HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-09 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________
1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda: August 9, 2017
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
6:00 PM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal.
All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
2.Recommendations Regarding a Suggested Problem Statement, Objectives and
Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade
Separation Alternatives
3.PUBLIC HEARING. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and
Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, With a Focus on the Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3
4.July 12, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting MinutesJuly 12, 2017
Meeting Minutes
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Committee Items
Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are:
Chair Michael Alcheck
Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel
Commissioner Przemek Gardias
Commissioner Ed Lauing
Commissioner Susan Monk
Commissioner Eric Rosenblum
Commissioner Doria Summa
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be
delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding
the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through
2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 7768)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/9/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
comment as appropriate.
Background
This document includes the following items:
PTC Meeting Schedule
PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)
Tentative Future Agenda
Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes
(Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if
possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum.
PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated
commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi-
judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council
agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their
respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are
available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission.
The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items.
Attachments:
Attachment A: August 9, 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX)
Planning & Transportation Commission
2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2017 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED
2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel
2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel
3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa,
5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk,Waldfogel
6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck
7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Waldfogel
7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing
8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum
8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing
9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular
12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED
2017 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup)
January February March April May June
Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum
July August September October November December
Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck
Subcommittees
Planning & Transportation Commission
2017 Tentative Future Agenda
July 19, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
August 30 Comp Plan: Land Use
Marijuana Ordinance
September 13
Comp Plan: Land Use
101 Bike Bridge
Downtown Parking Management Meeting #2
September 27 Comp Plan Update: Final Recommendation
October/November
Code Clean-Up 2017
TMA Discussion
Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1
Fry’s Coordinated Area Plan
Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study
December/January Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project Update
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8275)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/9/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Rail Program Problem Statement, Objectives and Evaluation
Criteria
Title: Recommendations Regarding a Suggested Problem Statement,
Objectives and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development
and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC):
1. Review the attached community engagement plan (Attachment A), summary of
Community Workshop #1 on May 20, 2017 (Attachment B), and summary of
questionnaire responses (Attachment C) and
2. Provide input to the City Council on the draft Problem Statement, Project Objectives,
and Evaluation Criteria (Attachment D) for discussion at Community Workshop #2 and
to inform the development and screening of grade separation alternatives.
Report Summary
The City Council directed staff to prioritize the definition of a preferred solution for grade
separations along the Caltrain corridor due to:
x longstanding concerns regarding connectivity, safety, noise, aesthetics, and circulation
impacts along the corridor;
x passage of Santa Clara County Measure B in November 2016, which includes $700
million for grade separations that will be split among three jurisdictions with a total of
eight crossings (four in Palo Alto);
x scheduled implementation of Caltrain modernization by 2021, which will facilitate more
trains per hour through Palo Alto; and
x ongoing environmental review of the California High-speed Rail Project alternatives
which may further increase train service through Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
As a result, the City Council’s Rail Committee has been discussing how to best seek community
input at key junctures along the way. At present, City staff is seeking input on a “problem
statement” to succinctly define the purpose of the project, as well as project objectives that will
be used to help define and select among project alternatives. This approach is typically used in
the context sensitive solutions (CSS) process for engagement. Input received from the PTC, the
City Council Rail Committee, and the City Council will be used to inform a community workshop
on September 16, 2017 and the development and analysis of grade separation alternatives.
Background
The brief discussion below summarizes past planning processes related to grade separations in
Palo Alto as well as the principal characteristics of existing and planned grade crossings along
the Caltrain corridor. Where more detailed information is available, links to prior staff reports
are provided.
Prior Rail Corridor Studies
The City of Palo Alto has long discussed the need to improve circulation and connectivity along
the Caltrain rail corridor, and has undertaken a number of previous planning efforts as well as
offering multiple comments during the environmental review process associated with Caltrain
Modernization and the California High-speed Rail Project.
If the Commission is interested in a brief description of the Rail Corridor Study planning effort
from 2013 and the more recent analysis of a trenching solution for grade separating the
Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings, these can be found in the form of a report to the
Rail Committee which is available at the following link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58463.
The 2013 Rail Corridor Study itself can be found at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38025
The 2014 trenching study can be found at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44211.
Please note that the Discussion section below provides some additional detail on the vision and
goals of the 2013 Rail Corridor Study, as well as constraints identified during the 2014 trenching
study.
This report also contains a summary of the status of other grade separations that are being
planned by local jurisdictions along the corridor, showing the status of Palo Alto’s planning
efforts next to those of others. An updated status diagram is included as Attachment E.
Existing and Planned Grade Crossings in Palo Alto
There are currently two grade-separated crossings for all modes at University Avenue and
Embarcadero Road and two grade-separated crossings for pedestrians and bicycles at Homer
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Avenue and California Avenue. Two existing grade-separated crossings at Oregon Expressway
and San Antonio Road accommodate motor vehicles and bicyclists, but not pedestrians.
There are four at-grade crossings that have been the focus of grade separation discussions:
Palo Alto Ave (AKA Alma Street), Churchill Avenue, East/West Meadow Drive, and East/West
Charleston Road. In addition, there have been at least two new grade-separated crossings for
pedestrians and bicycles discussed in the past several years, one near Matadero Creek or Loma
Verde Avenue in South Palo Alto and one at Emerson Avenue in Downtown North. Past studies
have also discussed relocating pedestrian and bicycle access from Churchill Avenue one block
north to Kellogg Avenue and adding a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue (to Peers
Park). The Study Area map below provides the location of the existing and planned crossings
(with the exception of the Seale Avenue/Peers Park concept).
Figure 1. Map of the Rail Corridor Showing Existing and Planned Grade Crossings
Source: Mott McDonald, August 2017
Staff has initiated a data collection effort to inform planning for changes along the rail corridor,
and the preliminary data on existing at-grade crossings was presented at Community Workshop
#1 on May 20, 2017. Some of this data is shown in Table 1 below.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Table 1.
Existing Conditions at Existing At-Grade Rail Crossings
Palo Alto Ave
(Alma St)
Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd
Traffic
(Average Daily)
14,700 11,400 9,300 16,000
Bicycle
(Average Daily)
550 1020 900 240
Pedestrian
(Average Daily)
300 270 180 140
Road Transit/Bus
(Average Daily)
33 7 11 45
School Bus
(Average Daily)
0 64 48 20
Heavy Truck
(Average Daily)
190 127 47 20
Daily Gate
Closures
43 39 39 40
Avg. Seconds Gates
are Closed
25-75 30-78 20-74 22-76
Collisions
(2011-13)
0 13 13 11
Source: Mott McDonald, May 2017
The Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Process
The Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) process was raised by the City in its comments to Caltrain
and the California High-speed Rail Authority, and represents good community-based planning
that gathers information and input prior to making decisions. CSS, as defined by one of the
leading practitioner’s website (www.contextsensitivesolutions.org), is a “collaborative,
interdisciplinary, holistic approach to the development of transportation projects.” The
organization further states that a CSS approach is guided by four core principles:
1. Strive towards a shared stakeholder vision to provide a basis for decisions;
2. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts;
3. Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus;
4.Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while
preserving and enhancing community and natural environments.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
The community engagement plan in Attachment A provides a summary of how Staff plans to
involve stakeholders and gather the input needed to craft a shared vision and make informed
decisions in this instance.
Community workshops will be one element of the community engagement process, as will
meetings with a technical advisory group that will help City staff fully understand physical
constraints and requirements of other agencies. Community input and technical
information/analysis will inform recommendations by the Rail Committee, Planning and
Transportation Commission, and decisions by the City Council. Community Workshops have
been tentatively planned to address the topics in Table 2.
The Community Workshops are intended plenary sessions for our entire community. Additional
engagement approaches may be deployed.
Table 2.
Tentative Schedule of Community Workshops
Topics Date
Community
Workshop #1
Context, Issues and Priorities
May 20, 2017
Community
Workshop #2
Problem Statement, Objectives, Evaluation Criteria
and Initial Alternatives Development
September 16, 2017
Community
Workshop #3
Continue Alternatives Development
October 21, 2017
(Tentative)
Community
Workshop #4
Discuss Alternatives Analysis and Selection of
Preferred Alternative
Date TBD
Community
Workshop #5
Issues to be Resolved/EIR Scoping
Date TBD
Community
Workshop #6
Financing Options/Draft EIR
Date TBD
Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 2017
Discussion
To develop and evaluate alternatives, it’s important for City decision makers and the
community to have a common understanding of the problem we’re trying to solve, our project
objectives, and ultimately the criteria we will use to develop and evaluate the alternatives.
While some may find it frustrating to dwell on these points and want to simply embrace and
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
pursue a specific solution, the adoption of a Problem Statement and Objectives (which lead to
evaluation criteria) will pay dividends as the community begins to evaluate trade-offs inherent
in any complex capital project with the potential to affect the long term future of Palo Alto.
The trade-offs don’t just relate to the physical form of improvements along the rail corridor, but
also to specific engineering, financing, phasing, and construction considerations.
A suggested Problem Statement and Objectives are provided in Attachment D and are
explained below. To a large extent, these suggestions derive from input received at Community
Workshop #1 and the recent citizen questionnaire summarized in Attachments B and C. They
remain a draft for further input and discussion at Community Workshop #2, which will begin a
discussion about the development of alternatives. A short discussion of constraints that have
been or will be considered as the planning process proceeds is also included below.
Problem Statement
The recent citizen questionnaire asked for input on a draft problem statement that starts with
the concept of connectivity, which was a clear focus of the vision statement in the 2013 Rail
Corridor study:
2017 Questionnaire:
The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity
within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians,
bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at-grade crossings. These challenges
also create issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic and
visual impacts. These will continue to get worse in the future with increases in train
traffic due to Caltrain modernization (including electrification) and the possible
addition of high speed rail.
2013 Rail Corridor Study:
To create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and
neighborhood mixed-use centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
places that serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions
of the city through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all
directions.
Individual responses to the recent questionnaire suggested a number of edits or changes,
including addressing suicide prevention, recognizing that Caltrain electrification will reduce
noise and vibration, a preference for undergrounding the tracks, and a statement assuming that
the High Speed Rail would be contingent on grade separations. The proposed Problem
Statement in Attachment D has been adjusted slightly in response to this input. (Changes are
tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out.)
Objectives
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Attachment D also includes suggested Objectives that are derived in part from the goals and
policies articulated in the 2013 Rail Corridor Study for potential consideration in the
Comprehensive Plan Update. These are provided below:
Goal 1: Rail Improvements Should Be Constructed in a Below-grade Trench.
Policy 1.1: The City’s preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is
below grade.
Policy 1.2: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto.
Policy 1.3: When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments
equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation
measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies.
Goal 2: Ensure the Highest Possible Safety at All Rail Crossings and Mitigate Rail
Impacts on Neighborhoods, Public Facilities, Schools and Mixed-use Centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the
Caltrain corridor should be improved to provide the highest possible level of
safety and convenience. This may be grade separations or safer at-grade
crossings, with the preferred choice being grade separation, if supported by
technical studies.
Policy 2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings
of the tracks, and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide
connections from neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and
services.
Policy 2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of
operations in the Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of a High
Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to
minimize noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts, public
facilities, schools and neighborhoods.
Goal 3: Connect the East and West Portions of the City through an improved
circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.
Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle
crossings along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon Expressway.
Policy 3.2: All four existing at-grade rail crossings shall remain open to vehicular
traffic.
Goal 4: Provide Improved Access to Parks, Recreation Facilities and Schools and Assess
Future Needs for these Facilities.
Policy 4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and
schools within the corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities.
Opportunities to increase school capacity and facility development and use
should be evaluated and coordinated between the Palo Alto Unified School
District and the City.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Goal 5: Infrastructure Should Keep Pace with Development.
Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required
for parks, recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded
schools in order to keep pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm
drainage and wastewater management should be evaluated and implemented in
conjunction with development.
The proposed Objectives in Attachment D differ from these suggested goals and policies by not
pre-judging the below-grade trench solution. This is not meant to express a lack of interest or
support for the goal of accomplishing grade separations below grade, but simply to provide an
opportunity for consideration of community objectives before alternatives are developed for
analysis, which is a key tenet of the CSS process. Also, the City does not yet have a full
understanding of the constraints that would dictate the form and cost of a below-grade
alternative, as discussed further below. The draft Objectives also recognize input received from
the questionnaire, which ranked suggested goals as follows:
1. Reduce congestion near at-grade crossings
2. Prioritize student safety
3. Separate motor vehicle from bicycle and pedestrian traffic
4. Deliver grade separations in a timely manner
5. Support planned Caltrain service improvements
6. Reduce unsafe driver behavior
7. Collaborate with neighboring cities and agencies
8. Keep construction period disruptions to a minimum
9. Reduce/eliminate train noise and vibrations
10. Fund project with existing funding from local sources
While the questionnaire results indicate a pretty clear hierarchy of goals in descending order,
Goals 1-7 were tightly arrayed and ranked quite high, with Goals 1-3 being clearly the most
important. Goals 8-10 were lesser priorities with #10 (funding) being clearly the least
important goal. Results suggest that the list of goals could be reduced to 1-7 or could be
grouped into Tiers (1, 2, 3) in order of importance.
Evaluation Criteria
As reflected in the suggested Objectives, responses to the recent questionnaire emphasized the
importance of safety, and also touched on a variety of other issues including the importance of
rail service, traffic circulation and signal timing, bicycle and pedestrian access, and more.
Questionnaire responses ranked possible Evaluation Criteria as follows:
1. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Clear/safe passageways
2. Automobile Circulation - Reduce queue length and time
3. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Separated from auto traffic
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
4. East-West Connectivity - Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of travel
5. Automobile Circulation - Reduce traffic on neighborhood streets
6. Environmental Effects - Reduce noise and visibility of trains from neighborhoods
7. Transit - Support Caltrain service improvements (level boarding, platform extensions,
etc.)
8. Construction Impacts - Minimize construction period disruption (detours/street
closures)
9. Cost - Fund the program with available funding sources
10. Construction Impacts - Able to implement in phases
Criteria 1-3 were clearly ranked highest by respondents. Criteria 4-6 formed a tight grouping of
the second most important set of criteria. Criteria 7-10 were ranked least important and well
below other criteria. Grouping the criteria into Tier 1, 2, 3 might help when evaluating
alternatives, using Tier 1 criteria as “must address” criteria, with Tier 2 as “would like to
address” criteria, and Tier 3 as “ nice to have or bonus” criteria. As with the goals,
questionnaire respondents did not feel cost was an important evaluation criteria, although this
may change once more is known about project costs and available funding sources.
The proposed criteria in Attachment D reflects the input received and can be further adjusted
and/or supplemented with more detailed performance measures or quantitative metrics based
on community input and technical analyses.
Constraints
The City does not yet have a thorough understanding of the constraints that will help define
Palo Alto’s grade separation alternatives. For example, the City knows about some sources of
funding for grade separations, but does not yet know the total amount that can be secured
from all possible sources. This will require additional investigation and may ultimately prove to
be an important constraint. Similarly, there are technical requirements for freight and
passenger rail facilities that the City’s experts will have to explore before having a full
understanding of the physical constraints associated with grade separations. There will also be
constraints associated with rail and roadway operations and a host of other issues.
In CMR #6182 from October 13, 2015, which described the analysis of trenching below Churchill
Avenue, East/West Meadow Drive, and East/West Charleston Road, a number of preliminary
constraints were identified (see pages nine through 14 of
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49398). For example, the analysis
noted the following as potential constraints because they would tend to dictate the extent and
cost of below-grade (trenching) alternatives considered:
x The location and elevation of existing station locations
x The location and depth of existing grade separated crossings
x The location and depth of San Francisquito Creek
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
x Construction specifications such as a maximum slope of 1% for freight rail tracks unless
an exception is granted
These and other issues will be explored by the City’s experts with assistance from a Technical
Advisory Group made up of senior representatives from organizations and agencies with
expertise or jurisdiction over aspects of the project or the project area.
Resource Impact
The City budgeted $1.9 million in the FY 2017 Adopted Capital Budget for planning, engineering,
and environmental review necessary to advance grade separations in Palo Alto. Santa Clara
County 2016 Measure B funding, administered by VTA, may be available to reimburse the City
for some of these expenses. Measure B includes a total of $700 million for grade separations
that will be split among three jurisdictions with a total of eight crossings (four in Palo Alto).
Additional funding for grade separations may be available from state and federal sources,
although some additional local funding is likely to be required.
Environmental Review
The requested action is intended to help define a project and alternatives that will be reviewed
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is not itself a “project”
requiring review under CEQA. Alternatively, the requested action falls within the categorical
exemption established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 for information gathering activities.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
City staff and consultants solicited public input at a public workshop on May 20, 2017 and via a
questionnaire distributed electronically starting on June 29, 2017. Notice of this meeting of the
PTC was also provided in the Palo Alto Weekly ten days prior to the meeting.
A summary of input received at Community Workshop #1 and in response to the questionnaire
are included as Attachments B and C.
Next Steps/Timeline
The City Council’s Rail Committee will consider the issues included in this report at their
meeting on August 16, 2017. Recommendations from the PTC and the Rail Committee will be
considered by the City Council on August 28, 2017 and the City Council’s version of the Problem
Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria will be provided the basis for a discussion at
Community Workshop #2, scheduled for September 16, 2017. This workshop will begin
development of grade separation alternatives for later analysis and screening.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may
recommend a modified version of the proposed Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation
Criteria.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679
Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
x Attachment A - Connecting Palo Alto Community Engagement Plan (DOCX)
x Attachment B - Connecting Palo Alto Community Workshop #1 Summary (PDF)
x Attachment C - Connecting Palo Alto Community Questionnaire #1 Summary (PDF)
x Attachment D - Connecting Palo Alto Problem Statement and Objectives (Draft) (DOCX)
x Attachment E - Status of Grade Separation Projects (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
Connecting Palo Alto
Citizen Engagement Plan
I. Introduction
The Palo Alto Rail Program -- now called Connecting Palo Alto – is a community based process to address
long-standing challenges associated with at-grade crossings on the Caltrain corridor that runs through
the community. This process will lead to project design decisions that will inform both community
aesthetics and mobility choices for many future generations. Community understanding, input and
collaboration will be a vital part of the decision making process. The Project Team will lead the
community engagement activities associated with Connecting Palo Alto to raise awareness, inform,
educate, gather input and connect citizens about potential rail design alternatives that can help prepare
the City for the transit landscape of the future.
The Alliance for Innovation, a coalition focused on emerging practices to transform local government in
partnership with Arizona State University and the International City/County Management Association,
has identified three types of community connections: citizens to each other, citizens to local
government, and the local government to citizens. The Alliance identifies the characteristics of the
connected community to include:
x Citizen engagement activities are connected to what citizens perceive to be important
x Citizens are connected to each other and to local government through engagement
activities
x Citizens are connected by electronic and traditional linkages that permit generation of
information, consideration of alternatives and joint action
x Participants in various citizen engagement activities are connected to each other to
expand civic capacity, activities are linked and support each other and new ventures
build on previous ones
x Organizations in the community are connected to citizens and the local government as
partners in engagement.
The Alliance’s approach to citizen engagement aligns with the Context Sensitive Solutions process
identified by the Palo Alto City Council as the preferred framework by which to involve the community
and make decisions about the future of the rail corridor. As articulated by the Mineta Institute, the four
principles of CSS include:
9 Strive toward a shared stakeholder vision to provide the basis for decisions
9 Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts
9 Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus
9 Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while
preserving and enhancing community values, and natural environments.
2
In terms of citizen engagement, the CSS process calls for the integration of stakeholders into the planning
process early and continuously to ensure the project reflects the views and values of the community. The
goals of community engagement under CSS are similar to many other public participation models:
x Identify stakeholders: Identifying interested parties and evaluating their concerns will
help guide the engagement strategy. Identify key stakeholders with the potential to
invite others to join the process. Identify cross-cutting areas of interest.
x Build consensus: Set a clear collaborative structure to integrate stakeholders into the
planning process and to empower them by providing a way for them to have a voice in
the process. Establish clear rules of engagement about how various views and
perspectives will be incorporated and shared.
x Engage the community to define the problem to be addressed: It is important to engage
communities at the beginning of the planning process and reflect community values and
vision.
x Integrate contextual elements: Ensure that a community’s vision for a project
recognizes constraints and will fit into other regional plans.
x Analyze alternatives for best project selection: Stakeholder input is needed to define
the problem, develop alternative solutions, look at tradeoffs and determine
cost/benefits.
As outlined by the International Association of Public Participation, which is made up of members who
seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments,
institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest throughout the world, there is a public
involvement spectrum that can determine the level of public engagement, as well as appropriate tools
used to achieve that outcome. It’s important to be clear on the goal for engaging the public. Levels of
engagement include:
x Inform the public with objective and balanced information. This is a one-way flow of
information.
x Consult with the public by informing them and then requesting input.
x Involve/include the public in the decision by accepting input and reflecting this input in
the choice.
x Collaborate by partnering with citizens and sharing the decision-making with them.
x Empower the public by putting the final decision in their hands.
3
This Plan identifies a menu of engagement tools based on the level and type of public participation
anticipated to be needed. It is also a living document where community engagement activities are
aligned with the Rail Program’s technical efforts and deliverables. The Plan will be revised as
appropriate as the Connecting Palo Alto program progresses to incorporate community involvement and
ownership to the greatest extent possible.
II. Goals and Objectives
The goal of any citizen engagement effort is often twofold: to build civic capacity and community in
general and to drive public participation to decide a project or policy. The City hopes that Connecting
Palo Alto will do both. The significance of the project and the already high level of community interest
presents an opportunity to expand citizen participation and partnership with the City. The
configuration, design, and other choices that will need to be made to advance grade separations will
need a high level of community input, collaboration and ultimately, support, to be successful.
Specific objectives of the community engagement efforts include:
- Provide clear, accurate and easily accessible information on the Rail Program
- Facilitate communications between interested stakeholders
-
4
- Create engagement strategies for gathering input on grade separation alternatives and making
decisions
- Identify meaningful metrics to evaluate community engagement efforts
- Document community input to ensure it informs the decision making process
III. Key Stakeholders and Concerns
The Connecting Palo Alto process will bring forward input and lead to decisions that will impact a wide
range of stakeholders so the identification of key participants is essential to a successful outcome.
This Plan identifies the following participants or target audiences:
- Palo Alto residents who live near or travel across the rail corridor
- Regular transit riders
- Senior citizens
- Citizens with special needs
- Low income residents
- City elected officials and staff
- Non-profit organizations (i.e. Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design and Friends of
Caltrain)
- Local businesses
- Local educational institutions
- Local environmental advocates
- Community-based organizations
- Neighboring elected officials and staff
- Other members of the general public
Based on input at a May 20, 2017 Community Workshop and in accordance with findings of the Rail
Corridor Circulation Study, the City will consider multiple alternatives for grade separations to address a
number of areas of concern. While a final “problem statement,” project objectives, and performance
measures are still being developed based on community input, the areas of concern include:
- Community cohesion and connectivity generally
- Safety, noise, and aesthetics along the rail corridor
- Traffic congestion around at-grade crossings
- Access for pedestrians and bicyclists
- Facilitating rail service along the corridor
- Rail program costs
- Equity between north and south Palo Alto in terms of investments and benefits
- The potential for disruption and impacts during construction
II. Engagement Strategies
The Project Team will implement a series of community engagement strategies and tools as described
below.
5
Communication Tools and Platforms
Throughout the community engagement of Connected Palo Alto, the Project Team will use a regular set
of communications tools and platforms to inform, educate and engagement stakeholders. These
include:
¾Stakeholder database: The Project Team has developed an initial stakeholder base of
interested community members, as well as subscribers to the City’s two monthly e-newsletters
that total about 7,500 individuals. The Team will continue to add to this database to expand
opportunities to connect with the community.
¾Collateral materials: These will include the core messages developed about the project,
mailers, facts sheets, and other community informing materials
¾Website updates: The webpage for the project at www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto
will be updated on a regular basis with the latest news and updates, links to background
documents, as well as opportunities to sign up for regular e-newsletter updates
¾Social media: Both Nextdoor and the City’s robust social media channels will be used on a
regular basis to cross promote community meetings/events, drive traffic to survey link and help
to keep community informed and engaged. This could also include boosted posts on Facebook
that are an economical method to broaden reach. The Project Team may also use Open City
Hall when appropriate to solicit feedback on specific project questions or ideas.
¾Email newsletter: The Project Team plans to design an e-newsletter to be distributed on an as-
needed but regular basis to our stakeholder database. The first edition is expected to be
distributed by the end of August
¾Press releases, Council comments, public announcements: Announcements about upcoming
workshops, survey opportunities or other outreach activities will be included in press releases,
City Manager comments at City Council meetings and other regular communications avenues.
¾Advertising: It may be appropriate to consider creating/running ads for community events or
other outreach efforts
Surveys and Questionnaires
Level of engagement: Consult
Surveys and questionnaires are good way to solicit input on the project through targeted questions. The
Project Team plans to conduct at least two online questionnaires (via SurveyMonkey) and promote
participation through emails, website and social media. The first questionnaire was sent out on July 5,
2017 to solicit community input into aspects of the four grade crossing alternatives, as well as initial
reaction to a problem definition statement. As of July 13, more than 700 individuals had completed the
survey online with 600 providing comments in the open ended question indicating a very strong level of
interest by the community. While not a statistically valid sampling, the high level of participation shows
the importance of this issue to Palo Altans.
A second online questionnaire is expected to be distributed once more details about the impacts and
benefits of grade separation alternatives are more clearly defined. Simple text–based surveys may also
be considered for use at community workshops and in other venues. These simple tools release short
surveys and polls to recipients’ mobile devices, which solicit reply via text messages. Questions from
software like Textizen, for example, can be added to a chain of subsequent messages according to
recipient responses. A limited amount of characters are available for presenting inquiries and responses,
6
and depth and length of insight tends to be superficial and short. However, its simple module allows for
a quick, timely, and cost effective exchange with respondents.
Once there is a preferred alternative and financing options identified through the process, the Project
Team may consider potentially polling eligible voters, similar to other formal research polls taken to
determine public opinion.
Community Workshops
Level of engagement: Consult, Engage
The Project Team anticipates a total of 6 community workshops will be needed to allow for larger
discussions, as well as dialogue in smaller group sessions. The structure and purpose of the meetings
will be scheduled to align with project milestones including:
x Identify a formal “problem statement” that captures the purpose of Connecting Palo
Alto, as well as objectives and evaluation criteria that speak to the need for the project
and provide , set its context
x Identify potential alternatives for evaluation and analysis
x Explore findings of the analysis and discuss outstanding issues, including potential
impacts and mitigation
x Evaluate alternatives based on evaluation criteria and select a preferred alternatives for
further refinement
The first Connecting Palo Alto community workshop was held at Mitchell Park Community Center on
May 20 and attended by about 150 people. This was intended to be a “restart” of sorts following
several rail corridor studies and previous community discussions. The Project Team gathered feedback
and contact information from participants, as well as provided necessary context for upcoming decision
points.
The City promoted the workshop through a variety of channels including postcards, Nextdoor, social
media, local media, website content and Council announcements.
A second community workshop is scheduled for September 16 at the Palo Alto Art Center, and will focus
on the problem statement, objectives and performance measures, and begin to define alternatives. The
Project Team will utilize similar outreach tools to encourage participation and attendance.
There are a number of other engagement tools that could be used to complement the community
workshops as needed. These are smaller and more flexible, and include:
¾Stakeholder Interviews:
Level of Engagement: Engage, Consult
One of the steps in developing a public involvement plan under CSS is interviewing stakeholders
about the process and other people that should be involved. The Project Team has conducted
an initial round of stakeholder interviews, and if appropriate, may continue these interviews
throughout the process.
7
¾Community Visioning Charrettes
Level of engagement: Engage, Collaborate
Charrettes are often used for planning issues, accelerated problem-solving sessions where a
facilitator and technical experts lead a group to collect design input, present alternative
concepts, seek feedback , present preferred plans and ultimately select implementation design.
¾Pop-Ups
Level of engagement: Consult, Engage
Pop-ups can be small tables or activities co-located with either the site they address or events
engaging the same audience. Often viewed as fun opportunity to participate in civic process
¾Open Houses
Level of engagement: Inform, Collaborate, Engage
Exhibits or plans displayed in a station format which the public is invited to view. Provides a
good opportunity to educate and engage in-person, and build trust and credibility
Additional Community Engagement Options:
¾Community Events
Level of engagement: Inform, Engage
Use an existing event such as Farmer’s Market, concerts, school events, etc. to
promote/educate community about the project with booth/exhibit.
