs. Cubberley Deferred Maintenance includes both the City and PAUSD‐owned portions of the Cubberley property. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Kitchell Report completed in 2008, and some staff assessment Other Considerations Addressing Cubberley deferred maintenance may not be necessary if Council decides to pursue complete replacement and expansion of Cubberley Community Center. Likewise, deferred maintenance on the PAUSD‐owned portion of the property may not be necessary if Council decides not to renew the existing lease. The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee is expected to make its recommendations in early 2013. Total Cost: $6.9M* $6.9M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Animal Services Construction of a new Animal Services Center at the former Los Altos Treatment Plant site. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Staff prepared cost estimate in 2009 Other Considerations This project assumes relocation of the Animal Services Center to the Los Altos Treatment Plant site along with relocation of the MSC to allow auto dealer use for the East Bayshore site. No project is needed if relocation of the MSC does not occur. Project is also contingent on completion of the Los Altos Treatment Plant project. The estimate of $6.9M is based on an Animal Services Center sized to serve Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. Given the ongoing discussions resulting from Mountain View ending its participation, a smaller facility with a lower cost may be built if the project moves forward. However, it is also possible that the City may enter into contracts with other jurisdictions that would offset the loss of revenue from Mountain View.. Total Cost: $6.9M* $6.9M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Civic Center The waterproofing membrane that is beneath the Civic Center plaza deck is in need of replacement in order to prevent the current leakage of water into the garage area. The current leakage may eventually degrade the reinforcing steel that holds the deck structure together. The membrane has a lifespan of approximately 30 years and is the original installation form the 1969 Civic Center construction. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Ferrari Moe estimate in 2004, adjusted for inflation in 2008 Other Considerations Total Cost: $16M* $16M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Los Altos Treatment Plant The Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) property contains a former wastewater treatment facility on a 6.5 acre portion of the site known as Area B. This project will initiate the development permit process to maximize usable land on Area B. The project will produce plans to remediate historical contamination on the site, demolish the remaining treatment plant structures, and fill low areas including the former sludge ponds. Mitigation of wetland impacts will also be coordinated on the site following CEQA analysis. The mitigation is expected to include the creation of additional wetlands in the portion of the LATP site known as Area A. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Staff prepared estimate in 2008 Other Considerations Following completion of the project, the land would be available for City use, sale, or lease to a third‐party, generating undetermined revenues. The General Fund and the Refuse Fund each own half of the LATP property. Total Cost: $2M* $2M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Airport Resurfacing of runway and taxiways and construction of 12,000 SF terminal building Funding Sources: The project is expected to be funded through Airport revenues upon transfer of the Airport to City operation. * Staff prepared estimate in 2012 Other Considerations Total Cost: $5M* $5M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Playing Fields (at Golf Course) 10.5 acres of existing Golf Course land will be set aside as part of the Golf Course reconfiguration project for potential playing fields when/if funding becomes available Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * very preliminary estimate based on artificial turf playing fields Other Considerations Preliminary estimates range from $2M ‐ $6M, with the $2M estimate representing three turf playing fields and the $6M estimate representing three artificial turf playing fields. These estimates do not include other amenities such as parking and lighting that would be associated with the project. Staff intends to work to develop conceptual plans and more precise cost estimates in the near future. Total Cost: $6M* Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Golf Course The Golf Course project will reconfigure the entire Golf Course allowing a more Baylands‐oriented golfing experience with significantly more naturalized areas and a smaller turf footprint (less fertilization, pesticide application and water use). The project will also set aside 10.5 acres for possible playing fields or other recreational facilities. The primary purpose of the Golf Course project is to accommodate the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) levee re‐alignment project, which will encroach onto the existing Golf Course for critical flood control measures. Funding Sources: Staff estimate $3.2M will be paid by the SFCJPA as mitigation for the levee realignment project. The remaining $4.4M of construction costs will likely be financed through Certificates of Participation or other means over 20 years, with the debt payments to come from Golf Course revenues. Funding for the estimated $0.5M design cost is not yet identified. * Forrest Richardson estimate in 2012. $500,000 is design cost estimates Other Considerations Does not include conceptual plans for 10.5 acres of land set aside to become potential playing fields if/ when funding becomes available. $3.2M $4.4M $0.5M Total Project $8.1M* SFJPA Mitigation COPs Total Additional Need Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Municipal Services Center Complete replacement of Municipal Services Center based on study