¾Community Initiated Meetings
Level of engagement: Empower, Engage
Meetings organized and run by members of the community, can be supported by having issue
experts/city staff attend to provide information
¾Site Visits
Level of engagement: Inform, Engage
Invite members of the public to visit the project site to allow better visualization of alternatives
¾21st Century Town Hall Meetings
Level of engagement: Inform, Consult
Hold a large group meeting in person with technology facilitated platforms such as Facebook
Live
III. Community Engagement Metrics
The Project team will track the effectiveness of all Rail Program community engagement activities and
services through the following quantitative metrics:
- Total number of stakeholders recorded into stakeholder database
- Total number of meetings/ events related to Rail Program stakeholders logged into stakeholder
database
- Total number of inquiries recorded in stakeholder database
8
- Ratio of positive/negative feedback on Rail Program developments, rail separation alternatives,
and general community engagement activities and services recorded in stakeholder database
- Total number of stakeholders reached directly by collateral
- Total number of stakeholders visiting Rail Program’s webpage
- Frequency of stakeholder engagement with Rail Program’s website, social media platforms
- Total number of stakeholders reached by Rail Program surveys
- Ratio of recipients/respondents of Rail Program surveys
- Ratio of positive/negative feedback on Rail Program developments rail separation alternatives,
and general community engagement activities and services recorded in survey findings
- Attendance at public meetings
IV. Community Engagement Schedule
1
Date Event Topics
May 20, 2017 Community Workshop #1 Context & Priorities
July 2017 Community Questionnaire #1 Priorities & Problem Statement
August 2017 ENewsletter #1
Context & Priorities
Upcoming Community Workshop
September 16, 2017 Community Workshop #2
Rail Committee Meeting
Problem Statement, Objectives,
Evaluation Criteria, Alternatives
Development
Fall 2017 Community Workshop #3
&Enewsletter #2
Alternatives Evaluation
Winter 2017/2018 Community Workshop #4
& Enewsletter #3
Preferred Alternative & Issues for
Further Study
Spring 2018 Initiate formal environmental
review process
Project description, objectives and
purpose/need, alternatives,
impacts and mitigation
Notes: This schedule of events and topics are subject to change. This summary does not include
concurrent stakeholder interviews or other engagement activities that may supplement workshops and
newsletters; it also does not include concurrent meetings of the technical advisory committee or
meetings of City bodies such as the City Council, Rail Committee, and Planning & Transportation
Commission.
V. Technical Advisory Committee
The Project Team is working to form and convene a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This
Committee will provide a forum for engagement with representatives from organizations agencies with
special knowledge about the rail corridor. The TAC will help the Project Team identify and evaluate rail
corridor improvement alternatives and their tradeoffs. It’s expected that the TAC will have particular
insight into the context and constraints that alternatives will have to address.
The first meeting of the TAC is scheduled to occur in late August and its membership is expected to
include senior representatives from the following agencies and organizations:
1 Please notice that this schedule will change according to project developments, needs, and milestones.
9
x Caltrain
x California High Speed Rail Authority
x Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department
x Stanford University
x Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
x City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment
x City of Palo Alto Public Works
x Valley Transportation Authority (invited)
x City of Menlo Park( invited)
x City of Mountain View (invited)
x Santa Clara County Water District (invited)
x Union Pacific Rail Road (invited)
x Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee (invited)
x Caltrans District 4 Traffic Operations (TBD)
City of Palo Alto Rail Program
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
Held on May 20, 2017
Draft Summary Report
Prepared by Circlepoint
June 13, 2017
1
Table of Contents
Workshop Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Workshop Preparation .................................................................................................................................. 3
Breakout Session Exercise ............................................................................................................................. 4
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Dot Exercise .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Concerns Identified by Crossing ................................................................................................................ 5
Palo Alto Ave (Alma Street) ................................................................................................................... 5
Churchill Ave ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Meadow Drive ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Charleston Road .................................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Grade Separations: General..................................................................................................... 7
Summary of Comments received during and after the Workshop ............................................................... 7
MeetingSift Report ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Appendix A: Postcard Mailer
Appendix B: Exhibit Boards
Appendix C: MeetingSift Survey (Hardcopy)
Appendix D: Sign-in Sheets
Appendix E: Comment Forms Received During and After the Workshop
Appendix F: Photos Taken at the Workshop
Appendix G: Breakout Session Handout
Appendix H: Breakout Session Dot Exercise
2
Workshop Overview
Palo Alto Rail Program
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
Mitchell Park Community Center, El Palo Alto Room
3700 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303
May 20, 2017 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
The City of Palo Alto (City) hosted a community workshop (Workshop) on Saturday, May 20, 2017 at the
Mitchell Park Community Center (MPCC). The purpose of the Workshop was to engage the public and
receive insight on the current challenges and future goals of the City’s Rail Program (Rail Program). The
purpose of this Program is to assess potential solutions to grade crossing traffic, safety, and congestion
issues with thorough consideration of public insight. The program area encompasses pedestrian and
vehicular infrastructure within a half-mile radius of the railroad corridor that bisects the City, in
particular four major at-grade crossings: Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill Avenue, E. Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road. The Rail Program’s implementation is spurred by the recent availability of Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) funding for grade crossing improvements in the region.
Project mailers were sent directly to local residents, City staff, and interested organizations and
stakeholders to notify them about the upcoming Workshop. The mailer (Appendix A) contained a brief
explanation of how the Rail Program came to be and past efforts; how the Workshop was structured;
and, and emphasized attendees’ key role in helping to define the challenges/successes for the Rail
Program. The mailer content was also made available online through the project website.
The Workshop began informally, as participants walked into the MPCC’s Palo Alto room, signed in and
made nametags, picked up Workshop handouts, conversed amongst themselves, and viewed various
exhibit boards of various rail efforts in the region (Appendix B). Attendees were invited to sit at a table
of their choosing, read the handouts that explained how the afternoon breakout session was going to be
conducted, fill out a comment form, and interact with the Project Team to ask questions and share
comments about the Rail Program. Project background was presented by City staff and consultant to
illustrate the history and data of previous grade-crossing related efforts in the area. A short brunch was
served before the second part of the Workshop commenced. After lunch, participants sat at designated
tables in order to take part in a dot exercise that would compile their perspectives on grade crossing
related challenges and goals for Rail Program efforts. Two surveys were administered using the
interactive, online surveying tool MeetingSift. Hard copies of the surveys were provided for those
without smartphones (Appendix C). One survey was conducted after the initial project introduction and
the other at the conclusion of the breakout session to wrap up the Workshop.
130 attendees filled out the voluntary public sign-in sheets (Appendix D). Most attendees seemed
supportive of the proposed Rail Program and how the Workshop was structured in a way that engaged
and listened to public insight on both the challenges and goals of potential Rail Program efforts. The
large majority of the 39 comments received during (23) and after (16) the Workshop matched the
3
overall positive feedback received during the Workshop (Appendix E) and were added to the project’s
stakeholder database. Photos were taken throughout the Workshop to register the event (Appendix F),
and all presentations and a video of the Workshop were shared with the public via the project website
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ConnectingPaloAlto).
Five (5) City officials were in attendance: Greg Scharff, Mayor; Tom DuBois, Council Member; Liz Kniss,
City Council Member; Jim Keene, City Manager; and Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and
Community Environment. Members of the Project Team in attendance included:
City of Palo Alto
Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official
Philip Kamhi, Transportation Manager
Sylvia Star-Lack, Safe Routes to School Coordinator
Mott MacDonald
Chris Metzger, Principal in Charge
Michele DiFrancia, Project Manager
Richard Davies, Circulation Study Project Manager
Olga Rodriguez, Project Engineer
Tina Hu, Transportation Planner
Circlepoint
Scott Steinwert, CEO
Maily Chu, Project Manager
Vitor Machado Lira, Project Associate
Graham Pugh, Project Coordinator
Workshop Preparation
In the months leading up to the Workshop, multiple media channels were used to inform the public
about the Rail Program. The cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto website was established with the
purpose of serving as the go-to source of information about the Rail Program throughout its
implementation. The website gave users background information on how and why the Rail Program
came to be, where and when the Workshop was set to take place, and how the Workshop was
structured; and, it continues to be updated with new information on a regular basis.
A social media post to NextDoor and 15,000 postcards (Appendix A) were shared with residents and
businesses within ½ mile of rail corridor to notify them about the Workshop. Like the website, these
notices informed the public about the Workshop schedule, namely the Rail Program’s background and
past efforts in the region, and attendees’ key role in helping to define the challenges at each grade
crossing and establish success parameters and evaluation criteria for the Rail Program.
Rail Program partners like Friends of Caltrain also helped the Project Team spread the word on the
Workshop by contacting their members. Pre-workshop stakeholder interviews were also conducted to
4
assess key areas of interest in the community. Representatives of the following groups have been
interviewed thus far: CAARD, Friends of Caltrain, SPUR, Transform, PTA, past council members, etc.
Breakout Session Exercise
Overview
The meeting involved two breakout sessions. Upon registration, participants were randomly assigned a
table number, which would later be used to assign their breakout session group. Each group had
approximately 10-12 community members and one (1) facilitator. The job of each facilitator was to lead
the discussion in an organized fashion, ensuring that each participant had an equal chance to add his or
her input to the conversation.
Community members were provided ample explanation of the breakout session process, including a
verbal overview by the meeting facilitator and handouts providing further information (Appendix G).
Table facilitators were also available for questions.
Prior to the beginning of the breakout sessions, each community member was provided 6 dots.
Community members could identify their priorities by placing dots in each box of their table’s “Dot
Matrix” (Appendix H). The matrix allowed a community member to focus on only one issue (for example,
“Bikes/Peds”), or on only one crossing, or any combination thereof.
Dot Exercise
Community members placed a total of 508 dots. The top issues/topics
identified as areas of concern were bicycles/pedestrians, safety, and
autos/trucks. The least commonly identified areas of concern were noise,
visual, and other.
The top three crossings of
concern were E. Meadow
Drive, Charleston Road, and
Churchill Avenue, while Palo
Alto Avenue/Alma Street
and existing grade
separations were identified
as a lower priority among
participating community members.
Issue/Topic Proportion
of Dots
Bikes/Peds 29%
Safety 26%
Autos/Trucks 24%
Noise 12%
Visual 5%
Other 5%
Crossing Proportion
of Dots
Meadow Drive 29%
Charleston Road 26%
Churchill Ave 23%
Palo Alto Ave (Alma Street) 12%
Existing Grade Separations 10%
5
Counts of all dots are in the chart below, indicating attendees’ prioritization of each crossing and issue.
Green indicates more commonly selected priorities, while red indicates the opposite.
Concerns Identified by Crossing
The dot matrix exercise also revealed top priorities for each crossing. For all five options (including
existing grade separations), Bikes/Peds and Safety were identified as within the top three priorities.
Autos/Trucks were identified as a top-three priority for all crossings except Palo Alto Avenue (Alma
Street), for which noise was the third priority. See below for more detail.
Priority
#
Palo Alto
Ave (Alma
Street)
Churchill
Ave
Meadow
Drive
Charleston
Road
Existing
Grade
Separations
1 Bikes/Peds Safety Bikes/Peds Autos/Trucks Bikes/Peds
2 Safety Bikes/Peds Safety Safety Autos/Trucks
3 Noise Autos/Trucks Autos/Trucks Bikes/Peds Safety
The following section includes an overview of the top three topic areas for each crossing. Crossings are
in the order used during the meeting, while the included topic areas are ranked according to their
importance for each street as revealed in the dot exercise.
Palo Alto Ave (Alma Street)
1.Bikes/Peds: In general, concerns for cyclists and pedestrians at this crossing tended to relate to
poor legibility of the street; community members found this crossing to be difficult to
understand as a pedestrian or bicyclist. Specific concerns included a chaotic and unintuitive
physical configuration, unclear sightlines, poor road striping, perplexing signage, and an unclear
differentiation between bike, pedestrian, and car rights-of-ways.
2.Safety: Safety was identified as a concern particularly for those traveling by walking and biking
through this corridor. A concern was expressed of an unusually narrow bike lane, which could
force bicyclists (especially students) to use the vehicular lane. Concerns of safety at this crossing
Issue/Topic Palo Alto Ave
(Alma Street)
Churchill
Ave
Meadow
Drive
Charleston
Road
Existing
Grade
Separations
Totals
Bikes/Peds 16 39 44 29 20 147
Autos/Trucks 8 27 30 40 17 122
Noise 13 6 23 18 1 61
Safety 14 40 36 32 9 131
Visual 4 4 8 8 1 25
Other 8 2 6 4 3 23
Totals 63 118 146 131 51 508
6
were often brought up in light of the large number of Stanford students and other potentially
inexperienced cyclists using this crossing.
3.Noise: Noise was identified as the third priority for this crossing, which was the only instance of
noise being identified as a top-three concern.
Churchill Ave
ϭ͘Safety: Community members identified safety as the top priority for this crossing, apparently
due to its proximity to Palo Alto High School and the unique safety challenges that this proximity
presents. Many concerns stemmed from the dangers implicit in having a high proportion of
relatively inexperienced bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers all interacting in a tight space.
Relating to this, safety concerns stemmed from the very high peaks of trips to and from schools
leading to capacity constraints for all modes. Community members expressed concern that
rights of way for active modes were too narrow, causing cyclists to have to mix with vehicular
traffic. In addition, concerns were expressed regarding unsafe vehicle speeds and driver
behavior, narrow rights of way for all modes, and insufficient separation of modes.
Ϯ͘Bikes/Peds: Capacity constraints, caused primarily by the very high volume of students, werethe
chief concern relating to bicycles and pedestrians. Additional key concerns included students
getting stranded on the traffic island and interaction between active modes and fast-moving
vehicles.
ϯ͘Autos/Trucks: The primary concerns related to autos/trucks for this crossing relate to traffic
congestion, its causes, and its effects. Community members pointed out that vehicular traffic
volume through this crossing has high peaks, along with pedestrian and bicycle travel, due to the
proximŝtLJ of Palo Alto High School. At peak hours, a high volume of all modes leads to heavy
vehicular congestion, which community members say encourages unsafe driver behavior
(including violation of turning restrictions), funnels vehicular traffic onto residential streets,
excess noise (including honking), and long queues, especially for turning lanes.
Meadow Drive
1.Bikes/Peds: Limited capacity for cyclists and insufficient separation between active modes and
vehicular traffic were among the most significant concerns expressed by community members
for this crossing. Capacity for bicyclists and pedestrians is particularly constrained in an island
between Alma Avenue and the railroad.
2.Safety: Safety concerns relating to this crossing pertain to collisions between all modes, but
especially between cyclists and autos/trucks. At least one community member called for total
physical separation between all modes at this crossing. One important concern was of the grade
of the tracks themselves limiting visibility, causing drivers to become stuck in the tracks.
3.Autos/Trucks: Many of the concerns relating to autos/trucks at this crossing were due to
congestion. Specific complaints included an overly short left-turn queue to Alma Avenue, traffic
light phasing that seems uncoordinated with passing trains and other intersections, traffic
queuing across the tracks due to pedestrians crossing Meadow, and an overall shortfall in
capacity relative to demand.
7
Charleston Road
1.Autos/Trucks: Community members identified excess congestion, wait times, and queuing,
especially for left turns, as the key issues facing autos and trucks at this crossing. Additional
concerns involved insufficient accommodation of turning movements (either short or non-
exclusive turning lanes), particularly the left turn movement onto Alma from Charleston, as well
as blocking of north-south travel on Park Boulevard due to excess queuing while drivers wait for
trains to pass. A short merging area, where eastbound Charleston traffic merges from two lanes
to one, was also blamed for heavy congestion.
2.Safety: Safety concerns at this crossing stemmed mostly from the limited space provided for all
modes between the railroad crossing and Alma Street. Particular concern was expressed for
drivers getting stuck on the tracks while waiting for green signal on Alma.
3.Bikes/Peds: Many of the concerns regarding bicyclists and pedestrians resulted from excess
auto and truck congestion. Community members pointed out that crossing Park Boulevard on a
bike was often challenging due to the queue of cars waiting to cross Alma Street. Other top
concerns included poor legibility for cyclists and poor differentiation between the bike and car
rights of way.
Existing Grade Separations: General
1. Bikes/Peds: For this category, the most commonly held concerns were that the existing grade
separations create psychological barriers between neighborhoods at the pedestrian scale; have
confusing configurations for bicyclists that are not intuitively organized and feel dangerous;
interrupt bicycle routes and make routes feel non-contiguous; and have insufficient
signage/wayfinding.
2. Autos/Trucks: Congestion was the top complaint, and was often seen to be exacerbated by
short turning lanes.
3.Safety: For this category, the top safety concerns focused on students (both in grade school and
university) who may be inexperienced cyclists or pedestrians; constrained conditions at each
crossing forcing modes to interact with each other in potentially hazardous ways; and confusing
and illegible roadway configurations that lead to frustrated drivers, who then create unsafe
conditions for other users of the street.
Summary of Comments received during and after the Workshop
A total of 39 comments were received regarding the Workshop to date. 23 of these were submitted as
comment forms at the Workshop and 16 were submitted afterwards through email and mail. Their
subject matters are varied but include the following key themes:
Workshop format and presentations:
Positive feedback – multiple attendees mentioned they were happy to see this discussion and
willingness to include the public in the process. One attendee in particular wanted to applaud the City
for convening this workshop and being so open about planning this effort.
Potential improvements – a handful of attendees mentioned that portions of data presented did not
match activities they observed and that some of the background information on past efforts by the City
8
was incomplete. Two people commented that more facilitators could have helped keep all table
members engage and maintain order in the breakout sessions when someone tried to control the
conversation. A handful of people also emphasized the need to assemble a Community Advisory
Committee to properly engage citizens. The most passionate comments received from a dozen
commentators questioned a) the implementation of the CSS process now after having already studied
the corridor and receiving recommendations, b) the timeliness of this process and why solutions and
comparative studies of alternatives implemented nearby and around the world are not on the table,
and, c) omission of High Speed Rail and Caltrain’s influence in the region.
Grade Crossing Concerns:
Most attendees reiterated the points they shared during the breakout sessions regarding what they
thought the main issues were in the region. Recurring sub-themes included: safety of grade crossings for
pedestrians, bicyclists and cars; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure near grade crossings; traffic
interference; noise pollution; proximity of grade crossings to homes and schools; potential impacts on
properties during large construction activities; funding and timeliness of solutions; influence of High
Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification in the future of Palo Alto.
Those who did not attend the workshop but provided comments also discussed points that fit into the
mentioned sub-themes.
Grade Crossing Solutions:
Almost all comments received included thoughts on potential solutions to the grade crossing challenges,
ranging from some broad requests to keep cost effectiveness and children’s safety in mind to others
sharing meticulous and robust reports on previous studies and elaborating on track design and traffic
frequency analysis.
The following came up most often, in no particular ranking: coordinate solutions with Caltrain
Electrification and High Speed Rail to avoid re-construction for those projects in the future; grade
separate various intersections; tunnel the whole Palo Alto corridor or streets that cross it to avoid
car/train collisions and other traffic issues; elevate Caltrain tracks to avoid traffic issues and suicides;
close various grade crossings or build overpasses near crossings that were poorly designed for
pedestrians and bicyclists; eliminate train horns by establishing quiet zones.
All comments will be added to the project’s stakeholder database for future reference:
http://bit.ly/2s6DH1e and will be taken into consideration by the Project Team when deciding which
challenges and goals will shape the Rail Program.
9
28%
13%
31%
21%
8%
Chart 2. How close do you live to
the nearest grade crossing?
Less than 1/4
mile
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
1 mile
More than 1
mile
10%
28%
34%
27%
Chart 1. Which grade crossing do
you live closest to?
Palo Alto Ave
(Alma St)
Churchill Ave
Meadow Dry
Charleston Rd
8%
4%
17%
51%
20%
Chart 3. Which existing grade
separation do you use the most?
University Ave
Homer Ave
(Bike/Ped)
Embarcadero
Rd
Oregon Expwy
MeetingSift Report
Two real-time surveys were administered using MeetingSift (www.meetingsift.com). For those without
smartphones, a physical copy of the survey questions was also provided and collected. Surveys were
taken immediately following the initial project introduction and at the conclusion of the Workshop.
Most Workshop participants live closest to
Meadow Drive (34%), followed by Churchill Ave
(28%), Charleston Road (27%), and Palo Alto
Avenue (10%)(Chart 1).
Most attendees live within ½ mile of the nearest
grade crossing (31%), closely followed by 28%
living less than a ¼ mile and 13% living ¼ mile away
from the nearest grade crossing. 21% live within 1
mile, and 8% live more than a mile away from the
nearest grade crossing (Chart 2).
Out of the existing grade separations, a majority of
people use Oregon Expressway most often (51%).
San Antonio Road is used most often by 20% of
attendees; Embarcadero Road is used by 17%,
University Avenue is used by 8%, and Homer
Avenue by 4% (Chart 3).
10
34%
50%
3%
5% 8%
Chart 5: Did you find today's workshop
useful?
Yes, very useful
Yes, somewhat
useful
Indifferent
No, not quite
No, I would prefer a
different format
95%
5%
Chart 6: Can we count on your
participation in the next workshop?
Yes, count me in for
future events
No
Maybe, but
different day of the
week/time
No, but please keep
me posted
Chart 4: Rank the six following concerns regarding grade crossings:
Most people rank traffic
disruptions as the number one
concern near the grade crossings,
closely followed by safety and
bicycle/pedestrian access (Chart
4).
Most Workshop participants were
satisfied with the workshop, as 50%
responded they found it somewhat
useful, and 34% responded it was very
useful. Only 11% stated they would
prefer a different format or did not find
the format useful. 3% of people were
indifferent (Chart 5).
95% of survey respondents replied they
would participate in the next workshop.
The remaining 5% want to receive Rail
Program follow ups (Chart 6).
2
27%
49%
6%
18%
Chart 8: How often would you like
to be contacted with updates?
Bi-weekly
Monthly
Every three
months
Only at key
milestones -
Chart 7: Rank the three best ways to keep you engaged in Connecting Palo Alto
The preferred
channel to receive
Rail Program
updates was
identified as being
email, website, and
mail follow ups
(Chart 7)
Almost half of the participants (49%) stated that
they would like to receive monthly updates on Rail
Program developments. 27% wanted to receive bi-
weekly updates, while 18% wanted to receive
information once key milestones had been
reached, and 6% wanted to be engaged every
three months (Chart 8).
Next Steps
The following are the anticipated next steps for Rail Program activities, as it relates to Community
Engagement:
x Update website to reflect latest activities and milestones
x Continue stakeholder interviews
x Convene Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
x Hold the next Community Workshop in Fall 2017
Appendices
Appendix A: Postcard Mailer
CONNECTING PALO ALTO
Rail Program Community Workshop #1
DESIGNING OUR RAIL CORRIDOR FOR THE FUTURE
Palo Altans have the opportunity to address long-standing
challenges associated with four grade crossings on the
Caltrain corridor which runs through our community.
dŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂsĂůůĞLJdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ;sdͿŝƐŵĂŬŝŶŐΨϳϬϬDŝůůŝŽŶ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌŐƌĂĚĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶŽƵƌƌĞŐŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽ
ůƚŽŚĂƐŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚĂZĂŝůWƌŽŐƌĂŵƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐ͕ƐĂĨĞƚLJ
ĂŶĚĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶŝƐƐƵĞƐŶĞĂƌŽƵƌŝƚLJ͛ƐŐƌĂĚĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƐ͘
zŽƵƌƉĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶŝƐǀŝƚĂů͊zŽƵĂƌĞŝŶǀŝƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞZĂŝůWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͛Ɛ
ĮƌƐƚǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ͗
ƚƚŚŝƐǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ͕ŝƚLJƐƚĂīǁŝůůĚŝƐĐƵƐƐƚŚĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͛ƐďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͕ƉĂƐƚ
ĞīŽƌƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŝƐƐƵĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘WĂƌƟĐŝƉĂŶƚƐǁŝůůŚĞůƉĚĞĮŶĞƚŚĞĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ
ĂƚĞĂĐŚŐƌĂĚĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚƐƵĐĐĞƐƐƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶ
ĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘
&ŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͕ǀŝƐŝƚĐŝƚLJŽĨƉĂůŽĂůƚŽ͘ŽƌŐͬŽŶŶĞĐƟŶŐWĂůŽůƚŽ or
ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƵƐǁŝƚŚĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂƚƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƉĂůŽĂůƚŽ͘ŽƌŐŽƌ
;ϲϱϬͿϯϮϵͲϮϱϮϬ͘
Saturday, May 20, 2017 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
DŝƚĐŚĞůůWĂƌŬŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌ͕WĂůŽůƚŽZŽŽŵ
ϯϳϬϬDŝĚĚůĞĮĞůĚZĚ͕WĂůŽůƚŽ͕
Parking spaces (152) and bike racks are available on sitePublic transit accessible via VTA bus line 35Lunch will be provided
Palo Alto City Hall
ddEdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϮϱϬ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞ͕&ůŽŽƌϱ
WĂůŽůƚŽ͕ϵϰϯϬϭ
Appendix B: Exhibit Boards
CA High-Speed Rail San Francisco to San Jose Section
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
Project Description
• CNbd_T5N[XT_b^XN;XVWΝF`SSRENX[Cb_YSQdCWNcSΠQ_^^SQdX^VFN^8bN^QXcQ_d_4NZSbcűS[RN^R?_c
Angeles to Anaheim.
• Approximately 51 miles (San Francisco to San Jose)
• Proposed stations: San Francisco 4th Street and King Street (interim until the Downtown Extension
to the Transbay Transit Center is completed), San Francisco Airport (Millbrae), and San Jose (Diridon
Station)
• Approach minimizes impacts on surrounding communities, reduces project cost, improves safety,
and expedites implementation
• Incorporates passing track options, curve straightening, enhanced at-grade crossings, and corridor
safety improvements
Proposed Train Frequency
The Authority is studying operating four
high-speed rail trains per hour per direction
during peak hours.
Train Speeds
Up to 110 MPH
Schedule
• 2017- Draft EIR/EIS
• 2018- Final EIR/EIS
• Identify a Preferred Alternative (PA) in
summer 2017
Proposed Passing Track
?_QNdX_^c
• Short Middle 4-Track Passing Track Option
»Least environmental impacts compared to
other build passing track alternatives.
»6-miles long and extend from south of 9th
Avenue in San Mateo to north of Whipple
Avenue in Redwood City.
• No Additional Passing Track Option
»Avoids construction, right-of-way, and
aesthetic impacts of new passing tracks.
Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
101
101
101
101
85
85
87
82
237
92
92
84
84
35
91
1
San
Francisco
San
Mateo
Daly
City
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Half
Moon
Bay Redwood
City
Atherton
Menlo
Park
Palo Alto
East
Palo Alto
Mountain
View San Jose
Fremont
Union City
Newark
Hayward
Pleasanton Livermore
B
e
r
r
y
e
s
s
a
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
ACE
CAL
T
R
A
I
N
C
A
P
I
T
O
L
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
Study Area
Park and Ride *Study Area Includes All TJer 1 Cities
**Tier 2 Cities InDlude: Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, &
Livermore
Caltrain Alignment and Stations
BART Alignment and Stations
Other Rail Corridors and Stations
0 10 Miles5
Study Area Transit Alternatives Carried Forward
SHORT TERM
•Bike/ped on peninsula
LONG TERM
•BRT from Union City BART to Redwood City Caltrain
•Commuter Rail from Union City BART to Redwood City
Approach Packages
SHORT TERM
•Bike/ped approach
improvements
•Manage/expand park-and-
ride
•Carpool/toll direct access
ramp at Newark
•Extension of FasTrak lane
eastward
•Open road tolling at FasTrak
lanes
•Transit signal priority or
queue jump lanes on Decoto
and at Bayfront/Willow,
Bayfront/University
•Bus lanes on Bayfront
LONG TERM
•All electronic tolling for cash
lanes
•Add eastbound carpool/toll
from toll plaza to Decoto
•Managed lanes on US 101
•Carpool/toll direct access
ramp at US 101/Marsh
•Grade separations at
Bayfront/Willow and
Bayfront/University
•Willow Express lanes
•I 880/SR 84 direct connector
ramps
CS^X^ce[N5_bbXR_b7[SQdbXűQNdX_^Cb_YSQdͥC57Cͦ
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
www.caltrain.com/electrificationPROJECT OVERVIEW MAP
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SAN
FRANCISCO
COUNTY
SAN
MATEO
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
SANTA
CRUZ
COUNTY
1
1
92
82
84
35
35 17
80
280
280 680
680880
580
101
101
101
Fremont
Sunnyvale
Alameda
Daly City
Hayward
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Redwood City
San
Leandro
San Mateo
Santa Clara
OaklandSan Francisco
San Jose
TPS2
TPS1
PS6
PS7
PS5
PS4
PS3
PS2
PS1
SWS1
South San Francisco
Bayshore
Broadway
Burlingame
San Mateo
Hayward Park
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Atherton
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
Stanford
California Ave.
San Antonio
Mountain View
Lawrence
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose Diridon
College Park
Tamien
Capitol
Blossom Hill
to Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy
San Bruno
Milbrae Transit Center
22nd St.
San Francisco
Hillsdale
Legend
Caltrain South of Project Area
Existing Caltrain Station
Proposed Paralleling Stations (PS)
Proposed Switching Station (SWS)
Proposed Traction Power Supply
Substations (TPS)
Note: Locations of all facilities are approximate.
Miles
4620
Cb_YSQd6ScQbX`dX_^
• Caltrain ridership has doubled over past decade and quickly outpaced the system’s capacity
• Scheduled to be implemented by 2020/early 2021
• 5_^fSbdX^VShXcdX^V5N[dbNX^Tb_]RXScS[ΝWNe[SRd_7[SQdbXQ@e[dX`[SH^Xdͥ7@HͦdbNX^cTb_]cSbfXQScPSdgSS^ dWN^R
King Street Station in San Francisco and Tamien Station in San Jose.
• Cb_YSQdX^Q[eRScX^cdN[[NdX_^_T^SgS[SQdbXQN[X^TbNcdbeQdebSN[_^VCS^X^ce[NQ_bbXR_bN^R`ebQWNcX^V^SgS[SQdbXQdbNX^c
• 9_N[cX^Q[eRSS[SQdbXTiX^VN^Re`VbNRX^VdWS`SbT_b]N^QS_`SbNdX^VSŶQXS^QiQN`NQXdicNTSdiN^RbS[XNPX[Xdi_T
Caltrain’s commuter rail service.
JWNdXcdWSCS^X^ce[N5_bbXR_b7[SQdbXűQNdX_^Cb_YSQdͥC57Cͦ
Project Purpose and Need
• Improve Train Performance
• Increase Service and Ridership
• Increase Revenue and Reduce Cost
• Reduce Environmental Impacts
»Reduce Noise from Train Engine
»Improve Regional Air Quality
»Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• High-speed Rail Compatible Electrical Infrastructure
MILESTONES
Env. Clearance (Jan)LNTP Award (Sept)
Project contracts extended
through June 30, 2017
NTP (June)
Contingent on
federal funding
Rollout First
Passenger Service
with Electric Trains
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
First Train
Set Delivered
(OHFWULͤFDWLRQ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH&RQVWUXFWLRQ Final System
Testing
Project Overview
• 6XcdN^QS ]X[ScͥFN^8bN^QXcQ_5N[dbNX^FdNdX_^Nd th
N^R>X^Vd_c_edW_TGN]XS^5N[dbNX^FdNdX_^ͥFN^=_cSͦͦ
• F`SSRH`d_]`WͥcN]SNc`bScS^dͦ
• FSbfXQS
dbNX^c`Sb`SNZW_eb`SbRXbSQdX_^ͥd``WώRͦ
ͥQebbS^dcSbfXQSXc d``WώRͦ
• Electrical Infrastructure and Vehicles
»Poles and Wires (Overhead Contact System)
»Traction Power Facilities (TPFs)
»Replacement of approximately 75% of current diesel
service with Electric Multiple Units (EMUs)
• @NX^dNX^5N[dbNX^9X[b_icSbfXQSN^RdS^N^decSͥTbSXVWd
N^R_dWSb`NccS^VSbbNX[ͦ
®
Crossings
Existing At-Grade Crossing
Existing Bike/Ped Crossing
Existing Grade Separation
Planned Bike/Ped Crossing
Landuse
Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Public Facility
Open Space / Agricultural
Corridor Half Mile Area
0 0.5 1 Mile
N
Al
m
a
S
t
Charleston Rd Crossing
Meadow Dr Crossing
Churchill Ave Crossing
Palo Alto Ave Crossing
Pal
o
A
l
t
o
A
v
e
Chu
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
Mea
d
o
w
D
r
City of Palo Alto Rail Program Study Area Map
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
City of Mountain View, Castro Street At-Grade Crossing
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
Castro Street Grade-Crossing Alternatives
• Castro Street Grade Crossing improvement is part of the
Mountain View Transit Center project, which serves as the
City’s key multi-modal transportation node.
• In 2015, City of Mountain View began the process of
creating a master plan for Mountain View Transit Center,
to make recommendations with the objectives to improve
safety, capacity, and multi-modal circulation through the
existing rail at-grade crossing of Castro Street, at the
entrance to the transit center and downtown.
• Final concept plan and report of the master plan will be
released in mid 2017.
5Xdi_T@_e^dNX^IXSgES^Vcd_bůFdbSSd3dΝ9bNRS5b_ccX^V
5_^^SQdX^VCN[_3[d_5_]]e^XdiJ_bZcW_`͞
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
ES^Vcd_bů9bNRSΝ5b_ccX^V3[dSb^NdXfSc
•The Rengstorff Avenue at grade crossing of the Central Expressway
and the Caltrain railway is a perceived and real barrier to
comfortable pedestrian and bicycle travel.
•This project has a long-term planning horizon with anticipated
implementation of a grade-separated intersection in approximately
15 or more years from 2014.
•In 2004, the City of Mountain View completed a feasibility studyfor
a grade separated crossing at the intersection of RengstorffAvenue
and Central Expressway. The study identified an alternative
supported by the Mountain View City Council that would depress
Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway under the Caltrain
tracks.
•In 2014, the city completed the final design report as a part of
a Master Planning efforU for Rengstroff Crossing, finalizing the
alternatives considered to Concept A – Complete Streets.
Track Watch and Project Safety Net
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
Our Mission
psnpaloalto.com
Project Safety Net
Project Safety Net is a collaborative community
network held together by a common interest of
fostering youth well-being in Palo Alto.
Our mission is to develop and implement an ef-
fective, comprehensive, community-based
mental health plan that includes education, pre-
vention and intervention strategies that together
provide a "safety net" for youth in Palo Alto, and
defines our community’s teen suicide prevention
efforts.
City of Menlo Park, Ravenswood Ave Railroad Crossing
Connecting Palo Alto: Community Workshop #1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT - TRANSPORTATION
Project Description
• In 2013, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) issued a
call for projects for the Measure A Grade Separation Program.
• This Project seeks to advance the previous work on potential grade
separations along the Caltrain railroad tracks within the City to increase
safety of all modes of travel.
• The scope of this Project includes evaluation of the three preferred
alternatives:
A. Ravenswood Avenue underpass alternative
B. Hybrid (partially lowered roadway and partially raised railroad tracks)
alternative with two grade separated crossing
C. Hybrid (partially lowered roadway and partially raised railroad tracks)
alternative with three grade separated crossings
To SF To San Jose
Underpass
Rail tracks would remain at the existing elevation and Ravenswood Avenue
would be lowered to run under the railroad tracks.
Hybrid with two grade separated crossings
Grade separations would be constructed at Ravenswood and Oak Grove Avenues. The
rail tracks would be raised approximately 14 feet from existing elevation at Ravenswood
Ave and 6 feet at Oak Grove Ave. Ravenswood Ave would be lowered 8 feet and Oak
Grove 15 feet at the railroad tracks. A maximum rail elevation of 17 feet from existing
grade would occur across from the Library and Arrillaga Family Gymnasium parking lot.
Hybrid with three grade separated crossings
Grade separations would be constructed at Ravenswood, Oak Grove and Glenwood
Avenues and the railroad profile elevation would be generally flatter than Alternative B.
The rail tracks would be raised 10 feet at Ravenswood and Oak Grove Avenues and 15 feet
at Glenwood Ave. Ravenswood Ave would be lowered 12 feet, Oak Grove Ave 11 feet, and
Glenwood Ave 5 feet at the railroad tracks. A maximum rail elevation of 10 feet from existing
grade would occur from Ravenswood Ave to Oak Grove Ave including the station area.
Alternatives at Ravenswood Ave
Appendix C: MeetingSift Survey (Hardcopy)
MeetingSift Survey 1 – Welcome
Question 1 – Which grade crossing do you live closest to?
ප Palo Alto Ave (Alma St)
ප Churchill Ave
ප Meadow Dr
ප Charleston Rd
Question 2 – Which existing grade separation do you use most?
ප University Ave
ප Homer Ave (Bike/Ped)
ප Embarcadero Rd
ප Oregon Expy
ප San Antonio Rd
Question 3 – How close do you live to the nearest grade
crossing?
ප Less than a ¼ mile
ප ¼ mile
ප ½ mile
ප 1 mile
ප More than 1 mile
Question 4 – Rank the Six following concerns regarding grade
crossings
____ Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
____ Safety
____ Traffic Disruptions
____ Community Connectivity
____ Visual Impacts
____ Noise
MeetingSift Survey 2 – Meeting Wrap-Up
Question 5 – Did you find today’s workshop useful?
ප Yes, very useful
ප Yes, somewhat useful
ප Indifferent
ප No, not quite
ප No, I would prefer a different format
Question 6 – Can we count on your participation in the next
workshop?
ප Yes, count me in for future events
ප No
ප Maybe, but different day of the week/time
ප No, but please keep me posted
Question 7 – Rank 3 best ways to keep you engaged in
Connecting Palo Alto
____ Email Updates/ Newsletters
____ Website
____ Social Media
____ Mailers
____ Phone Calls
____ Text Messages
Question 8 – How often would you like to be contacted with
updates?
ප Bi-weekly
ප Monthly
ප Every three months
ප Only at key milestones
Appendix D: Sign-in Sheets
Appendix E: Comment Forms Received During and After the Workshop
From: stevebisset73@gmail.com [mailto:stevebisset73@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Steve Bisset
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 3:19 PM
To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Rail Corridor Question
Dear Palo Alto Transportation,
I was not able to attend the May 20 workshop. Perhaps you can
answer a question:
Has anyone proposed, or have you considered, a two-level viaduct as
an option?
I have seen proposals for grade separations, underground, trench, and
raised berm ("Berlin Wall"), but never the double-deck viaduct.
I do NOT know the cost as compared with underground or berm, so
this is a question for you.
It seems to me that if the cost is comparable, a two-level viaduct
results in a very nice solution in many respects:
1)It can be very attractive (or not - it's a choice). Here are some
examples of the architectural style that could be built:
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image.png>
The last one is not to my taste, "L" style, but there are many other
options that are visually attractive.
2) The configuration could be 2x2, with a 1st-level elevated double-
track for fast electric commuter trains and perhaps midnight freight,
with the 2nd-level double-track for HSR.
3) It would open up as many separated crossings as we want, re-
connecting Palo alto. And people will be able to see through it from
one site to the other, making not only transportation connections but a
striking visual connection. With only double-track width, it can be
light and open, in contrast to the 4-track elevated option.
4) Since it would be only 2 tracks at each level, it would eliminate
completely the need for eminent domain land seizures or expensive
land acquisitions (and endless legal battles). At ground level we can
have level and fully grade-separated crossings for cars, bikes and
pedestrians, also highly-accessible stations. The real estate under the
tracks would be high value so some could be sold or leased to help
pay for the project. Some parks would be nice.
5) A little research will make it clear that it's possible to make
elevated rail very quiet, even for HSR at full speed.
6)) From a rider's point of view, the view itself would be an attractio
as opposed to the dark claustrophobia of an underground rail. More
riders means better economics.
So, to restate my question: Given that this kind of structure has been
done before and is clearly feasible, why is it not on the list of
options?
Did we just not think of it, or is there a specific and decisive reason to
reject it?
It seems to meet everyone's desires and address all objections, except
those who will inevitably say it would be unsightly, but I claim that it
could be made beautiful and a landmark attraction. Your comments?
I have zero expertise in the matter.
Steve Bisset
Palo Alto
From: Maria Li [mailto:mariakli@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:58 PM
To: TransportationSubject: Rail Program
To: City Staff of Palo Alto
From: Maria and Mark Li
We own a house on the 3000 block of Emerson Street off East MeadowDrive, we like
to send you our comments regarding the grade crossings that City of Palo Alto and
VTA are working on.
We think that all four Palo Alto rail crossings should be "Grade-separated Crossings"
for the following reasons:
1. The Meadow Drive crossing was the site of several suicides in recent years.
Elevating the track to above ground
would mitigate the suicide attempts and accidents.
2. It would make economic sense to extend the Grade-separated Crossing from
Oregon Expressway to Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road while the improvement project is going on. It would be
more costly later.
3. Grade-separated Crossings in the south end of Palo Alto would ease traffic
between 101, El Camino Real and
280
4. Saving money by not having to station cross guards at the At-Grade Crossings.
Thank you,
Maria & Mark Li
From: Jacqueline Lee [mailto:jlee1@bayareanewsgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 4:29 PM
To: TransportationCc:Keith, ClaudiaSubject: Rail Program community meeting
Hello,
Will the Rail Program community meeting on Saturday be recorded and available for viewing
on MidPen later on?
Thanks,
Jacqueline
--
Jacqueline Lee Reporter | Editorial
jlee1@bayareanewsgroup.com
650.391.1334 Direct
@jleenews
From: carole/steve eittreim [mailto:eittreimcs@gmail.com]Sent:Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:33 PMTo: Transportation
Cc:steve rosenblum
Subject: Rail issues: Grade crossings
Sorry I cannot attend the meeting May 20 to give my input.
Needless to say the grade-crossings must be constructed.
-My preference is for tunneling or trenching the train to do away entirely with the division that
the rail line produces through our city. The difficulties are in the expense, but stretching the
cost over its 100-year life span (or greater) the cost is not really great per year.
-My second option would be for a Homer-Ave tunnel solution. A tunnel which separates the
rails from the car-pedestrian level by about 12 feet rather than about 25 feet, as the tunnels at
Embarcadero and Oregon do. That way they are less disruptive and more pleasant. This would
not allow for trucks or buses to pass through and perhaps tall cars, and would be limited to 2
lanes, but as long as bikes, pedestrians and small cars are allowed, it woulddothejobina
more neighborhood-friendly way.
Steve Eittreim
1975 Ivy Lane
From: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Date: May 19, 2017 at 1:24:06 PM PDT
To: "Shepherd, Nancy" <nlshep@pacbell.net>
Cc: "Keene, James" <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Rail Interview
Thanks for these thoughts Nancy. It's always difficult to recapture momentum
after pausing a planning effort and I think the time it takes to bring new people up
to speed will be well spent. Hope to see you Saturday, Hillary
On May 19, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net> wrote:
Hi Jim and Hillary,
I wanted to give you my impression of the interview I had with Josh
last week. I understand some of the background as to why the City isinterviewing community members
today since I met with Nadia a fewweeks ago. She explained that there was good news, the city engaged
MOT and was going through the CSS process. Although I doconsider this good news, I also shared
concerns, which became theevident during the interview session.
Also, Michele did reach out to me for more names of communitymembers to interview, I suggested going to
the members of thestakeholder group from the Rail Corridor Study, now under thetransportation element in
the Comp Plan. She said that they no longerhad those names, so could not interview. I repeated this request
during my session with Josh, and learned from Gail Price she alsomade this recommendation during her
interview.
My comments here are based on a blistering 4 years as a member ofthe Council Rail Committee 2010-2013,
where we covered much ofthe concerns by residents and the community with rigor. Twosignificant
outcomes were the Rail Corridor Study and the GradeSeparation feasibility Study by HMM. There is a lot to
harvest fromthis work, which took significant staff and community time andemotions. Based on the
questions I was asked during my sessionwith Josh, it appears that none of the recommendations from the
Corridor Study were brought forward or considered, and somequestions were inaccurate assumptions based
on the Grade SepStudy. For example when asked if the costs were too high forconsidering preferred options
for Grade separation, would I consideran elevated berm or arial design option, or traditional Grade
separation. Had information from the Grade Sep Study beenincorporated into the list of questions, staff
could have learned thattraditional Grade sep options would require significant landacquisitions which, when
calculated into the costs, would make theseoptions as competitive as preferred under grounding options.
In general, I felt that this initial inquiry session with Josh was notbalanced. It's as though the intense work
already performed, and theoptions already identified didn't exist. And, there was no unity orcontinuum from
former work.
When I questioned Josh on this he indicated that this is how CSSworks, starting from scratch. When means
that all prior work by thecommunity would not be considered or even used as a base line forconsideration.
In my opinion, it is a mistake to ignore the existing and availablework already performed, and will lead to a
failed process.
I hope that the meeting tomorrow could take into consideration thelong and expensive process the
community spent so much timeworking on from 2009-2013. And, I'd also like to remind you boththat
during this time homeowners along Mariposa and Park Blvd hadtroubles refinancing or selling their homes
due to the uncertainty ofthe future rail corridor. Banks required paydowns of loans whenrefinancing, and
realtors had to disclose the possibility of eminentdomain concerns. People were frightened and shaken by
worry andconcern. Realtors today remember this period, and are grateful thatthe city changed the
experience. Today home are getting remodeledor rebuilt along the rail corridor.
My concern here is that by entering the CSS methodology byignoring the prior rigor will bring this
experience of insecurity backto households and neighborhoods living along the tracks. Also, it will
frustrate community members like me that have already spent timeand made milestones related to the
corridor that helped createsecurity along the corridor.
As I left Council, the direction to staff for rail work was to establish astakeholder group to consider the
Grade Sep and Rail Corridorstudies and advise Council on how to proceed based on the following
determinations 1) the preferred option to underground the train, 2) thepossible time frame to trench the
train of about 2 years and disruptionissues, and 3) further identify trenching costs and consequences. I
understand that staff did not follow this direction, but now hasjumped into CSS (also a preferred
methodology, but some of thatwork had launched with these studies) and appears to have ignoredall the
findings from prior work.
Is there a way to consider blending this work from the period of2009-2013 and today? If so, it will help
the city create a smoothprocess, with lessons learned and data on hand for those familiar withthe studies
and prior process.
I worry the city is entering a new period of insecurity for thoseneighborhoods along the rail line. In my
opinion this could beavoided by connecting the work, and creating a basis of launching thecommunity
discussion from the findings of the 2009-2013 period as abeginning of our discussions today, and self
correct if interests havechanged. I hope this can be accomplished.
Thank you,
Nancy Shepherd
From: Chris Kantarjiev [mailto:kantarjiev@gmail.com]Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:20 PM
To: Transportation
Subject: Rail corridor workshop 5/20
Hi -
I wasn't able to attend this workshop, but I wanted to let you know some of my thoughts. I live
in Southgate, on Portola Avenue. I understand that the Churchill at-grade crossing is a
problem, and I know that there is a lot of discussion in many places about what to do about it.
It seems to me that any project that retains the intersection at Alma and Churchill is going to
be hugely disruptive - not only because it will involve a long construction process, but because
the traffic engineering is going to require taking land (and houses) surrounding the
intersection. The only "good" solution is to trench and bury the rails, and that seems really
unlikely.
May I suggest (though I can't be the first) to close Churchill at the railroad tracks? I'm sure
that some of my neighbors will protest - and that I'll see more traffic on my block as people
find their way to/from the access at Miramonte and El Camino.
Despite that, I would support such a closing.
I would also suggest the construction of a bike/pedestrian underpass, since there is a lot of
bike traffic to Paly HS.
I *might* also suggest considering/studying the removal of the road block at Castilleja and
Park, to provide another access between Southgate and El Camino, but I'm certain that my
neighbors in Evergreen Park would throw a fit about that (and it would probably mean a lot of
through traffic to/from the HS, which I would not appreciate).
Best wishes,
Christopher Kantarjiev
From: Len Filppu [mailto:lenfilppu@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 8:53 AM
To: TransportationSubject: Rail corridor comment
I attended the Rail Corridor Community Workshop and hope that the City will establish a citizen’s
committee of interested volunteers to continue working on this most important subject. What is
decided will change the very nature of Palo Alto, and it is critical that citizens/residents are deeply
involved in every step of the process.
Thank you.
--Len Filppu
Fairmeadow neighborhood
From: Arthur Keller [mailto:arthur@kellers.org]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 3:35 PM
To: DiFrancia, Michele <michele.difrancia@mottmac.com>
Subject: Re: Palo Alto Rail Program community workshop May 20
Hi Michelle, here are some notes I put together for Caltrain. I’ll see you soon.
Best regards,
Arthur
Matadero Canal (i.e., channelized Matadero Creek) runs just north of El Carmelo Avenue and then passes under thetrain tracks. It then
turns north for about 500 feet before crossing Park Blvd near Fry’s Electronics. It could turn northbefore crossing the train tracks allowing
the train tracks to descend a little bit earlier. There would be about 3100 feetbetween Matadero Creek and Barron Creek along Alma. That
compares favorably with the about 2500 feet distancebetween the two creeks in their existing locations. I don’t know how much change in
top of rail is needed to go aboveMatadero Creek and below Barron Creek. If that number is 50 feet, then it is a 2% grade for the existing
2500 feetdistance. At a 3100 feet distance, then the grade improves to 1.61%. If we can shift the two creeks by 450 feet each,then a 4000
feet distance gives a reasonable 1.25%. That might be enough.
A traffic light at Oregon Expressway and Alma Street would result in significant increases in delay for both routes.
There is no estimation of the delay in traffic.
There may be enough right of way on Alma Street at East Meadow and at Charleston to keep the two through lanes ineach direction at
grade and to have one turning lane in each direction depressed to meet a depressed cross street. Thecenter lanes (one in each direction)
would be depressed to form an intersection with four way traffic light (each directiongets to go in a round robin sequence). Such an approach
might have fewer impacts.
The question of whether the existing overpass at San Antonio Road is high enough to handle electrified Caltrain. Thisis raised at the end
of the second paragraph of file page 11 of the attachment Roger cited. "As the trench returns to gradeat Rengstorff Ave, it will pass under
San Antonio Rd, which will need to be raised several feet to accommodate 24.5’ ofclearance over the rail. This alternative will not require
any design exceptions.” This is the first I’ve heard of this issue.Raising San Antonio Road overpass is an exceedingly expensive proposition.
It may well be cheaper to lower the railsufficiently. Consider the potential for the trains to continue in a trench beyond Rengstorff and
eliminating that gradecrossing as well. The trains could return to grade south of Rengstorff.
One possibility that does not appear to have been studied is a bike and pedestrian only underpass under Alma and theCaltrain tracks at
Churchill and closing vehicular access. Churchill could still have an intersection from the east withAlma without lowering Alma or
Churchill. A bike and pedestrian only underpass would affect far fewer houses and bemuch cheaper. Also remove traffic light at Churchill
and Alma.
Another possibility to consider is this complex combination:
DLower Caltrain under Embarcadero, raise Embarcadero to grade with multiway traffic light at Alma with turns in alldirections and four
through lanes on both Embarcadero and Alma.
ERemove bike/pedestrian light on Embarcadero between Caltrain and Paly/Town and County and replace with
bike/ped under crossing adjacent to Caltrain tracks.
FCombine with #5 above. Since we would remove traffic light at Churchill and Alma, the traffic light would essentiallybe shifted to
Embarcadero.
I’m not sure what the concept is for the Palo Alto Avenue grade crossing (which people think of as Alma Street). Isthat proposed to be
closed? It wasn’t clear from the report.
Note that the ambient grade at Embarcadero Road and Alma is about 20 feet higher than at California Avenue andAlma per page 17 of
Appendix B of the March 17, 2010 DRAFT Preliminary Vertical Alternatives Discussion. It’sabout another 20 feet higher at San
Francisquito Creek. It be a less than 1% slope to go from an at grade CaliforniaAvenue Station to below Embarcadero Road (which has
been brought to grade) and then below University Avenue, anunderground Palo Alto Caltrain station, and then continuing under San
Francisquito Creek into Menlo Park, where itcould continue in a trench into Atherton.
So I would like to see costing of the following:
Caltrain below Rengstorff, continuing north under Charleston and Meadow and rising between Barron Creek (shifted
south) and Matadero Creek (shifted north for a 1.25% grade.
Caltrain at grade over Oregon Expressway and California Avenue station, gradually lowering to go under Embarcadero
Road (which has been brought to grade with a traffic light), University Avenue, and San Francisquito Creek into Menlo
Park. Replace Churchill grade crossing with a bike and pedestrian only underpass under Caltrain and Alma and remove
traffic light.
From:Lee The <bizthe@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Note on bicycling for the transportation subcommittee
I bicycled to work from our South Palo Alto home for 15 years; some jobs took
me the length of Palo Alto and farther, in one case to Foster City. Other jobs took
me the other way, for years to downtown San Jose. So I'm speaking from
substantial experience.
The bicycle element of any transportation plan lumps together these
constituencies:
1. Students going to/from school/summer school, libraries etc.
2. Adults commuting to work, either exclusively by bike or in combination with a
car and/or trains. .
3. Adults and children cycling around town and to nearby towns for shopping,
medical appointments etc.
4. Recreational cycling by adults, subadults, and families.
Note that the first three categories especially have the potential for replacing a car
with a bicycle for many trips, to the benefit of all.
All these stakeholder categories have overlapping needs. All benefit from smooth,
well-maintained pavement (something in short supply in Palo Alto and
surrounding towns), safe bike paths, bicycle/pedestrian bridges where appropriate,
and intersection design that takes bikes into account (such as ensuring that
green/yellow lights across major thoroughfares last long enough for older and
younger cyclists to get across before cross-traffic starts). The biggest challenges
are on roads passing freeway onramps and offramps and associated tricky areas
such as Page Mill and Sand Hill roads crossing under 280.
Smooth pavement isn't just for comfort. Upheaved pavement caused by tree roots,
and large potholes caused by poor roadway maintenance, can toss a rider off his
bicycle--especially at night. And since few bikes have suspension systems, rough
pavement has much more effect on cyclists than on people in motor vehicles.
One innovation that endangers cyclists is the installation of rows of white domes several
inches high and half a foot across near intersections along Middlefield and perhaps elsewhere.
If a cyclist accidentally runs over one of these rows they will be tossed off their bike. Hard to
imagine that the city got input from cyclists before installing these.
But after that, needs diverge. Adults commuting to work aren't going to go out of their way to
use bike paths like the one that passes next to Gunn High School. They're going to want to
take the most direct route possible, which often isn't the most scenic, and rarely matches to
routes students take going to their neighborhood school.
Adult commuters also need "bike boulevards" to be coordinated with adjacent municipalities,
which students don't need. Also, adult commuters ride at night especially during winter
months, which students are unlikely to do, and for night commuting street lighting can be
important.
For shopping, cyclists need safe, secure places to lock their bikes. The facilities for locking
bikes should be usable with bike locks, especially U-locks, which are vastly more secure than
cable locks. For commuting, employers should be incentivized to provide safe, secure places
to leave their bikes on the employers' premises. Large employers should provide showers as
well. Incentives to do these things help everyone by reducing parking needs, but we cyclists
recognize that no matter what we do most people still won't commute on bikes.
The thing that could change this would be a very expensive investment, but I saw how well it
worked in the Netherlands when I spent a week there: bike roads physically separated from
auto roads by curbs and grassy swards and the like. The danger of being hit by auto and truck
drivers or being doored by them keeps many from commuting and shopping by bike. This has
proven cost-effecting in the Netherlands, which is as flat as Palo Alto but has much worse
weather. The abundant, reliable trains are a part of this--you see enormous numbers of bikes
parked at train stations by commuters and shoppers.
No matter how many bike lanes and bike boulevards are provided, as long as bikes and cars
have to share the same space it's going to make bicycle commuting something for single digit
percentages of employees. Invest a little, get a little. Invest a lot, get a lot. The way Palo Alto's
bike boulevards are set up to prevent through traffic is good, and certainly helps. I just wish
our Powers That Be could all spend a little time in the Netherlands or Denmark and see how
much bicycles could contribute to urban design when they're truly supported.
Note that a new generation of electric bicycles are here--I was looking at them at Mike's Bikes'
new location on Middlefield just south of San Antonio Road. Even those who aren't athletic
could easily get around on these, for vastly less than other forms of powered personal
transportation.