completed by Leach Mounce Architects in 2003. Based on IBRC recommendation, CIP PE‐12004 was created for a MSC Facilities Study to analyze options for locating City functions, personnel and equipment currently housed at MSC/ASC. Funding Sources: This project is expected to be funded by Enterprise Funds if implemented. * Leach Mounce Architects estimate in 2003 adjusted by staff for inflation Other Considerations A complex study of the MSC property is currently budgeted for FY 2013. Staff is finalizing the scope and expects to release an RFP by end of calendar year Total Cost: $93M* $93M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) The recently completed Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facilities Plan projects project needs over the next 50 years, including retiring of the sewage sludge incinerators, addition of nutrient removal treatment processes, reverse osmosis membrane treatment for recycled water, and a number of other projects. Funding Sources: Palo Alto contributes 35% of the flow to the RWQCP, and would therefore be responsible for 35% of the project costs. The RWQCP partner cities would fund the remaining 65%. Palo Alto project costs would likely be funded through Utility Revenue bonds and/or the State Revolving Fund. * Long Range Facilities Plan report in 2012. Other Considerations Total Cost: $250M* $250M Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Attachment D. Revised 9/13/2012 The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Total Possible Infrastructure Needs 20 14.2 3.6 23.8 5 8.8 9.8 5 109.3 83 6.9 6.9 16 2 6 0.5 Public Safety Building Fire Stations Bybee Park Bike/ Ped Plan Bike Bridge Surface Catch Up Parks Catch‐up Buildings Catch‐up Post Office Charleston/ Arastradero Cubberley Cubberley DM Animal Services Civic Center Los Altos Treatment Plant Playing Fields Golf Course Total Additional Need $231M City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO September 24, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 3149) DATE: September 24, 2012 TO: City Council Members FROM: Vice Mayor Scharff, Mayor Yeh SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM MAYOR YEH AND VICE MAYOR SCHARFF REGARDING COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GRANTS (ITEM CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 18, 2012) Recommendation That the City Council appropriate $25,000 from the FY 2012-13 City Council Contingency Fund to support Neighborhood Grants. Background Strong neighborhoods have been a long tradition in the City of Palo Alto. When a Palo Altan meets another Palo Altan, often one of the first questions asked is which neighborhood they live in. It reflects a sense of community and identity within the city. It's also a tradition that benefits from renewal in Palo Alto. Over 65,000 people call Palo Alto home. Many have been here for decades with families that have lived here for generations. Some have just moved into the community from nearby. Some have recently immigrated from another country and are creating roots here in Palo Alto. Neighborhoods are well-positioned to bring people together to experience their community through neighborhood watch programs to deter crime, to support each other's day-to-day activities like gardening and dog walking, and to prepare a localized response in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. As a community, the relationships neighbors have are always in need of renewal and are built through pro-active efforts. Looking at 2010 Census data shows that over the last two decades Palo Alto has experienced significant demographic shifts in its population. Two trends stand out. First, the graying of our population: 17 percent of Palo Altans are now over 65 years old. Second, the growing Asian population: Nearly 30 percent of Palo Altans now identify themselves as Asian or Asian- American. The benefit of new or reaffirmed relationships with neighbors can be understood from a city perspective. Recently, the Police Department has been responding to a spike in burglaries by September 24, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 3149) increasing police presence in impacted neighborhoods. It is essential that community members have existing relationships with their neighbors to serve as an extra set of eyes and ears to support the public safety for all generations and cultures in each neighborhood. More neighborliness will enhance the quality of life for all of us in Palo Alto. Research on social capital indicates that creating options for neighbors to gather and interact, through their local parks or block parties, increases the sense of community experienced. Conclusion The importance of supporting and investing in our neighborhoods directly through a grant program is important for the community in Palo Alto that will have positive benefits from a city perspective and support the sense of neighborliness. To support this effort, we ask colleagues to join us in directing staff to develop a pilot neighborhood grant program funded for the first year through $25,000 from the FY 2012-13 City Council contingency fund. Staff would design a grant program that would include the following characteristics: 1) Clearly state which associations or groups are eligible to apply for the grant. This should not develop into an entitlement for any particular group and safeguards should be put in place such that it does not. Furthermore, new and innovative ideas for neighborhood events should get preference. 2) Allow neighborhood associations or groups to submit a basic application to fund events or activities in their neighborhoods. 3) Events to be funded would bring both long-standing and new neighbors (moved within last 5 years) together in their neighborhoods and would seek to incorporate interaction between generations and cultures. 4) Include a cap to the amount each neighborhood association or group could apply for through the grant to insure multiple grants to different neighborhoods. 5) Staff should have the pilot program ready to go by the beginning of 2013.