The bike bridge over 101 that exists and the one that I suppose is going to be built toward the
south end of town are mainly for recreational cyclists wanting to visit the Baylands. That
could change if businesses get built on the far side of 101 in the future. There are large
employers on the other side of the freeway in Mountain View, including Google, already, but I
suppose it's up to Mountain View to provide a safe means for cyclist commuters to cross 101.
--Lee Thé
777 San Antonio Rd. #83, Palo Alto
From: Joey Primiani [mailto:jprimiani@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 4:32 PMTo: TransportationSubject: Designing Our Rail Corridor for the Future
Hi City of Palo Alto,
I am a designer living in Palo Alto and was curious to know if you are still open for design
concepts for the Caltrain:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/railways.asp
I'd also be interested in learning more about the project. Thank you!
Best,
Joey
@jp
From: Robert Ohlmann [mailto:rohlmann@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2017 1:43 PMTo: TransportationSubject: Comment on Grade Crossing improvement workshop
Dear Transportation Staff.
I would like the following approach to the railroad grade crossings be addressed at
the workshop on May 20.
I would strongly prefer the railroad tracks, upon passing the San Antonio station going
North, descend into a below ground excavation or tunnel so it passes below the
Charleston and Meadow crossing. It then can ascend to ground level to pass over the
existing Oregon Expressway crossing and over the Embarcadero Road crossing and
reach the Stanford Station which is at ground level. That design has advantages for
the many students who cross the tracks at those crossings, and also for better traffic
flow along Alma. Unfortunately it still leaves the Churchill Ave. and Palo Alto Ave.
crossings at surface level.
I would like to see a grade crossing improvement at Churchill Ave. for the safety of
Palo Alto High students and to relieve traffic congestion at that intersection with Alma,
but that location may be too close to the Embarcadero Road crossing to have the
railroad descend again under Churchill and come up again at Embarcadero, nor is
there room at that intersection to have Churchill Ave. descend under the railroad as is
done at Embarcadero Road.
Ideally, a completely underground rail line through Palo Alto would be ideal, but that
would be too expensive as it would require rebuilding the California, Stanford and
Palo Alto Stations and the Oregon Expressway and Embarcadero Road crossings.
Our city does not have the population density to make that a worthwhile affordable
expense.
Thank you.
Robert C. Ohlmann PhD
372 Creekside Dr. Palo Alto.
From: Mike Forster [mailto:mike@mikeforster.net]Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 12:35 PMTo: Transportation
Cc: mlf2
Subject: RE: Caltrain Grade Separation in Santa Clara County - Entirely elevated, much less than $700M
Everyone,
Attached is an addendum to the document sent with the previous message below, containing
the following:
1 A depiction of two options for elevated grade separations for Palo Alto.
2 Two artist depictions of elevated grade separations from the previous round of
discussions of CA HSR in 2009-2010.
Thanks again for your consideration of this approach.
Mike Forster
From: Mike Forster [mailto:mike@mikeforster.net]
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 9:44 PM
To: 'transportation@cityofpaloalto.org' <transportation@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: 'Mike Forster' <mike@mikeforster.net>
Subject: FW: Caltrain Grade Separation in Santa Clara County - Entirely elevated, much less than
$700M
Importance: High
May 5, 2017
City of Palo Alto Transportation Staff
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I received the postcard today announcing the community meeting on May 20.
I have been considering Caltrain grade separations for over a year. I have sent versions of my
analysis report to the following:
April 30, 2017 - to the VTA Citizens Advisory Committee - the message below and my latest
analysis report
April 16, 2017 - to the Rail Committee members of the Palo Alto City Council - a slightly
different version
Earlier - to the Caltrain Board of Directors - earlier versions
Your staff might be interested in this report (attached).
I look forward to participating in the meeting on May 20.
Thanks.
Mike Forster, Evergreen Park, Palo Alto
mike@mikeforster.net
www.mikeforster.net
650 464 9425
From: Mike Forster [mailto:mike@mikeforster.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:39 PM
To: board.secretary@vta.org
Cc: 'Mike Forster' <mike@mikeforster.net>
Subject: Caltrain Grade Separation in Santa Clara County - Entirely elevated, much less than $700M
Importance: High
April 30, 2017
Valley Transportation Authority
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I encourage the CAC and VTA seriously consider completing Caltrain grade separations in
Santa Clara County with the approach of:
•elevating Caltrain tracks;
•leaving all current road crossings at grade level;
•except for closing two crossings (Castro St and Sunnyvale Ave).
This approach provides a solution that is:
•Visually attractive (see worldwide examples below)
•Less expensive than trench / tunnel / road underpasses
•Faster travel times than grade-level crossings
•Quieter operation than grade-level crossings
•Safer operation than grade-level crossings
•Recovers up to 3 miles of land under the elevated track useful for other purposes, such
as low-cost housing
•Feasible sooner than other options
and that should
•Precede electrification to avoid rework
This approach avoids the complexities and expenses of:
•lowering roadways, interactions with intersecting and parallel roads,
•eminent domain acquisition of private property and the resulting negative public
relations,
•potential interactions with creeks and existing road underpasses (with a trenching or
tunneling approach), and
•pursuing additional sources of funding.
An initial cost estimate for 5.17 miles of elevated track, 1 new elevated boarding platform (at
Stanford / Embarcadero), and 6 new pedestrian underpasses, is less than $250M.
The chances for success of this approach are enhanced if freight traffic on the Caltrain corridor
is limited to "light freight" (or no freight traffic at all), by enabling lighter elevated track
structures and higher gradients for track inclines. Such freight limitations are under
discussion.
The full analysis report is attached, and is also available at http://mikeforster.net.
Thank you for your consideration of this approach.
Mike Forster
Mikeforster.net
mike@mikeforster.net
650 464 9425m
=====
Elevated viaduct examples (All images are from Google Earth / Streetview [GoogleEarth].)
Appendix F: Photos Taken at the Workshop
Appendix G: Breakout Session Handout
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP – MAY 20, 2017
BREAKOUT SESSION – USER GUIDE
BREAKOUT SESSION 1: IDENTIFYING THE CHALLENGES
Purpose: Clearly define the challenges/problems at the four at-grade rail crossings in Palo Alto
Questions to be addressed for each Grade Crossing: (See Matrix on next page)
1.Bikes/Pedestrians: What are the current challenges/problems relative to Pedestrian and Bicycle Access? Is gate down time a
problem? Is the rail “hump” and tracks difficult/unsafe to cross? Are pedestrians/bikes vs cars a problem (not enough space, too
close together)?
2.Autos: What are the current challenges/problems relative to automobiles? Trucks? Do cars back up into the neighborhood? Do
cars cut through neighborhoods to avoid down railroad gates? Does this cause a safety problem in neighborhoods away from the
grade crossings?
3.Noise: Is noise a problem? Are there specific times of the day when noise is especially problematic? Are freight trains more
noisy? Less noisy?
4.Safety: What are the safety concerns at this grade crossing? Is it bikes/pedestrians vs trains? Bikes/pedestrians vs cars?
5.Visual/Aesthetics: Are there aesthetic or visual problems? Are the trains highly visible from residential areas? Are the grade
crossing lights visible? Do they cause glare in the evening and nighttime hours?
6.Other: Are there other concerns that haven’t been mentioned?
WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES/PROBLEMS?
ISSUE/TOPIC PALO ALTO AVE
(ALMA STREET) CHURCHILL AVE MEADOW DRIVE CHARLESTON ROAD
EXISTING GRADE
SEPARATIONS
University, Homer, Embarcadero,
Oregon Express., San Antonio Rd.
Bikes/Peds
Autos/trucks
Noise
Safety
Visual
Other?
BREAKOUT SESSION 2: DEFINING SUCCESS
Purpose: Define what success would look like at each of the four at-grade rail crossings in Palo Alto
Questions to be addressed for each Grade Crossing: (See Matrix)
1.Considering the challenges and problems identified in Session 1, how would you define a successful project at each of the
grade crossings? We are not looking for specific solutions. We want to define the end goal(s). For example
a. A goal is some like - “owning your own home”. We’re not trying to define the “How”, just the end goal.
b. More specifically – a goal may be to “reduce traffic on neighborhood streets”. There may be many ways to
accomplish this. Today we want to define if this is a goal, at what crossing, and how it fits within other goals in terms
of priority.
2.Bikes/Pedestrians: A goal might be “improve bike and pedestrian paths” Or “increase east/west capacity”. Others?
3.Autos: A goal might be “reduce traffic on neighborhood streets” or “eliminate backups at rail crossings”. Others?
4.Noise: A goal might be to “reduce noise in surrounding neighborhoods”. Others?
5.Safety: A goal might be to “prevent or deter suicides” – Others?
6.Visual/Aesthetics: A goal might be “reduce visibility of trains from surrounding neighborhoods”. Others?
7.Other: Other goals may be “fix all the grade crossings at the same time”, or “implement improvements as quickly as possible”
To start the discussion let’s discuss broad goals for the rail corridor.
HOW WOULD WE DEFINE SUCCESS? WHAT ARE OUR GOALS?
ISSUE/TOPIC PALO ALTO AVE
(ALMA STREET) CHURCHILL AVE MEADOW DRIVE CHARLESTON ROAD
EXISTING GRADE
SEPARATIONS
University, Homer, Embarcadero,
Oregon Express., San Antonio Rd.
Bikes/Peds
Autos/trucks
Noise
Safety
Visual
Other?
Appendix H: Breakout Session Dot Exercise
1
Connecting Palo Alto
Community Questionnaire #1 - Summer 2017 Report
Introduction
The purpose of this community questionnaire was to initiate the Connecting Palo Alto project and obtain
information from residents and stakeholders in Palo Alto about their concerns, priorities, and methods
for continued engagement as the project moves forward. As the questionnaire has not been subjected
to statistical analysis, it serves best as a snapshot of community member sentiment toward the project,
especially for those unable to attend the first community meeting held on May 20, 2017.
The questionnaire was made available to the Palo Alto community via the project website
cityofpaloalto.org/ConnectingPaloAlto, City of Palo Alto social media pages and a City e-mail sent to 444
recipients on July 5.
The information collected and feedback obtained from the questionnaire and community meeting #1
will be used to shape the format and content of the Community Workshops this fall where the
community will discuss project objectives and performance measures, and develop various alternatives.
Questionnaire overview
The questionnaire was created using the web-based tool SurveyMonkey and included 7 questions in
total. The questionnaire remained open from July 5, 2017 to July 19, 2017, a total of 14 days. In total,
791 unique questionnaire responses were received over this period with a completion rate of 98%.
The average time spent filling out the questionnaire was 12 minutes. We received multiple comments
saying the questionnaire was too long.
2
Question 1 - Please indicate which rail crossing(s) you currently use and approximately how often (times per
week).
In terms of frequency of use, the following list shows the most used crossings (# in parenthesis denotes how many
people use this crossing at least 1 time per week):
1. Oregon Expy (656)
2. Churchill Ave (614)
3. Charleston Rd (609)
4. Meadow Dr (576)
5. San Antonio Rd (559)
6. Embarcadero Ave (546)
7. University Ave (525)
8. Palo Alto Ave/Alma St (462)
9. California Ave (420)
10. Homer Ave (258)
11. Other (22)
Total Frequency of Use of Grade Crossings
656
614 609
576 559 546 525
462
420
258
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
3
Frequency of Use of Grade Crossings by Times Per Week
Proportion of respondents indicating they use crossing 10+ more times per week
250
351 331 307 329 274 322 320
255
183
181
133 119 120 124
117
117 74
84
48
118 56 72 68 60
84
55
42
43
18
107 74 87 81 46 71 31
26
38
9
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1-3 Times/Week 3-6 Times/Week 6-10 Times/Week 10+ times/week
Oregon Expy
16%
Charleston Rd
14%
Meadow Dr
14%
Embarcadero Ave
13%
Churchill Ave
12%
California Ave
9%
San Antonio Rd
8%
University Ave
6%
Palo Alto Ave
6%
Homer Ave
3%
4
Proportion of respondents indicating they use crossing 1-3 times per week
Summary of Comments in Question 1
People who added a voluntary comment to this question shared a variety of opinions about the wording of the
question and crossings that could have been listed as an answer option.
Comments regarding the Question 1:
x People did not know whether they should respond according to the frequency of trips taken by car,
transit, walking or biking.
x People were confused about why at-grade and non at-grade crossings were all asked in one item.
Alternative crossings suggested:
x Menlo Park/Ravenswood
x Tunnel at University Ave Caltrain station (~Lytton)
x Redwood City/Whipple Ave
x PAMF Underpass
x Alma Street/El Camino
x Oak Grove/Menlo Park
x Rengstorff/Mountain View,
x Middlefield/Channing and North California pedestrian tunnel
Homer Ave
12%
Palo Alto Ave
12%
University Ave
11%
California Ave
11% San Antonio Rd
10%
Churchill Ave
10%
Charleston Rd
9%
Meadow Dr
9%
Embarcadero Ave
9%
Oregon Expy
7%
5
Question 2 – There are four locations in Palo Alto where motorists currently cross the railroad tracks at grade.
Please identify which issues concern you the most at the existing at-grade railroad crossings. Please mark no
more than a total of 6 boxes.
The following are the issues of most concern at existing at-grade crossings:
1. Safety (1381)
2. Auto/Truck Congestion (1098)
3. Bike/Pedestrian Circulation (942)
4. Increase in Train Traffic (548)
5. Noise/Vibration (330)
6. Aesthetics (216)
7. Other (86)
Indications of Most Concerning Issues About At-Grade Crossings
The at-grade crossings about which the most people expressed concern were the following, in order:
1- Churchill Avenue - 1432
2- Meadow Drive - 1214
3- Charleston Road - 1210
4- Palo Alto Avenue - 745
Concerns About At-Grade Crossings
1381
1098
942
548
330 216 86
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1432
1214 1210
745
02004006008001000120014001600
6
Identified Concerns at Churchill Avenue
Identified Concerns at Charleston Road
Identified Concerns at Meadow Drive
Identified Concerns at Palo Alto Avenue (Alma Street)
Summary of Comments in Question 2
People who added a voluntary comment to this question shared a variety of opinions.
Among the issues listed, people expressed extreme concern about safety for bicyclists and pedestrians around at-
grade crossings and backed up traffic. Noise was pointed out as a concern even a few blocks away from the tracks,
one resident mentioned “loud train horns can wake up the dead.”
28%
23% 23%
11%
7%
6% 2%
Safety
Auto/Truck Congestion
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Increase In Train Traffic
Noise/Vibration
Aesthetics
Other
30%
26%
17%
13%
8% 4% 2%
Safety
Auto/Truck Congestion
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Increase In Train Traffic
Noise/Vibration
Aesthetics
Other
31%
24%
19%
13%
7% 4% 2%
Safety
Auto/Truck Congestion
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Increase In Train Traffic
Noise/Vibration
Aesthetics
Other
30%
24% 22%
11%
7% 4% 2%
Safety
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Auto/Truck Congestion
Increase In Train Traffic
Noise/Vibration
Aesthetics
Other
7
Regarding the crossings listed, Alma Street was mentioned often, in particular due to a blind corner that was
described as dangerous to motorists, catching them by surprise. The traffic at the Meadow and Charleston
crossings was mentioned as backing up during rush hour. Churchill was described as having extremely poor traffic-
light and railroad gate coordination.
People also suggested the addition of issues such as risk of suicides and railroad gate and traffic-light coordination.
Suggested solutions included trenching sections of the corridor at Churchill Avenue, separating all at-grade
crossings, and adding patrol services and video surveillance to monitor traffic. About a dozen people mentioned
they do not think anything is wrong with the grade crossings. For example: “Palo Alto grade crossings are generally
very well organized” and “I have no concerns about any of the four crossings”.
A handful of commentators indicated they were also worried about other crossings that are further discussed in
question 3.
8
Question 3 – There are currently six locations where motorists and/or pedestrians and bicyclists can cross the
railroad tracks above or below grade. Please identify which issues concern you the most at these existing grade
separated crossings, where the roadway or bicycle/pedestrian path goes over/under the railroad tracks. Please
mark no more than a total of six boxes.
The following are the most concerning issues at grade separated crossings:
1. Bike/Pedestrian Circulation (1005)
2. Auto/Truck Congestion (975)
3. Safety (900)
4. Aesthetics (372)
5. Noise/Vibration (302)
6. Increase in Train Traffic (224)
7. Other (170)
Indications of Most Concerning Issues About Grade-Separated Crossing
The grade-separated crossings that people indicated are of most concern were, in order:
1- Oregon Expressway - 831
2- University Avenue - 790
3- Embarcadero Avenue - 788
4- California Avenue - 649
5- San Antonio Road - 547
6- Homer Avenue - 343
Concerns at Grade-Separated Crossings
1005 975 900
372 302 224 170
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
831 790 788
649 547
343
0
200
400
600
800
1000
9
Concerns at Oregon Expressway
Concerns at University Avenue
Concerns at Embarcadero Avenue
Concerns at California Avenue
32%
24%
18%
8%
7%
6% 5%
Auto/Truck Congestion
Safety
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Aesthetics
Noise/Vibration
Increase In Train Traffic
Other
26%
25% 21%
13%
6% 6% 3%
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Auto/Truck Congestion
Safety
Aesthetics
Noise/Vibration
Increase In Train Traffic
Other
33%
23%
19%
8%
8%
5% 4%
Auto/Truck Congestion
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Safety
Aesthetics
Noise/Vibration
Increase In Train Traffic
Other
35%
24% 13%
11%
8%
5% 4%
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Safety
Aesthetics
Auto/Truck Congestion
Noise/Vibration
Increase In Train Traffic
Other
10
Concerns at San Antonio Road
Concerns at Homer Avenue
Summary of Comments in Question 3
People who added a voluntary comment to this question shared a variety of opinions about the issues listed, issues
not listed, and lack of concern.
A handful of respondents were displeased with the way the issues were labeled, in one instance someone wrote:
“I find these boxed categories to be ridiculously simplified and overly broad.” Multiple people tended to break
down issues into more specific instances such as “Barriers in Cal Ave. undercrossing are REALLY tough to navigate
with bike trailers. Please take into account families who rely on bike trailers to transport young kids and groceries.”
for Bike/Ped Circulation and “The lanes at the Embarcadero underpass are poorly lined, and too narrow. It's a scary
place to cross in a car, and even worse on a bike” for Safety.
Recommendations of new issues included flooding and homeless settlements in underpasses. Certain
questionnaire respondents gave details on these, such as “The smell and filth of the Embarcadero bike/foot
crossing is horrific and an embarrassment. There is also an odor problem at Homer & California & Univ Ave under-
grade crossings, and the Univ "tunnel" is too dark and feels unsafe. But the worst of all of these is Embarcadero, by
far.”
Also, as seen in comments entered in question 2, over a dozen respondents did not seem concerned about the
crossings at all and wrote in comments like: “no concerns, really; these work fine as is” and “Works great!”
26%
25% 23%
8%
8%
7% 3%
Auto/Truck Congestion
Safety
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Increase In Train Traffic
Noise/Vibration
Aesthetics
Other
32%
28%
11%
11%
8%
6% 4%
Bike/Pedestrian Circulation
Safety
Noise/Vibration
Auto/Truck Congestion
Other
Aesthetics
Increase In Train Traffic
11
Question 4 – Please read the following Problem Statement and rate your response:
The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity within the City of Palo Alto, and
is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, especially at existing at-grade
crossings. These challenges also create issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic, and
visual impacts. These will continue to get worse in the future with increases in train traffic due to Caltrain
modernization (including electrification) and the possible addition of high speed rail.
Regarding the problem statement:
401 people (51% of respondents) strongly agree
210 (~27%) agree
85 (~11%) are neutral
50 (~6%) disagree
45 (~6%) strongly disagree
Summary of Comments in Question 4
This question received a large amount of comments, 280 in total. However, many did not provide feedback on the
statement and instead commented on future issues and potential solutions.
Some comments were as short as one sentence, for example “put tracks underground!” or “We shouldn’t have
grade crossings in the 21st century” or “this (question) is biased and very leading.” Some were composed into
paragraphs about design alternatives and scenario comparisons with other transit systems, such as the following:
“If grade crossings are eliminated, would-be suicides will inevitably find another way to die. ‘Recollections
of a Tule Sailor,’ a memoir by San Francisco paddlewheel ferryboat captain John Leale (published 1939,
download available online), notes that before the Golden Gate Bridge was built, the favorite local suicide
method was to leap off the ferryboat ahead of the paddlewheels. Moral of the story: technology changes,
human nature stays the same. Elevating Caltrain 25' up, plus another 17' sound wall, will create a 4-story-
high continuous wall blocking light. I've seen this done in Germany and elsewhere. Bad idea for the
Strongly
Agree
51%
Agree
26%
Neutral
11%
Disagree
6%
Strongly
Disagree
6%
12
residents of Palo Alto. Put Caltrain tracks in a trench, or leave it at ground level and save a huge amount of
money.”
“While mitigating these impacts is important and will be beneficial, I believe this statement unfairly casts
the impacts of Caltrain electrification and HSR as being primarily negative. I believe both of these projects
also offer great opportunity to Palo Alto in helping to reduce reliance on cars for transportation, and
keeping our community (which historically has been an important hub for American innovation) connected
to the regional and state economies.”
“I agree with the safety and congestion issues for at grade crossings. I do not agree about the physical and
visual barrier. I live far from the railroad and there is limited line of sight and many physical barriers due to
road design to prevent through traffic. That is not a real issue. Noise should decrease dramatically with
electrification as electric trains are much quieter than diesels. Smoother tracks for high speed rails should
also decrease noise and vibrations. I was just in Switzerland and it is amazing how much quieter their
trains are than Caltrain.”
“The statement about the future must state the assumptions made. If more trains are added without
changing the crossings, then things will get worse. But things could improve with grade separation.”
“I agree with the statement of the problems. I don't agree that they'll get significantly worse, in the long
run. In particular, if High Speed Rail removes the at-grade crossings, i think things will improve (except
maybe aesthetics).”
13
Question 5 – Please help us prioritize the focus of our rail corridor efforts. Rate your response to each goal
below:
In terms of prioritizing program goals (# in parenthesis denotes how many people strongly agreed and agreed with
a given goal):
Ranking Concern # %
1 Reduce congestion near at-grade crossings 683 ~88%
2 Prioritize student safety 666 ~85%
3 Separate auto from bike/pedestrian traffic 627 ~80%
4 Deliver grade separations in a timely manner 596 ~77%
5 Support planned Caltrain service improvements 593 ~76%
6 Reduce unsafe driver behavior 571 ~74%
7 Collaborate with neighboring cities and agencies 569 ~73%
8 Keep construction period disruptions to a minimum 449 ~58%
9 Reduce/eliminate train noise and vibrations 432 ~55%
10 Fund project with existing funding from local sources 248 ~32%
14
Question 6 – In order to evaluate potential grade separation alternatives, the City needs to establish a
comprehensive shortlist of evaluation criteria. Please identify the most important criteria by arranging the
criteria options below in a sequence of your preference. (Criterion 1 = Most Important, Criterion 10 = Least
Important). Notice: do not rate each criterion individually. Each criterion should be ranked with the other criteria
in consideration and have a unique ranking from 1 to 10. Duplicate answers will automatically be erased.
Example: “Construction Impacts – Able to implement in phases” and “Cost – Fund the program with available
funding sources” cannot both be ranked as 10.
In terms of prioritizing evaluation criteria, in order of most important criteria (# in parenthesis denotes a rating of
how highly each criterion was ranked by respondents):
Criterion
Average
Ranking
Overall
Ranking
Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Clear/safe passageways 7.57 1
Automobile Circulation - Reduce queue length and time 6.96 2
Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Separated from auto traffic 6.54 3
East-West Connectivity - Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of
travel 6.16 4
Automobile Circulation - Reduce traffic on neighborhood streets 5.79 5
Environmental Effects - Reduce noise and visibility of trains from neighborhoods 5.35 6
Transit - Support Caltrain service improvements (level boarding, platform
extensions, etc.) 5.05 7
Construction Impacts - Minimize construction period disruption (detours/street
closures) 4.26 8
Cost - Fund the program with available funding sources 3.77 9
Construction Impacts - Able to implement in phases 3.76 10
The score is calculated according to the frequency in which a criterion was arranged into a given position related to
other criteria. If a criterion was most often arranged between #1 and #3 out of the ten available options, it will
have a highly important rating (closer to 10.0). In turn, if a criterion was often arranged between #7 and #10, it will
have a less important rating (closer to 0.0). Hence, the most important criterion we observe is Pedestrians and
bicycle circulation - clear/safe passageways with a rating of 7.57 and the least important criterion is Construction
impacts - able to implement in phases with a rating of 3.76.
Criterion
Number of
times ranked as
top priority
Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Clear/safe passageways 171
East-West Connectivity - Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of travel 141
Automobile Circulation - Reduce queue length and time 138
Environmental Effects - Reduce noise and visibility of trains from neighborhoods 94
Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Separated from auto traffic 84
Transit - Support Caltrain service improvements (level boarding, platform extensions, etc.) 61
Automobile Circulation - Reduce traffic on neighborhood streets 34
Cost - Fund the program with available funding sources 25
Construction Impacts - Minimize construction period disruption (detours/street closures) 16
Construction Impacts - Able to implement in phases 12
15
A number of people were confused by the way this question was initially worded and adjustments were made to
accommodate the comments received. Initially, people did not understand they should arrange all items together
in a sequence. Instead, they thought they were meant to indicate the importance of individual items from 1-10.
16
Question 7 - Please use the text box below to share any additional comments or concerns regarding the future of
the rail corridor in Palo Alto.
555 people shared additional comments/ concerns about the future of the rail corridor. Their comments include:
x Support for grade separations
o “We MUST have grade separations at Churchill and Alma crossings to eliminate safety hazards
and gridlock. With more trains, the problems only get worse.”
o “From my point of view, conversion of at-grade crossings to grade-separated crossings ought to
be the highest priority”
x Support for alternative solution elevating tracks, tunneling the corridor, etc.
o “I think the current at grade-crossings are fine as is and I am not enthusiastic about Palo Alto
spending a ton of money (from new or existing sources) to create ugly overpasses or underpasses
likes the ones at San Antonio Road, Oregon Expressway, or Embarcadero Road. I would,
however, support spending even more money to move Caltrain below ground. That would solve
a whole lot of problems (noise, etc.) and address the east-west barrier issue.”
o “Put the train underground. Make pleasant well-lit stations with good elevators and bike
ramps.”
o “The best solution may be a 4-track double deck system, each deck 2-tracks wide with the lower
pair elevated quite high. This would enable full grade separation for any number of crossings. It
would eliminate the division caused by the Caltrain corridor. It would avoid any need for land
purchase or eminent domain.”
x Please focus on safety, auto/ped circulation
o “It is essential that we find ways to improve safety and efficiency of the rail corridor while
supporting growth in public transportation.”
o ” #1 priority should be safety. #2 reliability.”
o “Please provide wide, level crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. Narrow paths with crash bars
(like the existing California Ave tunnel) are inconvenient for everyone, but especially parents
pulling bicycle child trailers and wheelchair users. If the train tracks are elevated, please provide
more bicycle/pedestrian crossings than currently exist. We would really like to have a
bicycle/pedestrian bridge or tunnel from Midtown to the California Ave business district without
having to cross the Oregon Speedway.”
x Complaints about the purpose and structure of the survey
o “Your survey seems to be intentionally loaded to achieve some specific result. This is bullshit. You
are wasting my time.”
o “Please educate the public so that they can answer these questions responsibly, which I can’t
right now.”
o “#6 is almost impossible to answer as all the listed choices are important. Frankly, I think the
entire survey easily leads to skewed conclusion.”
x Complaints about how ambitious this project is
o “The lists of "efforts" and "evaluation criteria" appear somewhat biased in that it doesn't appear
to envision the possibility of under-grounding Caltrain and HSRail (or whatever passenger rail
service may come up the Peninsula). This was discussed, with considerable professional input,
when HSR was first being proposed, and it has major advantages for resolving all of the issues
presented with the possible exception that it would incur construction disruption at some
locations that already have grade separations in which cars cross under the tracks). However,
some of those have their own problems (e.g., flooding and dangerous exits/entrances to/from
Alma at the Oregon underpass, major East-West barriers (e.g., at San Antonio overpass) and
most of the current separations require separate accommodation for pedestrians/bicycles. All of
17
the problems would be greatly improved if the solutions of the past (e.g., the traffic
circle/maze/mess at University, the Oregon and Alma undergrounds) were eliminated and
replaced by rational surface crossings for motor, bicycle, and pedestrian movement. Also, the
land currently devoted to some of these constructions could be developed for other purposes
and could yield revenue and housing possibilities, and the value of the adjacent land would be
increased by elimination of noise and other problems. And clearly, safety and would be
maximized and access for those in crisis could be greatly reduced. Please take the lead in working
with other cities to further develop the ideas that were initiated some years back. Please do not
simply set aside the possibility of an underground rail solution on the grounds of cost and
construction time. We desperately need a solution and not a band-aid. We need to invest in a
future infrastructure that really works. The possibility of funding a significant portion of the cost,
not from current sources but from revenue generated by recovery of highly valuable property
should be seriously and creatively examined. And Palo Alto and the rest of the Peninsula should
not remain hostage to solutions driven by CalTrain or other rail interests. Their needs must be
accommodated, especially when they provide valuable passenger transportation, but it is no
longer possible to justify freight movement at street level through a major metropolitan area,
whether during the day or at night.”
x Complaints about the purpose of the project given past efforts
o “I am concerned that this new initiative of the rail corridor ignores the 10 years of work already
considered by this community and instead starts everything over again. This survey seems
spiked, as of course everyone will want to have safety and congestion reduction first, but I hope
this does not mean that it would be at the cost of visual impairments. The Comp Plan corridor
study has already done much of this work, and it should be a launch to continue the initiative to
trench the train. Funds should come from three equal parts, a tax initiative by Palo Alto, Stanford
U, and Measure B funds. So, let's do it right and keep those that live along the track not worried
or concerned they may lose their house for an above grade rail design.”
x Questions about project assumptions and impacts
o “Not listed above is impact on adjacent uses, e.g., will existing homes have to be demolished?”
18
Major themes/conclusions identified
This questionnaire engaged the community about issues associated with the Caltrain corridor, and
specifically about their concerns related to existing grade crossings. In this way, the questionnaire was a
companion to Community Workshop #1 on May 20, 2017 which had the same focus. The questionnaire
is not a statistically valid survey, but it served to collect data about concerns and possibly areas where
there is some consensus. The questionnaire also gathered information from the public that
demonstrates a variety of perspectives about the future of the rail corridor and how the City
could/should proceed with planning for its future. All of the input received will be considered as the City
crafts a formal Problem Statement, Project Objectives and Performance Measures or evaluation criteria
that can be used to develop and evaluate alternatives. This will be the focus of Community Workshop
#2 in September 2017.
A majority of people who responded to the questionnaire are concerned about safety, auto/truck
congestion, and bike/pedestrian safety at existing at-grade and grade-separated crossing. A majority
also seemed to be in agreement with the proposed Problem Statement, Goals, and Evaluation Criteria,
although there was a feeling by some that these were not framed correctly.
As responses to question 2 and 3 indicate, the top ten concerns of those responding to the
questionnaire are:
1. Safety on Churchill Avenue
2. Safety on Meadow Drive
3. Safety on Charleston Road
4. Auto/Truck Congestion on Churchill Avenue
5. Bike/Pedestrian Circulation on Churchill Avenue
6. Auto/Truck Congestion on Charleston Road
7. Auto/Truck Congestion on Meadow Drive
8. Auto/Truck Congestion on Oregon Expressway
9. Auto/Truck Congestion Embarcadero Avenue
10. Bike/Pedestrian Circulation on Meadow Drive
In regards to the Problem Statement in question 4, the majority of respondents (611 out of 791, ~77%)
indicated their agreement. However, given the feedback in the commentary section from both agreeing
and disagreeing respondents, revisions will have to be considered. Potential revisions could take into
account and specify additional issues such as potential benefits that could result from rail and grade
crossing improvements.
More than half of questionnaire respondents agreed or strongly agreed with 9 out of the 10 goals
proposed on question 5. Results indicate the following were the top three goals - all of which were
agreed or strongly agreed with by more than 80% of respondents:
1. Reduce congestion near at-grade crossings
2. Prioritize student safety
19
3. Separate auto from bike/pedestrian traffic
Despite initial confusion with the wording of question 6, results show the following three criteria were
the most important overall:
1. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Clear/safe passageways
2. Automobile Circulation - Reduce queue length and time
3. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Separated from auto traffic
20
Appendices
Copy of the questionnaire
Copy of all comments submitted
! " #$
"
% &
'
% (
&
&
&
)
%
"
% *
% &
)
+ ,*-.#/
)
+ ,*-.#/
!
"
!
#
$%
! &
'
(
)
*
$+,(
#
*
*
,
,
&(
-
01 "
0
1
!
"!
#
.
!
/
!
. .&&
0
1 %
*
&
(
*
,
,
&(
2-.
&
(
-
" ,
&%+
-
2
! &
'
(
)
*
$+,( #
$%
.
!
/
!
. .&&
0
1 %
*
&
(
*
,
,
&(
-.
( +
,
%
(
%
%
-
"
2 2
& +%+
-
(
& %
-
3-
*
.
!
, (
%
(
! (&
4
& &
(
&,
4%
(
4
,
(
+
-.
%
4 % 4&&
4 ,
-.
&
&&
!
5
&
, %
& ,
-
)
(
0
"
("
(
0
"
("
#
,
&
%
,
&&
6
,
,
,
5
&
(
#
&
%
,,,
!
,
#
%
!%
%
7,8
+ & &
"
,
(
9-
, , 5
&
&
&& -)
3
-
,
,
4
! (
%
,
&
-
&
!
: ,4!
:;
, -3
(-$
%
<
&-",
(%
-$+,
=>!
,
? %
,
,
@>! ?7
,
%
&
@
% %
-
%
!
#
<
%
!
#
&&
%
/
(
!
,
&&&
/
(
!
!
&
,
(
$
$&&
#
% (& &
%
. ,,!
,
% 4,&
+
4
-
! 7
, %
&
!
,
5
,
,
!
,
%
,
,
$ A
!
(7
&
&
B-
" "
9
& 4
,
%
2
)
+ ,*-.#/
! "
# #$%# #$%
&
' $$%' $$%
#&!
!!% !!%
'
( &'%( &'%
'&
# )(%# )(%
&(
( #
' (%' (%
!)
') (%') (%
#$
) '&%) '&%
##
(% (%
$(
! &$%! &$%
'
&&
) % ) %
'#
'& !%'& !%
#!
( ( %( ( %
&!
'(% '(%
()
& % & %
)
( $)%( $)%
&
'$ #'%'$ #'%
##
( #!%( #!%
)(% )(%
&
&% &%
)
#!
&! )%&! )%
#)
'! !(%'! !(%
& '
% %
& &)%& &)%
)'
! #)%! #)%
()'
#( ! %#( ! %
&#
#) )%#) )%
&$$
& %& %
)'
( $'%( $'%
'#
$ )%$ )%
#)
($
&# )!%&# )!%
('
'( #%'( #%
#&&
( )%( )%
)% )%
$$
' $!%' $!%
#
()
$ (&%$ (&%
#)
&) ('%&) ('%
)#
$% $%
')
& )&%& )&%
)
'% '%
(#
) (%) (%
(#
#' %#' %
&$!
&$ %&$ %
)
( '%( '%
)
' ))%' ))%
!
& !$%& !$%
'
'( ' %'( ' %
#&
$% $%
&'
) ' %) ' %
(!
( $!%( $!%
'(
!)
) &&%) &&%
)&
$ ))%$ ))%
&
' % ' %
#
! )%! )%
&
& '$%& '$%
$
&!'
**+
+
,
,
-
.
/
0 0&! ( # 1
&
2
33
4
/
/ 4
/4/
/
5
5
0!0&! & && 1
#1
4
0)0&! $'1
6
3#
0 #3(
0
(3!
0 1
!
4
.
4
1
,
.
7
89
4
.
4
:
4
4
;
4
+
8
"
7
+
!
!!
&!!
#!!
'!!
$!!
(!!
!!
)!!
&( ')) #)
#
! '(
$
'&$(() &
)''#$$)
)
(!
&
'
##&!
)'
')
)
&'
#
#&!
#$#! ##& '
&$$
#&&
)#
&$!
#&
&
&
!)'#&#)
&#
('
#)
(#' )&
6
6
3#
03#
0
#3(
0#3(
0
(3!
0(3!
0
1
1
!!
<
<
4
"
. 4
1 ,
.
7
89 4
.
4
:
4
4
; 4
+
8
"
7
+
'6 4
;-=!
"
0)0&! '$ 1
$
:
4
4.
>?
0 0&! '#1
(7 .
33- 4 0 0&! ' #(1
1
5
5
5
5 0 0&! & #(1
)6
0 0&! ) #$ 1
1@:
/
/4 0(0&! ! &!1
!
.
9
0(0&! $ 1
6
9
4 4
<2
/
A1
2
9
0(0&! $(1
&.
4
77
0(0&! ( #'1
#6
/9
2
0(0&! ( &'1
'+B4/1
0(0&! ( &1
$<
2
0(0&! $ ''1
(67
1
C (3!0 0(0&! ' &$1
<
<
D 0(0&! # &1
)
0(0&! ' 1
"46
9
0(0&! && 1
&!9
4 0(0&! &! 1
&1 /.
0(0&! & 1
&&4 ;
:
4
9 0(0&! '& 1
&# 4
0$0&! &)1
&'=
E
4
9
!
$&
0 64
0
0$0&! ( &)1
&$F
.
0$0&! ( &$1
&(7
0$0&! $ &1
& 64
2
/9
2
E
4
94
0$0&! & !$1
&) ?C G 0
0$0&! &' 1
&&<
3
(9
)( " $
$ #%$ #%
)&
&# !'%&# !'%
##!
&& %&& %
#&)
! (%! (%
$&
&(% &(%
!'
(% (%
&)
&) ' %&) ' %
'!)
/'#&
' '$%' '$%
$'
&# ')%&# ')%
&)$
#(% #(%
&#$
& )$%& )$%
$(
( &%( &%
)'
$ % $ %
# #)%# #)%
#)
/&'
' #%' #%
$!
&( &!%&( &!%
#
( )(%( )(%
&!'
# '%# '%
$
(!% (!%
&
!% !%
&#
#! %#! %
#($
/&!
' !#%' !#%
#!
&& &)%&& &)%
((
&# ' %&# ' %
$
! ) %! ) %
)
( %( %
$!
& $%& $%
(
#! ' %#! ' %
&&
'$
**+
+
,
,
.
E
;
/
9
0 0&! ( 1
&C
0)0&! ) $ 1
#
1
.
/
4
1 0.
0 0&! & #1
'.
"
..
0$0&! ( 1
$6
4
4
0'0&! ) &$ 1
("
9
D 0#0&! & &&1
<
4
&9
9 <
9
& !!
0!0&! ! !)1
)-
/
*
9
9
0!0&! ) 
1 4
H?"/
0!0&! ! ! 1
0< .
G 0
.
6
<
< F 0C 9
+
"
. 4 1 ,.
7
4
"
!
'!!
)!!
&
(
&
'!)
#) #($
&&
&)
&#
(
!'
)' &
$!
$&
$($
)
#&)
&#$&!'
$##!&)$#
(()&$'$!#!
0<
0<
.
.
G 0
G 0
.
.
6
6
<
<
< <
F 0C 9
F 0C 9
+
+
"
"
<
<
7
7
.
4
1 ,
.
7
4
"
!<
0)0&! & $1
<
0 0&! ( &!1
&<
IGI
I I
4 0 0&! # &(1
#
94 0 0&! & !(1
'
4
0 0&! ! '( 1
$6
9
E
"
/
/
04 9
/
0 0&! ! ! 1
(6
/6
6
0 0&! ) $ 1
G 0
.
"
3
0 0&! ) #$ 1
)+4
0 0&! ) &' 1
E
4
0 0&! ) ! 1
&!7
0 0&! ( '' 1
&" 7 0 0&! ( '! 1
&&<
,
2
4$
/
$
4
.
<
.
"
E
9. 9 4
9
/E
.
0 0&! ( #( 1
&#
9
2
0(0&! ! '$1
&'G
3
40
1
0(0&! $(1
&$B
9 9
0(0&! ) ''1
&(<77
4
"
9
/
E
@
/
9
/
9
E
0(0&! ) # 1
& -
2
9
9
-
,+,76C8
0(0&! ) #'1
&)
0(0&! ) &(1
& <
0(0&! ) &'1
#!
D 0(0&! &1
#"
9 0(0&! '1
#&.
0(0&! ! 1
##<
.
81
<
"
0(0&! ( #'1
#'-
9 0
4 0(0&! ( &1
#$<9
0(0&! ( '1
#(
0(0&! ( &1
# .
9
0(0&! $ '(1
#)F
/
0(0&! ' &$1
# F 0(0&! & # 1
'!6
9
0(0&! ''1
'
3
9
"
0(0&! #1
'&9
9 0(0&! ' 1
'#<
<
49
)( J
0(0&! '& 1
''F
9
. 0(0&! && 1
'$< 99
;"7 -
;7"
4
DDD 0(0&! $ 1
'(F
3
0(0&! ! 1
' <
. /
/
G
9
6
4
0(0&! ! $ 1
')64
9
/9
6 5+
5
4
9
4
K9D
0(0&! #& 1
' <
.
1
9
9 <
9
9
9
0.
5
5
0$0&! ) # 1
$!"
F
3
DDD 0$0&! ) 1
$< 4
9
/
5
5
6
4
0$0&! ) $1
$&
4 L 0$0&! $1
$#<
<
0$0&! &1
$', 4
9
4
<
9
0$0&! !1
$$
4
K 0$0&! ( &)1
$(
9
0$0&! ( !#1
$ 6
E
4
0$0&! ( !#1
$)G 3
9
. 0$0&! ( !&1
$ < 9 3
0$0&! ( !1
(!
0$0&! $ #&1
(C
9
9 0$0&! $ & 1
(&<
4
-
0$0&! $$1
(#6
/
/
9
4 0$0&! & !$1
('
0$0&! &# 1
($
9
0$0&! ! $# 1
##<
0
9
94
9
/
9 0
40
9
$ " #'
+
8
:
4
4
(#
'
&(
$$
$!
'
''
#!
$#
&!)
&&'
&()
&!!
!
()
)#
.
4
89 4
"
7
; 4
$
$!
#'
&
&
)
$'
(
'#
#!
''
''
$
)#
&)
!
&$
'&
#)
('
#)
&!
) )%) )%
()
#& &$%#& &$%
&()
) '%) '%
$#
$ ((%$ ((%
'
( (&%( (&%
$$
' #%' #%
'
&# $%&# $%
)#
& $#%& $#%
&$ #&%&$ #&%
&!!
&( ##%&( ##%
&!)
$ $ %$ $ %
''
( ##%( ##%
$!
# & %# & %
&(
&! (#%&! (#%
(#
!
& %& %
)#
! %! %
!
#' $%#' $%
&&'
' (&%' (&%
#!
) #&%) #&%
$'
' ' %' ' %
&
&' $!%&' $!%
$
('
) &%) &%
('
#& (%#& (%
&$
&# &&%&# &&%
)#
$ $)%$ $)%
''
'% '%
(
# ()%# ()%
&
!'% !'%
$!
))
( $%( $%
#)
&$ (%&$ (%
'&
&# '!%&# '!%
&)
) !'%) !'%
''
)(% )(%
'#
# & %# & %
)
&' $!%&' $!%
#'
$'
$ )#%$ )#%
&!
!)% !)%
#)
# )%# )%
!
' # %' # %
$
# % # %
#
) % ) %
&
& !%& !%
$
#'#
**+
+
,
,
<
89
/
6
E
/
4
9
0#0&! & $'1
&
0#0&! !( 1
#; 4
9
00&! # ! 1
'@
00&! ( &( 1
$; 4
0!0&! '#1
(-
D 0!0&! ! $#1
,
E
0!0&! & &(1
)<
; 4
4
9 M
E
E
9
/
3
9N
0!0&! !$1
F
/M
0 0&! $!1
!6
4
0 0&! &(1
G
;
3
0)0&! & $1
&6
9
9
49 "
*&
0)0&! ) # 1
#.
4
, 3
0 0&! '#1
'
0 0&! #'1
$
0 0&! ( 1
0< .
G 0
.
6
<
< F 0C 9
+
"
!!!&!!#!!'!!$!!
$
&
#
0<
0<
.
.
G 0
G 0
.
.
6
6
<
<
< <
F 0C 9
F 0C 9
+
+
"
"
<
<
7
7
+
8
:
4
4
.
4
89
4
"
7
; 4
(;4
/
0 0&! ' #(1
=2
<
5
5 0 0&! & #(1
)
94 0 0&! & !(1
6
4
6
E
0 0&! !$1
&!<
89 9 0
9
<
9
;L.
L:
4 4
3
/
:
45
5
G
89 /9
0 0&! & 1
&6
9
/
04 9
0 0&! ! ! 1
&&@
0 0&! $& 1
&#
9 0 0&! !) 1
&'O; ;
O+
, 4
/
3
0 0&! ! 1
&$6
9
9
/
4 9
;
89
0 0&! ) '# 1
&(?
0 0&! ) &' 1
& 0 0&! ) $ 1
&) E
9
9
2
0 0&! ) ! 1
&
0 0&! ) !# 1
#!7
9
64
9
2
0 0&! $( 1
#6
0 0&! #& 1
#&+
N4 9
/9
0(0&! ! '1
##
0(0&! ! !#1
#'64
9
949 P
0(0&! ! !#1
#$.
6
4
4
0(0&! $ 1
#(F 0(0&! ' 1
# F
0(0&! '&1
#)
0(0&! #(1
# 6
E
49
0(0&! ) $ 1
'!
;
<
0(0&! ) $)1
'89
M+
8
0(0&! ) ''1
'&;
; 49
0(0&! ) # 1
'#. 433G 3
9
0(0&! ) )1
''.4
4
7
0(0&! ) !$1
'$.
:
4
; 0(0&! ##1
'(
8.
L
0(0&! & 1
'
D 0(0&! &1
')
0(0&! ! 1
' @
0(0&! ! 1
$!7
/
2
<
4 9
1=4 9
0
!
0(0&! ( #'1
$
0(0&! ( #&1
$&64
6
0(0&! ( & 1
$#
?C 9
0(0&! ( &1
$'F
9 0
0Q
9
9
0(0&! ' #!1
$$@
0(0&! & '(1
$(F
4 0(0&! & 1
$ F &
?=
<L. 74
9
9
<L.
?=
0(0&! &'1
$)F
0(0&! & ##1
$ <
<
49
)( J
0(0&! '& 1
(!< 99
;"7 -
9
D 0(0&! $ 1
(F
3
0(0&! ! 1
(&6
94
4
2
0(0&! ! $ 1
(#5+
5
64
0(0&! ! ' 1
('"
4
0(0&! # 1
($6
R
R
89
0(0&! ) '( 1
((
0(0&! '& 1
( F
/6
0(0&! &) 1
()<
9
<
.
"
.
9
0$0&! 1
( @
0$0&! ')1
!
9 0$0&! '(1
<
.
:
4 4 0$0&! ) 1
&.
/
49 3
9
.
4
A
0$0&! ) !(1
#G
0$0&! '1
'<
+
8
0$0&! !1
$
0$0&! ( #$1
(
9
G
.
4
0$0&! ( &$1
<
+
8
9 0$0&! ( !'1
)F
0$0&! ( !1
- 9
9
.
4
A;
9
9
4
3 A
0$0&! $ & 1
)!7 0$0&! $ &1
)
6
94
0$0&! $ &1
)&G
. 4
78 ??=
4
9
9
0$0&! & $#1
)#F
0$0&! !$1
)'<
E
0$0&! & !$1
)$F
0$0&! '' 1
$! !%$! !%'!
&( $$%&( $$%&!
! $%! $%)$
( #&%( #&%$!
$ ( %$ ( %'$
''
9"
<.
4
9
0
4
.
/
/9
/
3
<
9
/4 9
/
/
4
<
.
K
9
7
" !
<
**
9"
9"
,
,
7
9
9
0 0&! ( 1
&<80-9 6
E
:F?8""
4
6
0)0&! # &'1
#<9
.
9
;6" 7
< 4
5G
"
5
4 <;"7
G
,9
0)0&! & )1
"
F
, "
,
$! !%
'!
&( $$%
&!
! $%
)$
( #&%
$!
$ ( %
'$
.
. 7
7
"
F
,
"
,
'<4
4 04
0
/
/
9
2
D
0)0&! &# 1
$8
9
4
9
0 0&! ! !1
(8
<<9/$!
/
/
4
/
/ /
4
;
4
A
0 0&! ) #'1
6E4 4
"
9
8,
8.4
8
64
6E
9
4
4
<
4 9
6
0 0&! ) !!1
)-
B
0 0&! $#1
6
4 9
G
$!%
4
<
/
9
.
/1
.
2
2
2
2
0 0&! ( # 1
!<
94
K
0 0&! $ 1
/
/
9/
3
/ 4
"
3
88
/</
0 0&! & #1
&6
9
.
/
/
/
/
9
4
/
0(0&! & # 1
#<
0$0&! ( !!1
'6.
K
4
/9
K
99
0$0&! &$1
$.
/
.
4 9 B
4 9 /9
9
4
0$0&! ( 1
(6
0
4
.
!
/
.
4
Q
0
4
6
!
0'0&! ) #$1
< 9
9
34
9
.
9
33
9
8.
2
A6
< 4
4
0#0&! #'1
)F
9
0#0&! ( '&1
<
33
D 0#0&! & $(1
&!<
/
4
6
.
/
/4
4
9
0#0&! & $'1
&
9
L9
0
94
9
9
9
4
"
9
9
/
4 /9
0#0&! & &&1
&&B
.<
G 7<1 9
"
H
9 8
4A= <
L
0&0&! !'1
&#
4
/2
/
"<
C
4.
4
0&0&! # $ 1
&'<9
4
0&0&! #!1
&$6
9
9 0
4
<
9
0&0&! & &(1
&(6
4
4
9
E
4 9 <
4 9 9
4 Q
00&! !# 1
&
6
3
/6
00&! $ ' 1
&)<4 9
9
F+- 8
4
/
4 +/
9
9 I
/
4 9
<
99
/
/
H
4
<9
9 9
G8<<87 <
00&! & ' 1
& 6
/
$9
9
0!0&! ! !)1
#!"
9
.
1 P <
9
<
6
0!0&! ) 
#F 4 6E
K
0!0&! ) (1
#&
9
6
E
/
Q
09 9 4! "
"
0!0&! ( ' 1
##8
4
4
2
0!0&! $ '1
#'7
9
?
9
4
9
0!0&! # 1
#$<
/
0!0&! & $&1
#(6E4 9
4 9
/
0!0&! & '1
# <
0!0&! & #'1
#)F Q
4
/
0!0&! & !$1
# ?
93
.
6
93
1
.
<9 3
.
9
8
E
4
9
9/9
9
9
9
9
?
.
.
9
9
Q
9
?
9
.
0!0&! $(1
'!-
0!0&! '(1
'6
0!0&! #)1
'&6
E9 /9
+
/9
9
"/
E
/
0!0&! & '1
'#<
3
K 0!0&! ! ! 1
''
3
3
<
3
/9
0!0&! & 1
'$.
9 0 0&! $1
'(
+J
6
+J
Q
/
+J
0 0&! $!1
'
9
4/9
4
0 0&! ##1
')4
4
Q
9 6
9
.
0 0&! &(1
' /9
0 0&! ) &'1
$!6
9
4/
9
5
5
"
Q
/
0 0&! # 1
$?
@
0 0&! # #1
$&
94
94
0 0&! ) !# 1
$#<.
4
4
69 4
0 0&! ( ' 1
$'8
8
9
3
2
0)0&! &$1
$$6
9 /
4 9 /
9
0)0&! #1
$(< 4 -;
A6
4 9 6
3
6E
4
/9
6 4 6E
4
M
9
6E 4
0)0&! $#1
$
/
.
/1 /
. <
Q99
4
9
/
04
0)0&! ) ' 1
$)69 4
3
4
4
0)0&! ( $#1
$ <
E
9
9
9
/
49
/
/
9
"
G
0)0&! $ $#1
(!.
K
78,:.6FB016<6B <8
0)0&! $ #$1
(8
9
.
9
8.
/
0)0&! ' !)1
(&-1:"<4
.
K
-
/
9
0)0&! #(1
(#
/4 9
/
0)0&! & 1
('@
9
0
-
4
K
9 /
4
4
4 <
04 9
9
.
0)0&! & ')1
($<
E4 9 E 0)0&! ! 1
((<
/
4F8-
9
0
/6
0)0&! ! ' 1
(
/ 9/
3
9
"
H
"@
0)0&! &# 1
()-
K
4
9
0)0&! !! 1
( - 4
9
//
9
<
9
3
4 9
9
4
0)0&! ) # 1
!6
9
/
/9
6
<
4
49
4/
4 /
0)0&! ) &# 1
19
9
?
/
"
9
0)0&! '$ 1
&6
3
4 4
4;$
? D
4
0)0&! & 1
#<
9
0
0
0 0&! (1
'<
9
9
6
.
0 0&! !$1
$<
.
99
3
9
9 9M
9
9 <
/
Q
G 7<
"
4
G/
9 4
G 7<
4
G
0 0&! '#1
("
9
9
0 0&! ( #(1
.
8
1/
.
9 0
+
3
9
/
9
0 0&! ( #$1
)< 9
4
3
9
9 -
;3
9 09
0 0&! ( &(1
"
6
2
/6
9
5 5
5
5 <9
/
0 0&! ( 1
)!
/
.
9
4 9
<
4
9
0 0&! ( 1
)
4
4
0
6 4
0 0&! ( ! 1
)&</
42
M
4
/
4
0 0&! $ #&1
)#64
.
9
04
6
E
9
4 9
/9
40
/
6E
4
0 0&! $ #!1
)'<
99
4 0 0&! $ ! 1
)$<
4
K
.<
33
9
9D
0 0&! ' #(1
)(=
9
E
K
0
6
D
0 0&! ' 1
) 99
9
9
0 0&! ' ! 1
))9
94
0 0&! # &(1
) :
4 99
9
099
0 0&! & $&1
!6E
E
6E
9
9
/9
6
E
K
0 0&! & '!1
=4
9
4
< 9
=
0 0&! & #(1
&:"!
6
&)! 9 G
4
-
4
0 0&! & !&1
#G
9
4
0 0&! !$1
'6
4
0 0&! & &$1
$64
/9
6
4
9
.
0 0&! & &&1
(< 9
<
D
/
9
A+
/
-
/
/9
6E
/
0 0&! & '1
1
9 2
/4 9
<
4
H
F
.
<
Q
0 0&! $' 1
)
0 0&! $ 1
6 4
0& .
/
49
.
9 6
. /4
;
0 0&! ' 1
!! .
89 9 0
9
943 /
4
3
A
0 0&! & 1
!6
94
4
4
9
/
4
9
K
0 0&! ' 1
!&
4
/
4
/
/
0 0&! # 1
!#
/
F,
0 0&! &) 1
!' 1
9 /
9
4
9
0 0&! &$ 1
!$
/9
9
0 0&! !) 1
!(<
E
9 .
9
K
9
0 0&! !( 1
! 6
<
9
336 4
0 0&! ) $ 1
!)6
4 4
K 9
0 0&! ) '# 1
! <
9
/
9
0 0&! ) '! 1
! /
9
3
/
4
4
0 0&! ) #) 1
6
9
9
4
4
4A
0 0&! ) #! 1
&
4
9
9
6
E
4
94
<
9 4
0 0&! ) &' 1
#
4
4
@
9
0 0&! ) !# 1
'69 4
9
9
4
/4 9
0 0&! $( 1
$<9
6
K
9 6
/
9
4
4.
K
0 0&! $ 1
(6
4
-Q
9 0 0&! #' 1
84
6
9
4
4 4
/
4 4
/
9 4 4 <4
4
9
6
9
/
E
9
DD
0 0&! ( #( 1
)-
/
9
4
9
4
0 0&! & $ 1
4
4
/4 9
/
/
4
6
E
4
/6
9
0 0&! & !( 1
&!9
0(0&! &(1
&B
/9
9
9
/
/4
9
2
&!
0(0&! !!1
&&- 49
0(0&! ! $1
&#B
9
+
/
.
0(0&! ! $!1
&'<
3
.
1:"<9
4
3
9
9
2
0(0&! ! '$1
&$6
E
< 4
4
09 B
.
/1 /
.
G+<;
0(0&! ! '$1
&(C 9
9
4
2
0(0&! ! '1
& 8
4
9
2
4
0(0&! ! '1
&)<
49
< 9
9
6.<
AF
<
/
/
,9
.
.<
/
9
4
8
G
0(0&! ! &!1
& F
0(0&! ! )1
#!,
/9
E 4 <
9
92
A
0(0&! ! (1
#8
/6
/
3
0(0&! ! ! 1
#&
9
0(0&! ! !$1
##
9
0
0
9
0(0&! ! !#1
#'6
4
/
/4 9
<4
9
6
0(0&! ! !#1
#$B
/
E
/
4 "
0(0&! ! !#1
#(< 9K
/
9
9
0(0&! $ 1
# -
9
4
3
0(0&! $ 1
#)<
2
6
9
0(0&! $(1
# ;4/
4
9
/4
Q
9
6
4
4
"
.
0(0&! $#1
'! 6
.
4 0(0&! '&1
'6
9
9
4
0(0&! '!1
'&F
<
9 9
6
4
.
6 4'9
9
9
/
/
0(0&! # 1
'#<
2
69
9
3
9 /6
4
9
3
4
/
6 49
/6
E
9
/9
6
4
9
9
4
/
4
0(0&! ##1
''
/
/
/
9
4
F
4
4 9
9
4
/
49/
+
4
/
0(0&! &$1
'$<
Q9
G .
/
9
4 6
49
9
0(0&! &1
'(?
5,
.
K
9 /
9 9
/
2
4
9
49
.
0(0&! (1
' + /
6
0(0&! !)1
');
.
;"7
9
"
H
"
@
<
0(0&! !)1
' -
99
/69 4
.
;"79
4 6
9 49
Q
/
9
9
4
0(0&! !1
$!6
9 6
E
E
/
6
/ ; " 7 4
3
/
4
9
0(0&! ) $ 1
$:
9
49
4
0(0&! ) ''1
$&8
2
0(0&! ) '&1
$#+94
/9
<
0
9
/
0Q
F 4
9
0(0&! ) '!1
$'-
/9
<4
9
3
/
9
/9
.
G
9
-
9
.
0(0&! ) # 1
$$<
9 9
4
4
/
/
.
0(0&! ) # 1
$(<
4 9
4
4
0(0&! ) #$1
$ -
E
4 9 "
,
4 DDF61G=9
0(0&! ) #'1
$)<
0(0&! ) #'1
$ -
E
4
&
0(0&! ) #&1
(!8
F
4
/ . /
0(0&! ) &(1
(G
/
4/
0(0&! ) &'1
(&7
3
3 5
5 0(0&! ) )1
(#6 .
K
4
9
"
H
"
@
6 F+<
9
.
/9
9
8
"
@
G
9
49
G /
9
4
"
@
/+
"
H
0(0&! ) (1
('
6
4
/9
F+<
2
9 64
9
0(0&! ) !$1
($<
9
6
/
6E
G
4
0(0&! ' 1
((6E
3
9
4
3
9/
K
4
3
0(0&! ')1
( G
G 7< G 7<
9 99
.
.
0(0&! '(1
()1
2
<
9
DD
0(0&! '#1
( 8
2
6
4
9
4
"
C
0(0&! # 1
!+
0(0&! # 1
6
9
8?8.<76.
4 92
"
9
4
9
0(0&! &1
&
D 0(0&! &1
#<
94
4
0(0&! &1
'
9
/
9
/
9
/
0(0&! &!1
$1
0(0&! )1
(
8
&
0(0&! ! 1
F
99
6
E
6
4
4 9
<
9
0(0&! !'1
).
K 6
4 6 93
Q
9K
4
9
4
0
0(0&! !1
6
/
3
4 9
/MM
/
6
9
/
99
0(0&! !!1
)!6
A
4 9
6
0(0&! ( $ 1
)8
S S
4 9
/
<
0(0&! ( $#1
)&<
9
3
0(0&! ( # 1
)#6 9
0
M
E
0(0&! ( &'1
)'6
/9
0(0&! ( &1
)$
/
9 /
9
0(0&! ( &!1
)(4 9
9M 9M9 9
0(0&! ( 1
) -
.
1 "
9
4
9
0(0&! ( 1
)). 4
4
4
0(0&! ( 1
) 6
9
9
9
4
-
4
9
0(0&! ( (1
!1
1
4 4 2
D-
0(0&! ( '1
6
0(0&! ( &1
&6 9
<
.
;"7 4 0(0&! ( &1
#.
9/
0(0&! ( 1
'-
4,99 ,
0(0&! ( ! 1
$.<
4
99/4
3
.
/
"
C
0(0&! ( !(1
(F4
/6
K
3 D 0(0&! ( !$1
6
9
5
5
6
9
9
4
9
4
0(0&! $ '(1
)-
2
A"4
0(0&! $ ''1
.
9
,
0(0&! ' $ 1
&!! -
9
4
4
< 2
4
4
0(0&! ' '1
&!
4
0(0&! ' #&1
&!& <
/9
E
2
4
4
/
9
/
4
4
0(0&! ' #!1
&!# 6
9
4
/6
4
/
9
0(0&! ' &$1
&!' <9
49
/ 4 4
4
4
94
2
0(0&! ''1
&!$ 69Q
/
90
9
A 0(0&! & 1
&!( 6
0(0&! &'1
&!
9
6
9
0(0&! #1
&!) +
K
.<
9
Q
0(0&! !'1
&! < 9 0(0&! & # 1
&!6
6
9
4 9 6 4
9
4
<
F
2
"
4 9
6
Q
"
K
K
2
.
0(0&! & ##1
&6
/ 39
4
9
57
<" 5/ 9"
@
9
H
?9 # /
4 9
/
9
B
B
G
9
/
4
9
1
/
84
.
&$E/
E
/
'3
3
9
6E4
B
G
.
/4
4
4
0(0&! '& 1
&&<
4
9
9
0(0&! && 1
&#- 9
9
;"7 -
;7"
4
DDD
0(0&! $ 1
&'<
0(0&! ! 1
&$6
2
( "4
2
0(0&! ! $ 1
&(@
4 /
3
9 F
9
9
3
0(0&! ! ' 1
& 5
9 5 6
E
4 9
0(0&! ! '' 1
&)-3
99
39
.
G 4
0(0&! '$ 1
& 6
.
3
9 /9
6
0(0&! #& 1
&&! 6
.
0(0&! &! 1
&&6
R
R
9
6
G
6
R
4
9
4
9
0(0&! ) '( 1
&&& 6
.
449
-
9
/
/6
4
4
/
K
Q
6
9
/
4
$
6
.
K
0(0&! $ 1
&&#
/
/
-
K/
9
2
/
9
9
0(0&! $& 1
&&' <
6
9
/
9
49
9
+4
9
9
4
, 4/
/
-
/9
9
M
/
9
K
<
4T
4
Q
4
4
0$0&! &&1
&&$ "
0$0&! ! # 1
&&( 6
E
5
4 9 5
4
8
.
59 5 +
8 6
/9
9 9
5
5<
9
9
0$0&! ! #$1
&&
9
4
9
9
0$0&! ! #1
&&) 6
E4
6E 9
6
6
/
/
/
/9
/
9409 /
4
9
/
0$0&! ! !&1
&& ? 4
.
6
9 4
.
0
4
<
.
4
9
4
9 6 4
9
8.
//
9
8.
0$0&! '(1
&#! <
6
4369 4
/
0$0&! #$1
&#
<
.+:?,9
0$0&! &&1
&#& 6 9
?
9
0$0&! ) $)1
&## ;
4
<
0$0&! ) $'1
&#' 4
0
/
9
9 9
A
/ /! /
9
0$0&! ) '1
&#$ 6
9 9
<
9
3
Q
F
/9
0$0&! ) # 1
&#(; 3
4/
/
8
9/9
3
<Q
0$0&! ) 1
&# "
;"7 C
4 T(!G/
T!!GI 0$0&! ) $1
&#) 6
94
0$0&! ) ! 1
&# 6
E9
.
G
89
8.
7
9 4
"
@
/
4 34 + 9
.
9 4
9
K
0$0&! ) !(1
&'! 6E
9
4
0$0&! $ 1
&' 8
/
E
4
9
;4
4
/
0$0&! # 1
&'& 9
9
9 0
C
9
0$0&! '1
&'# .9
4
0$0&! !1
&'' F
4
9
/
9
E
0
E
0$0&! ( $!1
&'$ 6 4
1 4
"
6
9
9
9
4
3
<
4
9
; " 7 9
0$0&! ( ')1
&'( 6
3
49
9Q
9 L
0$0&! ( ' 1
&' 6
4
/ 9
94
4
G
4
1
C /1
7 .
6
4
8
4 4
:
4
4 "
0$0&! ( #!1
&') B
4 0$0&! ( &$1
&' ?4
0$0&! ( !1
&$! -
9 42
D-
.
E
!
D 0$0&! ( !#1
&$.
9
<
4
.
0$0&! ( !#1
&$&
0$0&! ( !!1
&$# G
9
.<
<
49
0$0&! $ $ 1
&$' <
1:"<9
<
9
0$0&! $ $#1
&$$
<
94
0$0&! $ $!1
&$( 9
4 9
99
0$0&! $ ' 1
&$ <
9 0$0&! $ '&1
&$) 1
93
M
/
0$0&! $ '&1
&$ -
G 7<
9
4/
9
9
0$0&! $ '1
&(! .
&'0 L
/ /
9L
<94
9
/ /
94
6
9
<
2
9
9
0$0&! $ ##1
&("
Q90
4
"
E
18
0$0&! $ &)1
&(& <.
9 9 9
9
4
0$0&! $ & 1
&(#6
/9
6
G
9
0$0&! $ &'1
&(' 6
K
6
0$0&! $ &1
&($ <
33
0$0&! $ 1
&(( 69 4
4
4
2
6
0$0&! $ '1
&( @
<
4 9
.
0$0&! $ '1
&() /
8
.<
0$0&! $ #1
&( 6
4
0$0&! $ #1
& ! F
9 <
9 <
9
M
9
4
0$0&! $ 1
&
0$0&! $ !1
& & "
"
8
K
4
9
6
E
94 A
0$0&! $ !1
& # <.
4 9 0
/
/
D
0$0&! & $#1
& ' <
9
9
.
44
/
=/
4
/9
/
E
<4
E
E64
4
/
49
/
9
9
2
6
E
E
/4
9
/
4
4
9
/
/
?
G 7<
/
/9
G 7<
0$0&! #)1
& $ <
9
3
4
2
/
0$0&! #!1
& ( 6 4
. 4 0$0&! & !$1
& 6 /
9
0$0&! ') 1
& ) ?
9
54 538.
/ "
!4 9 40
A
0$0&! '' 1
& <
.
<
2
4
94
9
0$0&! #' 1
&)! <.
1
0$0&! &$ 1
$$
K
7
9
" !
) $(%) $(%
()#
!#% !#%
)(
! %! %
(
! ('%! ('%
$
)!
)$ &)%)$ &)%
(((
)% )%
&
& )%& )%
! %! %
(
)
)! &)%)! &)%
(&
( # %( # %
&)
& #!%& #!%
)
!&% !&%
)
)
( (% ( (%
$ (
&)% &)%
$!
& $ %& $ %
&!
$'% $'%
&
)
( #&% ( #&%
$ #
#% #%
$!
& )#%& )#%
&&
$'% $'%
&
# $)% # $)%
$
&& !'%&& !'%
# ! %# ! %
&'
& % & %
!
(
# &#% # &#%
$(
&& & %&& & %
#
& #&%& #&%
)
& %& %
$ )(%$ )(%
''
# ''%# ''%
&''
(!% (!%
$
# ! %# ! %
&'
(
$$ &'%$$ &'%
'#&
# #'%# #'%
& &
$ &%$ &%
'!
& #!%& #!%
)
)&
#& %#& %
&')
') $%') $%
# '
#% #%
&
# % # %
$
F
, "
,
7
K
"
9
, 4
7
4
9
.9
"
.
J
7 0
@
Q
!
&!!
'!!
(!!
)!!
!!!
$()&&! &')$
( ) &! &&&')$ '!
&)( &
&)$! $!
#
&''& &
# '
()#((((& $ ( $ #$ $(
'' '#&
&')
F
F
, , "
, "
, <
<
7
3
K
"
9 0
, 4
7
494
.9
9
"
.
4 4
J
7 0
4 9
@
Q
((6
4
4/
.
9
4
4
9
9
2
.
N1
6
/.
!N?
6
F
4 8
9
4
2
! ,
9 8 U.
6
V 9
W
U.
V@
4 9
W
9
9
!
)' "
.
6
3 9
&
!
#!
))
()
$(
$!
'!
#(
'
&$
'!
&
&$
.
3@
.
6
3
<
3
"
!
&!
&
!
'#
!!
&#
'
!!
!!
$)
&
)'
$&
(#
'$
&#
'#
(
(
8
4
8
3
9
.
!&
)
(
)
))
)#
)$
!
((
'
(
&$
'
'
#'
8
3-
.
4
G
'#
(
##
')
($
'
$!
'(
')
$$
('
()
(
!$
#
$
(
)$
#
'
)'
9
.
G
! &! '! (! )! !! &! '! (! )!&!!
#(
(
&!
#
&
''
#'
$
$
)$
(#
&
!
&&
))
#)
$ % $ %
&
# & %# & %
&$
' %' %
#(
( $'%( $'%
$!
##% ##%
$(
) !%) !%
()
$&% $&%
))
!&% !&%
#!
&& &$%&& &$%
!
( ))%( ))%
&
('
# (
# & %# & %
&$
$ &(%$ &(%
'!
)'% )'%
'
$ &(%$ &(%
'!
(#% (#%
$)
'% '%
'
# (%# (%
!!
' ' %' ' %
!
$ %$ %
&!
&# $$%&# $$%
(!
#
& ! %& ! %
(
# !%# !%
&#
$ ))%$ ))%
'$
( )!%( )!%
$&
'% '%
&
# ! %# ! %
!!
( !)%( !)%
&#
) ( %) ( %
'#
$ )&%$ )&%
&
$% $%
!
($
' &(
) !%) !%
(
$ ('%$ ('%
'#
#&% #&%
) & %) & %
(#
!&% !&%
)'
# &%# &%
!!
& %& %
) !%) !%
(
! &'%! &'%
)
# # %# # %
!&
(&
$ !$
& #!%& #!%
'
$ # %$ # %
'
) %) %
(
) ('%) ('%
((
)% )%
!
! )(%! )(%
)#
$&% $&%
))
! #'%! #'%
! !)%! !)%
! #'%! #'%
('
$ #$
' '(%' '(%
#'
! # %! # %
( '!%( '!%
&$
& #'%& #'%
'
& %& %
$% $%
)$
! !%! !%
! &'%! &'%
)
( #!%( #!%
')
$ ('%$ ('%
'#
(&
$
) %) %
'
! $%! $%
)$
((% ((%
$
# $#%# $#%
!$
) (#%) (#%
(
) &$%) &$%
('
( %( %
')
( ''%( ''%
$!
) #)%) #)%
($
% %
(
(
( (
!)% !)%
)'
&)% &)%
#
$ #!%$ #!%
(
& & %& & %
#
& !%& !%
) %) %
()
&(% &(%
$$
( ! %( ! %
'(
$ '%$ '%
'
' #$%' #$%
##
$)
( $'
) !(%) !(%
#)
$ %$ %
&&
' '!%' '!%
!
' ((%' ((%
&
#% #%
)$
&% &%
$
$ (%$ (%
''
$ !%$ !%
#
& ' %& ' %
' %' %
#(
('
( (
&#'$( ) !
&&##''$$(( )) !! <
<
" "
.
6
3 9
.
3@
4 9
.
6
31
K
0
<
3
"
.
4
4
4
9
/
/
8
4
8
3
7
4 9
9
9
.
3
7
9
8
3-
.
4
3
@
4
4
G
.
3
"
9
.
3
7 2
&& $%&& $%
&' #$%&' #$%
))
' #)%' #)%
% %
) (%) (%
(#
#)% #)%
$
' '!%' '!%
#'
& &%& &%
&
& $ %& $ %
&!
& ! %& ! %
(
&
$
G
.
3
.0
99
($! " '
** 7
7
,
,
.
.
4
& F
4
99
/
4 9 9 "
0 0&! ! ' 1
&1
4
1 ?
, 9
9
.
9
-
9
/
.
9
.
K
0)0&! ) $$1
#
64
0)0&! ) $'1
'
.<
D69 4
4
:
4 4
4
4
0)0&! # &'1
$<.
Q
6
C<
9
2 9
; " 7
0)0&! & )1
(<
DDD 0)0&! &# 1
6
/
# '
6
D6
E9
9
4
0 0&! ) !!1
)< 4
9
.
9
.
4
9
94
0 0&! ( # 1
6
4
9
4
9
0 0&! $ # 1
!6
; " 7
4
+
92
0 0&! $ 1
9
4
4
09 0
9
-
8
0 0&! & #1
&6
K
4
6
64
4
4
4
$!D -
4
9
49
9
/9/9/ 49
4
9
9
4
/
9
Q
6
9
'$
!
!/
0(0&! & # 1
#F
9
9
9
4
0$0&! ( !!1
'6 49
$!
.
6
4
/
6
K
4
@9
/6 4
3
9
0$0&! &$1
$1.
9094 0$0&! $( 1
(1
89 7+ ,
89 4
0$0&! ( 1
.
9A 0'0&! &' 1
)9
4
/9
9
9
0#0&! #'1
<
4
&!
3
.<
/
/ 3
0#0&! # &&1
&!?
G
334
D 0#0&! & $(1
&<
9 0
1 /
. /
.
9
<
9
0#0&! & $'1
&&-
9
4 9 "
9
6
9 /
9
09
949
0#0&! & &&1

0&0&! #1
&'
4 99
.
1
. 9 0&0&! $ #(1
&$6E
4
2
4 "
H
"
@
6
9
C
4.
"<
4
0&0&! # $ 1
&(6
9
9
/ /
0&0&! & &(1
& 6
99
/
4
/
4
00&! # ! 1
&)
.<
9 F
< 9
9
00&! !# 1
& <
. 4
#
/
1
8.
/
8.
/
9
. .
<
" ,
.
00&! ( &( 1
#!"
33
3
00&! $ ' 1
#:
/
/
/:K
@ 7
4
9
"
00&! & &( 1
#&"
/4 9
4
F
2
.
4
0"
@
4 <
<
00&! & ' 1
##-
<
2
9
4
4
6
4
/
"
C
4
2
0!0&! ! !)1
#'-
G 6
E
<
9
;
#
7
4
E
0!0&! ) 
#$B
4
8
8
9 9
2
0!0&! ) (1
#(B
D
F
9
0!0&! ( ' 1
# <
/
9
/
9
9 0!0&! $ '1
#)
4
94
Q
9 0!0&! # '$1
#
K
+
9
9
0!0&! # 1
'!/
949
0!0&! & &(1
'6
33
9 . /1
.
F
6
K
9
9 /
3
4
/
0
4
0!0&! $(1
'&"
9
0!0&! #(1
'#64
3
/
1
9
.
4
/
. 4/9
E
9
/
/
09
4
0!0&! !$1
''<
3
M
1 ,
3
9
0
K
49
0!0&! ! ! 1
'$6
1
$)!
9
&
"@+/
9+
;
E
0!0&! ## 1
'(-
3
9
3
4
4
4
0!0&! & 1
' -
" 1
4
0!0&! & && 1
')64
K
/
9 4
2
/9
4
4
9
B
49
9
/
9
0 0&! &(1
' B
9
0 0&! ' & 1
$!<
5
5
54
5
9
E
4
9
3
.
;"7
4
4
< /
9
/
;"7
9
/
Q 4
4
9
4
;4/
4
9 /
0
0
+
/Q8
3-
9 /
"
4
2
09
9 9
4
/
0K0
:
4
/
+
9
/9 /
4
/
4
9 4
4
9
/
4
Q
9
9
9
/
9
K
9
4
9
9
-
9
3 -
4
< 9
/
9
4
9 4
49
9
4
4
9.<
<
9
/
4 49
/9
9
Q
4
4
Q
/
0 0&! # 1
$F
9 @
9
2
0 0&! # #1
$&; F+<
0 0&! ) !# 1
$#6
4
9
.
4 6E4
4
/
9
0 0&! ( ' 1
$'7
4
3
.
9
/
0)0&! &$1
$$"
*9
E
9
DD 0)0&! $'1
$(6
E
/9 /
64 4
(/
4
0)0&! ) ' 1
$ <
9
;
9
9 4
3
/
0)0&! ) #$1
$)"4
5
59/
4
49
9
9
0)0&! ( &)1
$ C
9
4 9
4
4
9 0)0&! $ '!1
(!G
39
4'
9
&
9
/
9
4
&D
0)0&! $ #$1
(6
.
/9
/
4
?
E
4
4/
0)0&! #(1
(&
Q
9
3
0)0&! ! 1
(#< 9
4 /
4
/
G 7<
G
0)0&! ! ' 1
('6
K
.
3
4
0)0&! ! &) 1
($6
3
9
3
TT
9
09
6
9
E
4
4
4
4
E
-4
9
+ 2
L.
0)0&! !! 1
((< 49
" /
9
<
9 9
44
E
4
0)0&! ) # 1
( 1
.
"
4/
94
4
<
/ 4
4
/
/
4 /9
/
0 0&! ' 1
()-4
/
/
99
K
4
< Q
2
4 9
/
-
4
.
9
0 0&! (1
( <
9
4
E
0 0&! &1
!. 4
9
4
8
1
;
G4 .
/
0 0&! ! ##1
9
Q9
9
0 0&! '#1
&"
/9
/L 0 0&! ( #(1
# 8
1
0 4
K
;
5
5
9
0 0&! ( #$1
'B
4
3
4
0 0&! ( &(1
$6
9
0 0&! ( 1
(.
/
/
9 4
0 0&! ( 1
.4
3
/
0
/
2
4
0 0&! ( ! 1
)*(
-
9
6
4
6
4 9
/
4
0 0&! $ #&1
6.
4
9
9
3
"
H
"
@
6
E
3
4
4
0 0&! $ #!1
)!
9
4
/
4
9
0 0&! $ ! 1
)"
.
9 /
0 0&! $ !(1
)&6
9
9 A 0 0&! ' $1
)#.<
4
6 4
"
/9
/
6
E
99339
0 0&! ' #(1
)'<
4
3
<
9
,-; <8C87
0 0&! ' ! 1
)$
6
4
9
/
0 0&! # &(1
)(< 2
2
34
4
"
2
D
0 0&! & $'1
) 1/2
/
4
B9
0 0&! & $&1
))
0 0&! & '$1
) <
4 0 0&! & '!1
!F
0 0&! & '!1
,1:.;G8<<87Q9
.<
"@+ 6
4
4
49 ,
E
9
E
9
0 0&! & #(1
&F
09
4
4
0 0&! & ##1
#
;"7
6
&)!
M&
.
/
9:F,87B7+:F,
0 0&! & 1
'7
;"7
9
,9
0 0&! & !(1
$
9
!!
#P
G
/
2
/ 3
/
949 0
-
AA
0 0&! & !#1
(B
<
4
E 4
33
0 0&! & !&1
0 0&! $!1
)
9 0 0&! #&1
-
0 0&! &)1
!! F
0 0&! &)1
!- 4
1
/9
/
0 0&! $1
!&6
4
E
9
9 <9
4
0 0&! !$1
!#7
9 4 0 0&! & $ 1
!'
1
1
C
4
# 0 0&! & $(1
!$ 0 0&! & $#1
!(<
DDDD6
/6
9
6
92
"
9
9
0 0&! & '(1
! 6 4
1
.
6
9
0 0&! & ##1
!)- 9
4+7
4
4 0
.
; " 7
/4
Q
@
9
9
/
9
4
3
D
0 0&! & #&1
! 3 0 0&! & &)1
!
3
9 0 0&! & &$1
0 0&! & &'1
&6
9
0 0&! & &'1
#8
4
2
/
4
9 ?
E
E
/
<
/
9
0 0&! & &&1
'"
/9
4
14
0
G
9
9
/9
7+6
4
Q
0 0&! & &&1
$. ?<
4 4 /
2
B 4
9
0 0&! & 1
(< 9
2
99
@
/
2
2 "
/
9
/
/
0 0&! & '1
6
9
7
4
77
<
9
0 0&! & !(1
)6
9
3
/6 9
4
"
H
"
H
.<
0 0&! $' 1
G
4
9
9
0 0&! $' 1
&!4
.
9 0 0&! $ 1
&
0 0&! '$ 1
&&G
4
<
9
<
E
#
<
5Q5
.
6
E /9
6
.
9
0 0&! ' 1
&#<
0 0&! # 1
&'
K
/
/
/
<
0 0&! # 1
&$
:
4
A 0 0&! #' 1
&(?
E9 9
4/4
4
4
0 0&! &) 1
& 6
4
0 0&! & 1
&)
/
9
"
4
09
/
4
0 0&! & 1
& 6
0 0&! ! $$ 1
#!6
2
9
3
A 0 0&! ! '( 1
#F
0 0&! ! #( 1
#&6
9
64
4
6
9
4
K
0 0&! ! # 1
##6
94
0 0&! ! ! 1
#'
0
"94 4
6
D
0 0&! $) 1
#$8
D; 3 9 0 0&! $& 1
#(6
4
3
3
9
9
0 0&! ' 1
# <
0 0&! ') 1
#)
0 0&! ' 1
# -
9
/
9
0 0&! '$ 1
'!
9
9
4
9
3 4
9
99
4
9
"
E
9
9
9
4
9
4 4
Q
9 9
4
9
3
349
4
3
32
3
4 9
3
-
4 /4 9
/
//
0 0&! # 1
'F
0 0&! & 1
'&
4
9
9
9
9
0 0&! &) 1
'#
0 0 0&! &$ 1
''"
0 0&! ) 1
'$7
0 0&! 1
'(6
/
4
4
94
0 0&! !) 1
' 7
9 9D
K9
9
9
0 0&! !( 1
')< 9
B
2 99
0 0&! !& 1
' <Q
3
9
.<
Q
/
9 =4
4
4
3
"6
6
2
9
.<
9
4 4
9
0 0&! ! 1
$!4
E
9
0 0&! ) $ 1
$<
9 "6<<6FB+F<7 .J"
< 9
69
8C87=, =
0 0&! ) $ 1
$&.
9
6
9
;"7/
.
0 0&! ) $ 1
$#8
0 0&! ) $ 1
$'F 0 0&! ) $) 1
$$
4 9Q
0 0&! ) ' 1
$(-
4
.
9
/
9
4
0 0&! ) '# 1
$ 4
9 0 0&! ) '! 1
$)F
0"
"
4
9
3
1
F0"
/
3
0 0&! ) #) 1
$ 6
94
4
0 0&! ) #$ 1
(!6
9
/6E
T
0 0&! ) #! 1
("
0 0&! ) &' 1
(&G4
84
9
4/
E
9
3
;9
9
9
/
9
,
E
-
9
4
-E
0 0&! ) &' 1
(#,
9
89
.
0 0&! ) &# 1
('
0 0&! ) $ 1
($C
9
9
9
0 0&! ) 1
((6
E
9
9
94
0 0&! ) ! 1
(
6
9
9
9
4
4
0 0&! ) !# 1
()1
9
0 0&! $( 1
( 6
<
9
9
9
/
4 9
4
.
0 0&! $( 1
!6
/
9
G 7<
"@
93
9
/
3
F=.
84
3
9
/
4 9
69 4
4
4
9
0 0&! $& 1
D-
4 9
0 0&! $ 1
&6
4
6 F+<
Q
F=
0 0&! #( 1
#8
9
-49 "
9
6
0 0&! #' 1
'"
8
0 0&! #& 1
$F
0 0&! #& 1
(6
4
-
9
4
0 0&! &$ 1
<9
4
9
- 9
9
0 0&! &! 1
)6
9
0 0&! 1
0 0 0&! ! 1
)!.
0 0&! !& 1
)
,
- 9
0 0&! !! 1
)&19
9
9
/
9 /
9 9
2
0 0&! ( $) 1
)#F
0 0&! ( $( 1
)'
4
4
/
9
9
0 0&! ( '$ 1
)$7
4
0 0&! ( '' 1
)(.
9
4 /9
4
9
0 0&! ( '! 1
) < 4
9
.
/
<
9
4
9
9
<
4
4
H
@
!!
$!1;D
0 0&! ( #( 1
))F 3
0 0&! ( ) 1
) 7 4
9
<
9 43
Q
4
2 34
2
0
0 0&! $ $) 1
!
9
4
9
7
4
4
G
4
/
G
/
2
9
9 -
9
/4
/
"
.
<
9/9
6
3
/
9 3
/
3
6
Q
4
9 /
.
4/
<
0
1
.
/
4
9
/ 4
/
4
3
6
E
9
4/
6
E
59
5
4
93
0 0&! $ #( 1
69 4
9
4
3
4
/
/
2
0 0&! $ #$ 1
&69 4
9
<4
94
T!
&('1
<
D
0 0&! # '# 1
#6E
4
9
4
0 0&! & $ 1
'F
9
4 0 0&! #! 1
$B
4
9
4
9
9
4
9
0 0&! !& 1
(
9
3
6E
4
9
9
49
0 0&! & !( 1
9 9
4
TT 0 0&! & ! 1
).
DD 0(0&! $&1
F
0(0&! '(1
&!! 6 9
99 /9
9
/ F=
9
0(0&! &(1
&!F0 0(0&! 
&!& ?
E
0(0&! (1
&!# "
/9 /
9
0(0&! '1
&!' 6
8
3-
4
6
0(0&! !1
&!$ F
0(0&! !1
&!( < 49
9
4 0(0&! ! 1
&!
4/4
94
9
0(0&! !!1
&!) 0(0&! ! $1
&! .0 09
/
0
/
/9
9
<
+
0
9
09 -
9
6
.
4
9
4
9
.
0(0&! ! $!1
&!6
E
4
0(0&! ! ')1
&@
.
.
99
6
9
9
+46
6
/
9
/
.
9
=
E
/
9
E
3
6
E
3
/ 9
E
9
0(0&! ! '$1
&& 2
B++,Q9
,
E
5;
45Q9/ @
/
E
73
.
/1 <
0(0&! ! '$1
&#B
4
0(0&! ! '#1
&'64
3
+
8 0(0&! ! '1
&$
4 F=
9
4
0(0&! ! '1
&(6
E
45
5
4
4
89
99
"
'
0(0&! ! & 1
&
0 0(0&! ! &)1
&)/
4
<G
/
99 .
4
9
9 7 .
1
K
.<
9
/
9
; " 7 D
0(0&! ! &!1
& F
0(0&! ! )1
&&! ,
E
.
K
0
0;"7
0(0&! ! (1
&&; 0(0&! ! (1
&&& -
4 .
4
0(0&! ! &1
&&# <
2
9
0(0&! ! ! 1
&&'
0(0&! ! !)1
&&$
/
/
6
9 /
0(0&! ! !(1
&&( F
0(0&! ! !$1
&&
0(0&! ! !'1
&&) 4
94 9
0(0&! ! !#1
&& "
9
944
B
0(0&! ! !#1
&#! .
9
2
0(0&! ! !#1
&#
0(0&! ! !&1
&#&
9 Q
3
93
4:
4
89 4. 9 0
I< .1
.
0(0&! $ 1
&## -
4
9 /
0(0&! $ 1
&#' -
4
9
9
9< HE
4/
9
8
9
<
/9
4
4 .
4
@
9
/
E
&
D
0(0&! $ 1
&#$ <
.
6
4
.
"
14 "
'
;"7
0(0&! $ 1
&#(
0(0&! $ 1
&#
:
4
89 <,
4
0(0&! $(1
&#) F 0(0&! $$1
&# 6
9
4
9
9
6
E
6
99
6
/
9
A
0(0&! $#1
&'! G
0(0&! $&1
&' F
0(0&! ' 1
&'& 6
.
9"
C
<
6
4
/
/
0(0&! '&1
&'# 194.<
4
<
4
0(0&! '!1
&'' <
2
9 0(0&! # 1
&'$
0(0&! #)1
&'( 6
4
4
4
0(0&! #(1
&' 69 4
9
9
/
3
4
/
4
/
36
/
4
0
9 /
4
4
6 49
6
E
9
6
/
E9
0(0&! ##1
&') 6
9
3
9 0
F 9
4
Q
4
4 49
9
0(0&! &$1
&' 0(0&! &&1
&$! <
< 4
4 9
0(0&! &1
&$
4 9
0(0&! &!1
&$& ,
/9
4
0(0&! 1
&$# 6
0(0&! )1
&$' F
9 0(0&! (1
&$$ 8
0(0&! $1
&$( B
4
"6
"
0(0&! &1
&$ ?8 "8
1:.;
0(0&! 1
&$) F+;6B;"88,<7 6F" 0(0&! !)1
&$ F0 0(0&! !)1
&(!
9
89 7 0(0&! !)1
&(F
9 0(0&! !(1
&(& -
.
9
4
0(0&! !&1
&(# .
0(0&! !&1
&(' <
6
4
4
9
K
4
0(0&! !1
&($ 6E
5
5
E
2
( B
D
0(0&! ) $ 1
&(( -
/6
0(0&! ) $)1
&(
/6
9
3
<
4
/9
/
/
9
9
.<
0(0&! ) $)1
&() 6Q
4
"
K
K
9
0(0&! ) $&1
&( <
9
0(0&! ) $&1
& ! <
6.
/
Q
E4 ;4/
3
6
/
4
.
0(0&! ) ' 1
& 6
4/
/
49
<
0(0&! ) ' 1
& & 4 9
.
4 4
/ 4
64
,
E
4
,
E
3
4
0(0&! ) ''1
& # <
9
0(0&! ) '&1
& ' 6
99
/9
9
39
/ /
3
4
69
6
4
44
0(0&! ) '!1
& $ 1
9
4 J
3
/
9
4
/
"
9
+
"
84
0(0&! ) # 1
& ( 6.
'
"
@
6
4
4
/
4
/
3
0(0&! ) # 1
& 8
9 0(0&! ) #$1
& ) 19
4 9 4
G
E
9F61G=D
0(0&! ) #'1
& 6
9
9
0(0&! ) #'1
&)! F
0(0&! ) #'1
&)P 0(0&! ) #&1
&)& 6
"
/
/
4 ;
4
4
0(0&! ) #1
&)# "
9
0(0&! ) & 1
&)' </
9
< 4
/
/
9
0(0&! ) & 1
&)$ .
.
D 0(0&! ) & 1
&)( 8
9
+
8 0(0&! ) &(1
&) 84
9Q
< 9
4
9
0(0&! ) &'1
&))
0(0&! ) &&1
&) "
0(0&! ) &!1
& !
K"
F
K
/8
-
34 -
3
9+F?=
8
2
9
9 9 K
33
4
3
4
0(0&! ) )1
& G 4
9
K @
9
9 .
9
4
4/
9
4
0(0&! ) (1
& & .
E
D 0(0&! ) '1
& # F
0(0&! ) #1
& ' 6
9
94
9
TG 0(0&! ) !1
& $ -4
K
6
E
54
55
5 6
4
4
4
0(0&! ) !(1
& ( -
F
9
/ 9
9 0 Q
0(0&! ) !$1
& +
8
3
/
/
0(0&! ) !'1
& ) 8
4
NN 0(0&! $(1
& @
4
4
2!!
<
9
/
9
.
0(0&! $$1
#!!
0(0&! $$1
#!6
E
E
9
"
H
9
0(0&! $'1
#!& "
0(0&! $1
#!# .
2
/
4 9
9
2
B
D
0(0&! ' 1
#!'
3
/6E
4
3
3
/
/
9
0(0&! ')1
#!$ 9
4
9
0(0&! ' 1
#!( G
G 7< - 99
/
0
8
G
0(0&! '(1
#! 64
4 1:"<9
D 0(0&! '#1
#!) "
7
0(0&! '#1
#! 0(0&! # 1
#!"
9
0(0&! # 1
#F0 0(0&! #$1
#&00 0(0&! ##1
##"
9
8" 0(0&! & 1
#'E
D 0(0&! & 1
#$-
; " 7
E
6
E9
;4/
.<
9
2
/
3
6
8
3-
4
4
.
9
9
/
99
=
9
8
1
1
C
6
/
9
.
/
G4
M
E
4
0(0&! &(1
#(
0(0&! &'1
# 6
4
0(0&! &&1
#) 0(0&! &1
#
D 0(0&! &1
#&! F
0(0&! &1
#& 5B
5F
0
9
E
0(0&! &!1
#&& K 0(0&! &!1
#&# 1
9
0(0&! )1
#&' 6
4
4
9
0(0&! '1
#&$ 94
4
7
9
0(0&! #1
#&( F
0(0&! #1
#& 7
9
4
0(0&! 1
#&)
.
/
4
"2
9
.
0(0&! !1
#& +
9
9 0(0&! ! 1
##! F
0(0&! ! 1
##.
<
.
99
/
Q 64
9
3
0(0&! !)1
##& F
0(0&! ! 1
### <
49
0(0&! !'1
##' 3 0(0&! !#1
##$ ?
E
0(0&! !1
##( 6
/
//
/
3
0(0&! !!1
## 6
K
9
D
0(0&! ( $ 1
##) "
4
/9
2
0(0&! ( $ 1
## 6
39
80-
0(0&! ( $(1
#'! 6
E
4
4
4
0(0&! ( $$1
#'F
0(0&! ( $#1
#'& <.<
4 4
/
4
.<
9
4
0(0&! ( $#1
#'# -
4
4
0(0&! ( $1
#''
4/6
4
<
/ 4
/
0(0&! ( $!1
#'$ -
-
.
/"
@
0(0&! ( ' 1
#'( F
9
4
0(0&! ( '#1
#' <
4
0(0&! ( '1
#')
0(0&! ( # 1
#' @
2
5
4 9
/564
9 6
E
-
9
4
54 9
5A
0(0&! ( # 1
#$! ,
/9
0(0&! ( # 1
#$.
3
4
9
64
. "
9
4
89 7
9
0(0&! ( #(1
#$& 6
9 9
/
0(0&! ( #'1
#$# ; " 7
; 94
.
;"7
"
H
"
@
4
2
.
;"7
'
(
99
94
<
&$%
#!%
4 ;!
8.
G
9
9
;"7
2
9
3
4 8
1RU<G
.
W
.
/;"7/
4
8 <G
.
4
4
.
;"7
UPW .
/;"7
4 U<G
.
0<W 4
<
U
/WUX8
WC
9
9
4 <
4
4
4
4
4
+94
Q
9
9
9
4
44 6
K
4 <
G
.
0<
4
Y<
4
K
ZF
94
4
9
72
4
3
4
UX8
W 99
4
<
8.
;!9
"
H
"
@
9
9
&! .
Q
4 T('
; " 7 /;"7/ 2
7
;"7 4
9
&!
<
0"
H
"
@
1 K
4
9
K
<G 1
9
/5
95
9
9
/
/
"
9 &!
#!
K
4
4
5
5=
4 K 4
9
=
;"7
/;
494
;"7
94
;
/ K
#
<G
.
00
4 0&! 0(0&)0$) ! #'0
33
39
3
3
3
3
3
"<
4
9
9
00 Q
0G
3
36
4
0;
3
3"
0?
3
3
3
"<
3'(#&)(
00
0
00
0&!$0!0	
0
3 3
0
00
9 0
A4N27&[#[P=6<94
9
;"7/.
<
0(0&! ( #&1
#$' 44 0(0&! ( & 1
#$$
0 0(0&! ( & 1
#$( -
4
/
/
/
0(0&! ( &$1
#$
0(0&! ( &$1
#$)6
9
0(0&! ( &$1
#$ ; 3
0(0&! ( &'1
#(! 0(0&! ( &'1
#("
94
4/9
6E
4
9
@/
494
M9
4
6
E
5
5
"
F+<
1
1
C
A /6
4
(M
/
E
0(0&! ( &'1
#(& 6
2 0(0&! ( &1
#(# ;
4
.
6
4
0(0&! ( &1
#(' 6
G
0(0&! ( &!1
#($
99
9 /
94 0(0&! ( 1
#(( -
3
"
K
+
9
+
K
9
+
"
"
0(0&! ( 1
#( P 0(0&! ( )1
#() ?4
0(0&! ( 1
#( B
4
9
0(0&! ( (1
# ! -
9
"
9
D 0(0&! ( '1
# 6
4
0(0&! ( &1
# & 6
4
"
C5 0(0&! ( &1
# # 8
/4
3
-
1
L1
C 0(0&! ( &1
# ' B 4
/9 /
/
0(0&! ( 1
# $ 0(0&! ( !1
# ( 6
<
4 0(0&! ( ! 1
# - 9
9
4 0(0&! ( ! 1
# ) F
0(0&! ( ! 1
# 0(0&! ( ! 1
#)! <"@3"H1
9
6
4
.<
9
4
9 4
/
9 4 94
3
0(0&! ( ! 1
#)6
4
"
.
/9 /
0(0&! ( !(1
#)&
.
F="99
4
4
0(0&! ( !(1
#)#
0(0&! ( !(1
#)' 1
0(0&! ( !$1
#)$ "
<
9
4
3
4
0(0&! ( !$1
#)( =
3 0(0&! ( !$1
#) 6E4
9
Q
0(0&! ( !#1
#)) <
9
99 6
/9
9
;46 4
9
9
Q9
0(0&! ( !&1
#) F0 0(0&! ( !1
# ! B
&
9
0(0&! ( !1
# ?
4
4
4
0(0&! $ '(1
# & -
9
9
;
4
9 A
0(0&! $ ''1
# # -
A 0(0&! $ &'1
# ' 6
.
"@M
E
99
2
-
.
+
43
4
3
4
/
E
<9
.
:
4
4/9
;
.
4
Q .
99
09
9
.
E
9
:
4
4
/
.
4
33
64
9
0(0&! ' $ 1
# $ F
4
0(0&! ' '&1
# ( <9
9
89
9
8.
0(0&! ' '1
#
/
0(0&! ' #&1
# ) 6
/
9 "
T$G
4
4
<
9
//9
/
4
4
42
/
/2
4
4
G
4
4
"
@
.
/
4
0(0&! ' #!1
# 6
L
4
/
"
. 6
0(0&! ' &$1
'!! F0 0(0&! ' &!1
'! 1
3
6
E
HG
T()9
Q
/
-
/6
6
/6E 78. ??
9
0(0&! ' 1
'!& <
9
.:<6F; ?@ 6
-;+?8<<;6"; 8FADD /
Q
0(0&! ' &1
'!# 7
9 .
9
9
G 7<
0(0&! ' !(1
'!' <G ,
G
49
-+7<;
D6
3
0(0&! ' !'1
'!$ 6
94
/6
4
4
4
49
0(0&! # $'1
'!( ,
0(0&! # '!1
'! ,
9 9 9
0(0&! # &1
'!) 6
49 /
4
0(0&! # ! 1
'! "
0(0&! & '(1
'! 6
9
.+F"< F<
/
2
<
4
9
3
3
3
0(0&! & # 1
'F;"7D@
4
0(0&! & 1
'&+9Q
4 9
0(0&! & !1
'#<
G
3
94
0(0&! $ 1
''1
4
0(0&! $'1
'$F 4
0(0&! $&1
'(,
9
2
9 Q9
G Q9
494
0(0&! ''1
'
0(0&! #'1
')1
<
4
E
43
0(0&! & 1
' ,
0(0&! &(1
'&! 64
3
3
/9 /
3
0(0&! &$1
'&<D 0(0&! &'1
'&& 7
9
4 0(0&! &'1
'&# 6E2
.
6
4 4
4
9
B
0(0&! #1
'&' ,4
9
0(0&! !'1
'&$
0(0&! !'1
'&( -
9
0(0&! !&1
'& <
9
4
4
4
9
0(0&! !!1
'&) < 9
4
94 &
4
4
4
9 9
4
0(0&! & $)1
'& B
4
4 0(0&! & '(1
'#!
4
0(0&! & '1
'# 0(0&! & # 1
'#& @
/
9
4
-
99
4
4
/
4
/9
/Q
;4
9
4 4
84
Q
4 9
9
=
9
.
/ 99
9
0(0&! & ##1
'## F
0(0&! & #1
'#' <
0(0&! & &(1
'#$
9
9 0(0&! & &(1
'#( -
9
6
4
4
K
0(0&! & (1
'# .
"
4
F 9
"
0
4
<
4 4
.
/
/ 9
0(0&! & #1
'#) 1
E
4 6
9
0(0&! $' 1
'#
/
0(0&! $' 1
''!
9
4
9 0(0&! ' 1
'':
3
3
3
4
9
1
49(!
B
/
49
9
/
B
4
4
0(0&! '& 1
''& 6
4
0(0&! &# 1
''# G
D33
4
933
/
/
/
9/
0(0&! && 1
''' - 9
9
;"7 -
;7"
4
DDDG
DDD
0(0&! $ 1
''$ 6
64
/4
/
6
6
4
K
0
8
1
.
-
4 4
0(0&! # 1
''( +94
H
E
9 9
"99
4
1
/
4 9
0(0&! ! 1
'' .
9
9
9
. /
6
99
/
9
9
0(0&! ! $ 1
'') @
4 /
4
3
3
9
0(0&! ! ' 1
'' 6
.
4
/4
9
<
9
/
0(0&! ! '' 1
'$! F
0(0&! $ 1
'$6
.
9
0(0&! '$ 1
'$& 84
D 0(0&! #' 1
'$# F
4
0(0&! ## 1
'$' 6
3
6
9
4
"
7 /+
8/89 7 6
/4/
4
4.
9
<
4
9
/
3
9
0(0&! #& 1
'$$
9
9
0(0&! &' 1
'$( 84
3:"
6
4
6
649
9
&!I
9
4
0(0&! &! 1
'$ "
4
0(0&! # 1
'$) "
M
0(0&! & 1
'$ <
9
9
9
0B
9
9
R 9
0(0&! ) '( 1
'(! 0(0&! ) ## 1
'(
&
3 /
9
#9
&
/ 9
0(0&! ) 1
'(& 6
4
6
/
6
9
0(0&! ) ! 1
'(# 6
4
.
K
6
.
4 /
4
9
0(0&! $ 1
'('F 0(0&! $$ 1
'($ 12
/ 9
9
9
1
9
<
/
/
0(0&! $& 1
'(( *(
9
@
/6
4
0(0&! '& 1
'( F
.
0(0&! &) 1
'()
.
4
9
9
0(0&! ( '# 1
'( B
D 0(0&! $ ) 1
' !
4
.
0(0&! & '$ 1
' 8
9 9
/4 /9 /
9
.
4
9
"
9
9 /
9
4
9
<
4T
Q
0$0&! &&1
' & <9
9'3
9
/ &3
4
2
<
9
9
6
4
9
.
6
4
0$0&! &&1
' # 6 .<
9
9
3
/
Q
/
9
0$0&! 1
' '
0$0&! !$1
' $ ,
9
8
1
9
4
0$0&! !#1
' ( 6
4 9
4 .<
/9
6
K
0
09
0$0&! ! '&1
'
-
1
.
Q
Q
9
0$0&! ! '&1
' ) -
.<
4
; " 7
90
-
/9 /
0$0&! ! '!1
' "
9
9
9 0$0&! ! '!1
')! +
.
.
/
9
<
49 9
&$.
.
0$0&! ! # 1
')<
<
6
0$0&! ! #$1
')& F
0$0&! ! $1
')# F0 0$0&! ! $1
')' 9
.
<
94
9
0$0&! ! #1
')$ <
3
"
9
0$0&! ! #1
')(
DDG
9
6
+
/9 0
4
6
4
/
/
/
DDDD
0$0&! ! !&1
') P 0$0&! $$1
')) 6
4
!
9
4
4
< 4
/ 4
4
/9
6
9
4
<.
/
9
4
@
2
/
49
/
"
:/
1G
"/
E
4
94
0$0&! ')1
') 1
4/
/
9
0$0&! ' 1
' ! ,D 0$0&! '(1
' <
44 .
4
3 9
9
"
9
/
09
0$0&! '(1
' &
9
< F+
9
"
H
1 9 -
/
9
/
G 7<
A
0$0&! '!1
' #
/
; " 0$0&! #)1
' ' < 3
.
09
1
.
,
E
0$0&! #$1
' $ "
4
3
99 0$0&! &(1
' (
9
4
0$0&! &&1
'
0$0&! &&1
' ) :
/
0$0&! &1
' "
9
F
9
0$0&! ! 1
$!! "
/
0$0&! ) $)1
$!?
9
:"
8 <
E
D<
0$0&! ) $'1
$!& 64
4
.<
/
9 6
4 9
6
K
.<
4
9
0$0&! ) $'1
$!#
0$0&! ) ')1
$!' 4
0$0&! ) '1
$!$
E
4
4
D 0$0&! ) #)1
$!( <
3
"
9
/
9
<
E
9
H&!&
49
9
3
:
/$
/
9
0$0&! ) # 1
$! 1
2
0$0&! ) #$1
$!) F
9
3
0$0&! ) 1
$! ;"7 9
4 /
4
9
/
9
4
/
9
/
G
0$0&! ) $1
$!
G
9
49
4
9
B 4
99
0$0&! ) $1
$6E
9 3
3
!! 6
E
9
4/
/9
39
K
0$0&! ) ! 1
$&=
E
Q
8
9
6
E
0$0&! ) ! 1
$#12
9
0
0$0&! ) ! 1
$'6
.
.
4 0$0&! ) !(1
$$6
/ 9
4
D 0$0&! ) !#1
$(G
6
Q
9
9
<
D
0$0&! $ 1
$ F
0$0&! $ 1
$)64
0$0&! $ 1
$
2
/8
1
0$0&! $1
$&! @
/4
7 4 9
9
0$0&! ' 1
$&6
9
.
0$0&! '$1
$&&
0$0&! '!1
$&# < 33
4
4
9
0$0&! # 1
$&' ?
E
9
/
4
9/
/9
0$0&! #$1
$&$
0$0&! &)1
$&( 1
4
8
1
F9H
8G
8.
8
1
"
"99
/
4
.
0$0&! &1
$& 64
.
4
9 0
9
$
0$0&! '1
$&) F 0$0&! 1
$& F
4
9
6
E
64
4
/
4 99
&!
0$0&! !1
$#! .
9
0$0&! !!1
$#6
9
0$0&! ( $ 1
$#& 00 0$0&! ( $(1
$## 8
9
9Q
4
0$0&! ( $'1
$#' 6 9/4
! 0$0&! ( $!1
$#$
9 0$0&! ( ')1
$#( 6
4
<9
< 9
0$0&! ( ')1
$# ;
94
8
4
F+F78"6,8F<6 ?
0$0&! ( ' 1
$#) 4
D-E4
/
9
0$0&! ( '!1
$# -
0$0&! ( #$1
$'!
0$0&! ( #$1
$'F0 0$0&! ( #'1
$'& 7
6
4
/ 9
94
4
G
4
1
C /1
7 .
6
4
8
4 4
:
4
4 "
94
9
94
4/
4
4 <
/
94
T/9
92
< 9
@1C
2 2
9
6
94 4 4
<
4/ 92
/
9
<
9
9
9
9
/
0$0&! ( #!1
$'# F
0$0&! ( &)1
$'' 6
9
/ 4
0$0&! ( & 1
$'$ 8
0$0&! ( &$1
$'( 3 0$0&! ( &1
$' -
/
949
4 0$0&! ( 1
$')
9
2
9/ 6
0$0&! ( 1
$'
0$0&! ( !1
$$! 6
94
4
6
0$0&! ( !(1
$$.
3
4
9
9
.
7
8
1
0$0&! ( !'1
$$& 6
4
9/
.
E
4
09
69
/
;"
.
99
0$0&! ( !'1
$$# -
4
44 # 9 0 /
/
0$0&! ( !#1
$$'
K
/
.
9 0$0&! ( !#1
$$$ 6
@
/
0$0&! ( !&1
$$( -
3 0$0&! ( !1
$$ ?
E
D 0$0&! ( !1
$$)
4
9 0$0&! ( !!1
$$ 1
2
-
9
1
0.
@2
39 9
0$0&! $ $ 1
$(!
0$0&! $ $ 1
$(= 0$0&! $ $)1
$(&
0$0&! $ $$1
$(# F
0$0&! $ $'1
$('
0$0&! $ $#1
$($ 6
2
/ 4
=2
*( 9 5@
4 9
5
/
E
/
9
0$0&! $ $#1
$((
.
04
0$0&! $ $!1
$( <
9 <
.
4H
1 "
.
9
G
9
0$0&! $ ' 1
$()
0$0&! $ ' 1
$( 9
S
S4 9
Q
9 9
G
4 9
D
4
9
"
C
&
.
33 9 49
"
@
0$0&! $ ' 1
$ ! 7
4
""
. 0$0&! $ '$1
$ "
/
/
"
9
*
0$0&! $ '&1
$ & ;
49
4/
!!
Q
4
0$0&! $ '&1
$ # "
G 9
G 7<
G
/
9
< 9
Q
0$0&! $ '1
$ ' <
3
3
9
<
.
/ 4
.
E
3
5
5
.
"
; 7 /
"
@
585
, 0
0$0&! $ #)1
$ $
3
3
9
9
/
/
4
4
0$0&! $ #$1
$ (
.
09
8
1
.
4 6
94
9 /
9
4 <
9
4
4
6
0$0&! $ ##1
$
94/
9/2
&'0
-E4
/
/
/ /
/ 9
< 4
9
0$0&! $ ##1
$ ) F 0$0&! $ #&1
$ F
0$0&! $ #&1
$)! <
99
9
-
4
9
A
0$0&! $ #&1
$)" 4
9
84
/6
9
9
0$0&! $ #!1
$)& "
2
9
E
0$0&! $ &)1
$)# 6
4
;4
/ 4
/
9
6 4#9
-4
-
E
4;"7"
H
+
"
@
3
4
0$0&! $ & 1
$)' 4 /4
9
F
9
.
4
4
4
/9
9
6
4
/
4 9 0
-
49 0
9
1
.
49
4
+
"
0$0&! $ & 1
$)$ F
0$0&! $ &$1
$)( ?
E
D 0$0&! $ &$1
$) F 0$0&! $ &'1
$))=E4
4
36 4
9
9
B
4
0$0&! $ &'1
$) G
4 09
9
.
4
1 , <.
F 9
.
"
.<
"
0$0&! $ 
$ !
4
0$0&! $ &&1
$ <
0$0&! $ &1
$ & -
< 99
?
E
/
9
9
Q
0$0&! $ &1
$ # 1
9
4
9
4
0$0&! $ &1
$ ' F
0$0&! $ &1
$ $ 6
9
9
5 9
9 5
0$0&! $ 1
$ ( 6
9
/9
4
0$0&! $ (1
$
0$0&! $ $1
$ ) 6
/
3
0$0&! $ '1
$ <
2
4 .
9
9
4
A
0$0&! $ '1
(!! 1
4
4
4
0$0&! $ #1
(!,
0$0&! $ #1
(!& 8
9
94 0$0&! $ #1
(!# F
D<
0$0&! $ 1
(!'
0$0&! $ !1
(!$ *
9
*& 9
0$0&! $ !1
(!( <
.<
4
/
9
0$0&! $ ! 1
(!
0$0&! $ ! 1
(!) 6
4
9
0$0&! $ ! 1
(! 3 0$0&! $ !)1
(!1
9
0$0&! $ !(1
(9
/ 9/
9
9
.<
;"7
0$0&! $ !$1
(&6
4
<
4
9
4
<
49
4
-
9
4
9
9
0$0&! $ !$1
(#
0$0&! $ !!1
('7
/9
/
9
0$0&! $ !!1
($A 0$0&! ' $#1
((.
0$0&! ' 1
( 7
0$0&! ' !1
()? \3]"@D 0$0&! # $ 1
(
9
0$0&! # $ 1
(&! 64
44
9
0$0&! # ' 1
(&
0$0&! # !(1
(&& ;9 0
9 0
B
<
L.
. 4
-
9
0$0&! & $#1
(&# "
09
0$0&! & '1
(&' .
9
.
4
0$0&! & !)1
(&$ 6
9 0$0&! $ 1
(&( 8
4
3
4
-
;4
0$0&! $$1
(& F0 0$0&! ' 1
(&) 6
9
.
/1
.
4
0$0&! ' 1
(&
6
9
9
9
9 6
4
0$0&! ' 1
(#! , 4
9 49
E
0$0&! '&1
(#F
0$0&! '!1
(#& <
,
4
$
0$0&! #)1
(## Q 0$0&! #)1
(#' 8
.
9
3
/
74
0$0&! #!1
(#$ F
0$0&! !$1
(#( F
94
Q
/ /
4
9 A 0$0&! & ')1
(# J/
9 J
/
0$0&! & '&1
(#) <
D"
0$0&! & &'1
(# <
94
$!3!!
,
E
9
"
4
4
1
0$0&! & !$1
('! <
2
/6
E
9
2
<
4
0$0&! & !$1
('<9
9
/9
9
9
/
E
4 @
4
0$0&! & !$1
('&
K
94
9
/
99
0$0&! $ 1
('# J
4
0$0&! ') 1
('' 3"
@
D9
9
3
- 6
E
4 9/
9
9
3
5
5Q
0$0&! '' 1
('$ B
9
9
4
0$0&! # 1
('( <
9
F/
4
9
0$0&! #' 1
('
9
99
0$0&! &$ 1
(') 6
4 9
4/
4 6
9
/
9 0
0.<
?C 9
/
0$0&! &' 1
('
0$0&! &# 1
($! 4
9
0$0&! ! $# 1
Attachment D
Connecting Palo Alto: Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria
August 2017 Draft for Discussion Purposes
Page 1 of 2
Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Problem Statement
“The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity
within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for
pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at-grade crossings. These
rail corridor challenges also creates issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as
noise, vibration, traffic and visual impacts. While the City of Palo Alto benefits from
Caltrain service and supports Caltrain modernization (including electrification),
some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor These will continue to get
worse in the future with increases in Caltrain service traffic due to Caltrain
modernization (including electrification) and the possible addition of high speed
rail.”
[Tracked changes show modifications to the draft problem statement included in the July
2017 citizen questionnaire and are based on responses to that questionnaire.]
Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Objectives*
x To improve safety along the rail corridor
x To reduce the traffic congestion that occurs at existing at-grade crossings every time a train
passes by
x To improve circulation and access across the rail corridor for all modes of transportation,
separating bicyclists and pedestrians from automobile traffic
x To deliver grade separations and circulation improvements in a timely manner
x To reduce train noise and vibrations and minimize visual changes along the rail corridor
x To support Caltrain service enhancements
x To minimize right-of-way acquisitions and local road closures
x To ensure fairness in terms of the investments and improvements in north and south Palo Alto
x To minimize potential impacts and disruption during construction while enabling continued
train service at all times
x To maximize Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources
*Suggested objectives are loosely based on July 2017 questionnaire responses and prior studies. These
are suggestions only, and are subject to change.
Attachment D
Connecting Palo Alto: Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria
August 2017 Draft for Discussion Purposes
Page 2 of 2
Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Evaluation Criteria
The following evaluation criteria are suggested as a starting place to support the development
and evaluation of alternatives. These can be modified or supplemented with performance
measures or metrics based on community input and technical analyses.
Tier 1 Criteria: Most Important
¾East-West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of
transportation
¾Traffic congestion: reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings
¾Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking
to cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic
¾Rail operations: support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements
Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important
¾Environmental impacts: reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor
¾Environmental impacts: minimize visual changes along the rail corridor
¾Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other
destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets
Tier 3 Criteria: Somewhat Important
¾Construction: minimize disruption and the duration of construction activities at any
single location
¾Cost: minimize right-of-way acquisition & finance with available funding sources
Caltrain Corridor Grade Separation Schedule, Estimates, & Alignment
Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program
South San Francisco
Linden Avenue
San Bruno
Scott Street
Burlingame
Broadway & Broadway Stn.
San Mateo
25th Avenue & Hillsdale Stn.
Mountain View
Rengstorff Ave
Mountain View
Castro St. & Transit Cntr.
Sunnyvale
Mary Ave
High-speed Rail
San José-San Francisco
Caltrain Electrification
San Francisco
16th St. & Railyard
$160-200M
$310-390M
$250M
Location Estimated Schedule
Vertical Alignment
of Railroad
Cost
Estimate
Hybrid
Hybrid
Under Consideration
Under Consideration
At Grade
Unknown
N/A N/A
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
$45M
$120M
At Grade
Under Consideration
Under Consideration
Under Consideration
At Grade: 1 xing
Hybrid: 3 xings
Below Grade
At Grade
$180M
Redwood City
Whipple Ave
Menlo Park
Ravenswood Ave & Others
Palo Alto
Pending Outcome of CSS
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown
Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown
Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown
Planning
LEGEND
Prepared By: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department
Date Prepared: August 2017
Environmental/Design
Construction Vertical Alignment Alternative
Selected by City CouncilSchedule Unknown
Beyond Milestone
Final Design Complete; Remaining Schedule Unknown
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8133)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/9/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Transportation and Land Use Elements
Title: PUBLIC HEARING. Planning and Transportation Commission
Review and Recommendation Regarding the June 30, 2017
Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, With a Focus on the
Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1. Review the consolidated list of July 12, 2017 PTC suggestions and comments on the
Transportation Element and the Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan
Table ( See Attachment A) and recommend changes or additions to this list. Recommend
that the revised list be included in the PTC report to the City Council on the Draft
Comprehensive Plan Update.
2. Review the Land Use and Community Design Element Goals L-1 to L-4 of the June
30,2017 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update and recommend to the City Council changes
to the Land Use Element and Community Design policies and programs in these four
goals.
Report Summary
This report augments the Comprehensive Plan Update staff report that was submitted to the
PTC on July 12, 2017 (Attachment B). It includes highlights from the PTC ‘s previous discussions,
an updated schedule, a list of comments from the July 26 PTC Transportation Element
discussion and background information on the major changes and policy updates in Land Use
Element that the PTC will begin discussing on August 9.
At the August 9 meeting, commissioners will be asked to complete their review of the
Transportation Element and begin their review of the Land Use Element with Goals L-1 to L-4.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The same PTC discussion process that was used at the July 26th meeting for the Transportation
Element will be used on August 9. Commissioners will be asked to provide comments and
suggestions on the first four goals of the Land Use & Community Design Element while the staff
and consultants take notes. The staff will organize those comments, identify areas of
consensus and return at the next PTC meeting with a synthesized list of comments for the
commission’s review.
Background
This is the third PTC public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. The PTC is focusing
their review on the Transportation and Land Use Elements. For the July 12 PTC meeting, the
PTC received a staff report that includes an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update legal
requirements and process and key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The
staff report for the July 12th meeting is included as Attachment B and is intended to serve as a
key background document for the PTC´s review of the Comprehensive Plan. The PTC was also
sent a bound copy of the June 30, 2017 draft of the Comp Plan, which will be used throughout
the PTC’s review.
At the July 12th meeting, the schedule was changed to start the PTC review with the
Transportation Element and provide three consecutive meetings for the PTC’s discussion of the
Land Use Element as shown in Table 1 below. At the meeting, it was also noted that the PTC
may add an additional meeting on August 23rd or start meetings earlier than 6PM to complete
their review on schedule.
Table 1. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule (Revised 7.26.17)
Month/Date Topic
June 30 Start of 90-day PTC review period
July
July 12
7/12 PTC Hearing
Comp Plan Orientation
July 26
7/26 PTC Hearing
Transportation Goals T-1 to T-8 and
Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table
August
Aug. 9
8/ 9 PTC Hearing
Transportation (2 of 2): Review PTC comments on Goals T-1 to T-8
and
Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table and
Land Use (1 of 2) Goals L-1 to L-4
Aug. 23 Potential Additional PTC Hearing on Land Use (If Needed)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Month/Date Topic
Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing
Land Use (2 of 2) Goals L-5 to L-10
September
+ Sept. 1 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission
Sept. 13 9/13 PTC Hearing
Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table
Sept. 27
9/27 PTC Hearing
Final Review; Recommendation to Council on the Land Use and
Transportation Elements and the Final EIR
Sept. 30 End of 90-day PTC review period
Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 27, 2017
What to Expect at the August 9 PTC Meeting
At the July 26, 2017 meeting, the PTC started their review of the Transportation Element. PTC
members provided comments and suggestions on the draft Transportation Element. The list of
comments from that discussion is shown in Attachment A. This list combines comments that
were similar, organizes them by Transportation Element goal numbers and notes where the
staff and consultants believe there was consensus among PTC members. Please note that
Commissioner Rosenblum submitted follow-up comments (as well as comments on the Land
Use Element) that have been provided as Attachment E.
At the August 9 meeting, the PTC is being asked to review this list, identify any changes or
additions, and recommend that this list be transmitted as part of the PTC report to the City
Council. Identifying additions or deletions to the areas of consensus will be particularly useful.
The entire transcript from the July 26 meeting will also be transmitted to the City Council, so
they will have the more detailed comments by individual Commissioners.
At the August 9 meeting, the PTC will also begin its review of the Land Use Element with a
discussion of Goals L-1 through L-4. These four goals contain some of the most significant
issues and updates in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The process for PTC review will be the
same one that was used at the July 26th meeting for the Transportation Element.
Commissioners will be asked to provide comments and suggestions on the first four goals of the
Land Use Element while the staff and consultants take notes. The staff will organize the PTC
comments, identify areas of consensus and return at the next PTC meeting with a list for PTC
action.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Discussion: Major Policy Issues and Updates in the Land Use Element
This summary covers the entire Land Use Element in order to give the PTC a larger context for
reviewing Goals L-1 through L-4. As illustrated in Attachment C, which compares the Land Use
Vision and Goals in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan with those in the draft Comprehensive Plan
Update, there is a great deal of similarity in Goals 5-9. The major changes to goals, policies and
programs are in the Land Use Element’s first four goals. Attachment D includes links to all of
the CAC and its subcommittees staff reports, which detail their deliberations on the Land Use
Element.
A major emphasis during the Land Use Element Update was limiting the amount of office/R&D
development and seeking to increase the supply of housing. Changes to the current
Comprehensive Plan’s Policy L-8 which established a cap on non-residential development was a
major update focus. The June 30, 2107 draft Comp Plan Update maintains the existing citywide
(cumulative) cap on non-residential development, recognizing that 1.7 million new square feet
are remaining (and of this, 1.3 million has already been approved at the Stanford University
Medical Center). This update focuses the cap on office/R&D development only, rather than
including retail and other non-residential uses. Also, the Downtown Cap on non-residential
development is eliminated.
The draft Land Use Element supports housing that is affordable, meaning housing that is at the
lower end of the local price range due to age, size, design, location, or other characteristics.
Preserving existing housing that is affordable and minimizing displacement of existing residents
is also supported by the policies in the draft Land Use Element.
A. Goal L-1. Non-residential Growth Management
The CAC and Council both spent considerable time addressing non-residential development,
especially the amount of future office and R&D space. The current Comprehensive Plan
manages non-residential development through Policy L-8, which places an absolute numerical
cap on the amount of non-residential space in the nine “monitored” planning areas. There is
also a similar cap for downtown. After learning about the existing system and reviewing data
on past non-residential growth and capacity remaining under the current caps, the CAC
developed a series of new options for Council’s consideration. The CAC’s growth management
options evolved into three major components: a cumulative growth cap, an annual limit, and a
downtown cap. The CAC, primarily through the work of the Sustainability subcommittee, also
developed a list of development requirements and community indicators, intended to regulate
the quality of growth alongside other policies to regulate the quantity of growth.
Beginning on November 28, 2016, the City Council reviewed the draft Land Use Element that
the CAC unanimously recommended at its September 2016 meeting, including the growth
management options. Ultimately, on January 30, 2017, the Council moved to:
Maintain the existing citywide (cumulative) cap on non-residential development,
recognizing that 1.7 million new square feet are remaining, and focus the cap on
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
office/R&D development only, rather than including retail and other non-residential
uses. Also, continue to exempt medical office uses in the SUMC vicinity and require
annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and
determine whether the cap should be adjusted. (Goal L-1, Policy L-1.9 page L-20 of the
June 30 draft Land Use Element )
Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance making permanent the interim Annual Limit of
50,000 square feet of New Office/R&D Development, separate from the Comprehensive
Plan Update; and
Eliminate the Downtown Cap found in existing Program L-8
Maintain the policy requiring the highest quality development with the least impacts,
(see Goal L-1, Policy L-1.10 page L-20 of the June 30 draft Land Use Element) but delete
policies and programs that refer to specific development requirements.
Delete the policies that refer to creating Community Indicators from the Comp Plan
since there are several other city programs that assess community indicators.
B. Goal L-2- Housing
The CAC and Council discussed the need for Palo Alto to be more assertive in sustaining a socio-
economically diverse community by addressing the high cost of housing. The draft Land Use
Element reflects a broad and comprehensive interpretation of “housing that is affordable”
rather than a narrower focus on “affordable housing.” Policies and programs refer to “housing
that is affordable,” meaning housing that is at the lower end of the local price range due to age,
size, design, location, or other characteristics, but is not legally required to be affordable to a
certain income level (Program L1.3.1 page L-27 , Program L2.5.1 page L-31 , Policy L-2.7 page L-
31). There was also consensus on the need to preserve existing housing that is affordable and
to minimize displacement of existing residents. (Policy L 2.7 and 2.8 page L-31)
A range of different ideas were considered about how to address housing supply and
affordability. Many CAC discussions of housing issues occurred as part of discussions of related
issues of design and land use planning. For example, some CAC members expressed willingness
to exceed the City’s height limit in order to build additional housing, especially housing for
seniors and people with special needs, while others did not agree. (See below for background
on height limit discussions.) Some strongly supported protecting existing surface parking in
shopping centers, particularly Stanford Shopping Center, while others felt that these spaces
could be considered as potential locations for new housing. (See D below for background on
discussion of commercial centers.)
The array of housing policies and programs under Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8 page L-30 and
L-31 in the June 30 draft was the result. The draft Element includes policies to allow and
encourage a mix of housing types and sizes for greater affordability and lays out strategies to
increase housing supply, includes locations for new housing, adding programs to explore
housing in the Stanford Research Park, near Stanford University Medical Center and, under
certain circumstances, at the Stanford Shopping Center. (See Policy L-2.4 and its programs page
L-30 and L-31).
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Height limits were an issue closely related to both housing and growth management. The
subcommittee and full CAC discussed height limits extensively and developed a range of
options for Council consideration that included keeping the existing 50-foot height limit,
allowing some flexibility if needed to achieve better design (e.g. to allow taller ground floor
retail spaces), and to allow heights of up to 65 feet – or even taller - in specific areas to
encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing options. (See the May 17, 2016 CAC
staff report in Attachment D (page 6-7) for that discussion).
The Council considered the range of height limit policy options in its January 30, 2017 review of
the Land Use Element. Councilmembers noted that the City’s 50 foot height limit is currently
referred to in a narrative section of the Comprehensive Plan, but is not contained in any goal or
policy and the Council motion was to maintain the current 50 foot height limit in the zoning
ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update. Therefore, the June 30 draft Element
does not include a policy establishing a height limit; however, the Council was clear in their
January 30,2017 motion ( See Attachment D on page 5 of that motion) that they do not see a
strong need to change the existing 50-foot height limit.
C. Goal L-3 Neighborhoods
Throughout the development of the draft Land Use Element, there was strong consensus on
both the Council and the CAC that the Comp Plan should continue to set high standards for
urban design and protect neighborhood character through a focus on neighborhood
compatibility. In this context, a major topic of CAC focus was basement construction.
The CAC received extensive and detailed public comments on the issue of basements in single
family homes and the array of potential impacts they can cause to groundwater supply,
flooding, occupancy densities, and public safety. The CAC also explored a policy and program
addressing concerns about basement design and the impact of large basements on
neighborhoods. CAC staff reports on this issue were provided on July 19, 2016 (See Attachment
D on page 8 of that July 19 staff report), August 16, 2016 (See Attachment D on page 16 of that
staff report ), and September 20, 2016 (See Attachment D on page 5 of that staff report ).
These efforts resulted in a draft policy to avoid the negative impacts of basement construction
(Goal L-3, Policy L-3.5 page L-33), which Council refined through its review.
The following Land Use Policies address the key Policy Updates in Goals 4 through 10. They
address current and emerging issues.
D. Goal L-4 Hotels
Identify suitable hotel locations and explore increasing Hotel FAR (Goal L-4, Policy L-4.4 page L-
35). This policy was added by the Council.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
E. Goal L-4 Commercial Centers
Identify characteristics of commercial centers- including exploring additional retail FAR at
Stanford Shopping Center and preparing coordinated area plans for the Fry’s site and the
surrounding California Avenue area and downtown (Goal L-4, Policies L-4.6 to L-4.8 page L-36).
F. Goal L-5 Employment Districts
Foster compact employment districts that reduce auto trips. Explore a diverse mix of uses at
Stanford Research Park, including residential, retail and a hotel (Goal L-5, Program L-5.1 page L-
38).
G. Goal L-6 Urban Design
Promote compatibility and avoid abrupt changes in scale and density (Goal L-6, Policy L-6.7
page L- 38).
H. Goal L-7 Historic Resources
Protect historic resources, including protecting resources that have not been evaluated for
inclusion in State or Federal Historic Resources Inventory prior to substantial alteration or
demolition. Consider revising the TDR ordinance so development transferred from historic
buildings downtown can only be used for residential development. (Goal L-7, Policies L-7.2 and
L-7.13 page L- 41 to L-43)
I. Goal L-8 Civic Uses
Support existing community facilities and create new gathering places. Facilitate creation of
new parkland to serve Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. (Goal L-8, Policy L-8.1 page L- 44 )
J. Goal L-9 Public Streets and Spaces
Create and enhance publicly accessible outdoor gathering spaces (Goal L-9, Policies L-9.4 to 9.6
page L- 46).
K. Goal L-10 Palo Alto Airport
The policies on the airport are included in the Land Use Element in this draft Update. These
policies minimize environmental impacts associated with airport operations, including noise
and bayland protection and enhancement (Goal L-10, Policies L -10.3 to 10.6 page L-48 and L-
49).
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: PTC Comments on Transportation Element July 26 2017 (PDF)
Attachment B: PTC CPU Overview Staff Report July 12 2017 (PDF)
Attachment C: Land Use Element Goals Comparison (DOCX)
Attachment D: Links to CAC and Council Staff Reports and Discussions (DOCX)
Attachment E: Commissioner Rosenblum Comments July 27 (PDF)
PTC Comments and Suggestions on Transportation Element (July 26, 2017)
PTC Comment Consensus
Overall comments
There is some redundancy in the draft Element. For example,
first/last mile policies are good but are located in too many
places.
The draft Element places too much emphasis on the future and
not enough weight to solving neighborhood congestion and
parking problems of today, including construction issues.
Some policies seem like they would work better at the regional
scale, not being implemented unilaterally at a local scale.
Palo Alto relies on effective regional transportation. Align
projects with regional transportation investments and track
what we can do as connectivity improves.
Differing viewpoints on the role of technology: Some PTC
members expressed that Palo Alto is the technology center of
the world and we can come up with solutions to these
problems. Other members felt the draft Element relies too
much on aspirational future technology that may never exist.
The Element should not assume that future Caltrain capacity
after electrification will solve our problems.
Don’t build the Plan around specific technologies. The ultimate
consequences of new or emerging trends such as transportation
network companies (TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber) or autonomous
vehicles may be positive or negative and cannot be predicted.
Consensus
Transportation Infrastructure Investments
Geng Road improvement is too specific for the Comp Plan. Re‐
state more broadly as and improvement or a policy to reduce
traffic on East Bayshore.”
Consensus
Support for Caltrain grade separation. Consensus
Add a policy to support BART under El Camino Real.
List a possible bike route along Sterling Canal as a potential
infrastructure improvement.
Consider relocating Downtown transit center. Existing location
could be better location for housing and retail.
Goal T‐1: Sustainable Transportation
The PTC had a number of comments on new policies and programs
requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and
supporting the Transportation Management Association (TMA).
Program T1.2.2: Add language to further protect and expand
the TMA. To the second bullet, add “…such as TMA”.
Program T1.2.2: Add reference to stable, sustained funding
for the TMA, but don’t be proscriptive or limit the City’s
options for funding.
Consensus
PTC members had different views on the offering incentives
for TDM achievements. Some suggested lowering parking
requirements for projects with successful TDM programs;
other felt that permanent parking reductions are not
appropriate for uncertain future trip reductions.
Program T1.2.2: One PTC member expressed discomfort
with the specific percent reductions in single‐occupant
vehicle trips as infeasible.
Program T1.2.3: Revise to state that the PTC should evaluate
the TMA annually.
Programs under Policy T‐1.4 regarding electric vehicles: Add
“e‐bikes or related electrical modes of transport.”
Policy T‐1.13: PTC members expressed different views on
how aggressively the draft Element should encourage
transportation network companies (TNCs – e.g. Lyft, Uber),
also called ridesharing companies in the Comp Plan, as part
of first/last mile solutions.
o Some PTC members suggested that the City should
collaborate with these private companies, including
exploring ways to offer discounted rates for pick‐ups
and drop‐offs in Downtown.
o Others expressed concern that ridesharing
companies increase congestion and reduce transit
use.
Structure the Palo Alto shuttle service so it does not
compete with VTA service, e.g. along El Camino or
Middlefield.
Add specific goals for ridership and frequency for the Palo
Alto shuttle program, similar to the specific quantitative
goals for SOV trip reduction.
Require companies located in Palo Alto to create a joint
TMA for all companies or open buses to other companies.
Have a policy to open routes along creeks to pedestrians
and bikers.
Explore opening bus stops for private operators to use for a
fee.
Add a policy to require all bike routes to be aligned with
sidewalks. (Not in the middle of the street.)
Goal T‐2: Traffic Delay and Congestion
Goal T‐2: Unclear. What is the message? Consider clarifying.
Policy T‐2.3 and Program T2.3.1: PTC members expressed
differences of opinion on using both LOS and VMT metrics.
o Some said that both are important because they
measure different aspects of traffic conditions. LOS
measures quality of life and local user experience.
VMT measures regional impacts.
o The CAC and Council expressed support for retaining
both LOS and VMT.
o Others said the Plan should not contradict CEQA
changes that eliminate LOS and should include a
sunset provision for LOS as a metric.
o If LOS is continued, consider referencing only
seconds of delay or increases in delay, not letter
grades.
o If LOS is continued, be more explicit about possible
unintended consequences on pedestrians and
cyclists.
Goal T‐3: Streets
No comments
Goal T‐4: Neighborhood Impacts
Different viewpoints on Policy T‐4.2:
o Some PTC members felt that the language about
prioritizing traffic calming over congestion could be
problematic because it gives more weight to safety
over congestion management, and these needs
should be balanced.
o Others felt that the idea of safe neighborhood
streets should be retained.
Policy T4.1: Policy should recognize that residential
arterials, along with local and collector streets, are also
school commute corridors. Policy should state that safety
on residential arterials is also important.
Consensus
Goal T‐5: Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
PTC members expressed different viewpoints on parking
requirements: Some suggested that the City require projects
to be fully self‐parked, while others were concerned that
this creates underutilized parking.
Add a statement of principles about parking (may be
separate from policies and programs).
o Recognize the costs to parking.
o Eliminate incentives for providing more parking than
is necessary.
o Where possible, have shared parking resources to
minimize unused parking inventory.
Encourage technology that helps people find and/or share
parking. Add a Program to put together a community group
to examine innovations in parking technology.
Allow non‐traditional concrete parking structures to enable
future flexibility in repurposing the land.
Allow mechanical parking.
Unbundled parking should be allowed; allow or require
project owners/tenants to pay separately for parking.
Consensus
Instead of paying to construct parking spots, allow
applicants to
o Put money instead in in‐lieu fees that could build
central shared parking by zone, with some parking
on site; and/or
o Provide transit passes, free bikes, etc for
residents/tenants.
Goal T‐6: Road Safety
Policy T‐6.6: Policy and related programs discuss education
for bicyclists. Language should be updated to reflect that
pedestrian safety is also included. Consensus
Goal T‐7: Transit‐Dependent Community
No comments
Goal T‐8: Regional Collaboration and Coordination
Goals T‐1 and T‐8 seem redundant.
Tighten up policies under Goal T‐8 to reduce redundancy.
Under Goal T‐8 – consider policies supporting exploration of
re‐starting rail service across Dumbarton Bridge.
Recognize 280 and 101 as transit links. Have a stop at 280
and Page Mill Road where passengers can move from bus to
shuttle. Embarcadero/Oregon should be reviewed. Work
together with adjacent cities.
Support for reinstating or investigating future Dumbarton
Rail service.
Consider adding a policy statement about a potential future
High Speed Rail station and/or other aspects of High Speed
Rail.
Transportation Implementation Plan table
There are a lot of Programs. Staff should review for
redundancy and remove any already covered elsewhere.
Fewer programs are more likely to be accomplished.
Consensus
Maps
Map T‐1, Regional Transit Connections – include
Commercial Centers (as on Map T‐2)
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8096)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/12/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Overview
Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Overview of the Comp Plan
Review process, including legal requirements of the Plan,
objectives, key issues and schedule.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Receive a staff presentation providing an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process
and the June 30, 2017 Draft Plan referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
by the City Council. The presentation and materials are intended to assist the PTC with its
review and recommendation over the next few months, and no formal action is recommended
at this meeting. Nonetheless, Commissioners may identify specific issues they would like to
focus on at one of their following meetings.
Report Summary
This staff report will serve as a guide for the PTC’s review and recommendation regarding the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan over the next three months. The report and presentation will
provide the following:
x Explanation of the Comprehensive Plan Update process so far;
x Overview of the contents, organization, and legal requirements for the Comprehensive
Plan (which is a called a “general plan” under State law);
x Summary of key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements, on which the PTC
has chosen to focus their review; and
x Description of the proposed objectives, approach and schedule for PTC’s review,
consistent with earlier discussions by the Commission.
Background
On June 12, 2017, the City Council referred the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update
to the PTC for review and a recommendation within 90 days. This draft Plan (referred to in this
report as the June 30, 2017 Draft Plan) reflects the Citizens Advisory Committee’s (CAC) May
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
16, 2017 recommendations to the Council and incorporates changes based on Council’s review
up to and including their meeting on June 12th. Consistent with Section 19.04.080 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s direction, the PTC’s 90 day review began with
dissemination of the Draft Plan on June 30, 2017 and will end (unless extended by the Council)
on September 30, 2017. The June 30, 2017 Draft Plan has been distributed to the PTC and is
available on the 5th floor at City Hall, at the City libraries and on the Comp Plan Update website:
www.paloaltocompplan.org.
The PTC has had several discussions at prior meetings regarding how to conduct its review,
whether it is feasible within 90 days, whether to use one or more subcommittees, and how
many meetings to hold. At the June 14, 2017 meeting, the PTC passed a motion to focus its
review on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and decided not to form subcommittees.
In response to a Commission question, staff noted that PTC members can consult with other
members outside of meetings, as long as these discussions adhere to Brown Act requirements
and do not involve a majority of the members. The PTC also discussed what issues the PTC
should address in its review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This staff report
includes a list of key issues for both the Land Use and Transportation Elements. Some of these
issues were the subjects of significant discussion at both the CAC and the Council. Others are
included because they are key policy updates in the Comp Plan.
Resources
Staff suggests that PTC members become familiar with the Comp Plan website at
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/, which was created for the most recent phase of the Comp
Plan Update and serves as a central location for project updates, published documents, meeting
materials, and background information. It will be a valuable reference to inform the PTC’s
review.
Of particular relevance, the Comp Plan website includes individual pages with meeting
materials for all public meetings, including the City Council and Citizen Advisory Committee,
that have been held as part of the Update process.
CAC meeting materials (full CAC and subcommittees):
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/
PTC meeting materials (including study sessions dating back to 2008 – this will continue to be
updated regularly during your review over the summer):
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/
City Council meeting materials (including recent reviews of the CAC draft Elements in 2016 and
2017, as well as initial direction on the Goals and Visions for each Element from 2015):
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
The website also has all EIR documents (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/). The fiscal
study that analyzes the six Comp Plan EIR scenarios, the existing conditions reports prepared in
2014, materials from the 2015 Summit, and other background documents are available on the
Resources page at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/resources/.
Discussion
The discussion below provides a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process,
followed by a discussion of the organization and legal requirements governing each section of
the Draft Plan. Subsequent sections focus on key issues in the Land Use and Transportation
Elements for the PTC’s review and the status of the environmental review process.
Comprehensive Plan Update Process
The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 1998 and sets goals, policies, and programs related to
land use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource,
community services, and safety. The City Council recognized the need to update the Plan and
initiated the update in 2006. The PTC then spent close to six years working on the
Comprehensive Plan Update (from 2008 to 2014), ultimately sending its recommendation to
the City Council in April of 2014. Upon receipt of the PTC’s recommendations, the City Council
adopted a schedule and strategy for “reframing” the long-running update to include
expanded community engagement and a full evaluation of alternatives, cumulative impacts
and mitigation strategies. The Council held a community-wide Summit, attended by over 350
people in May 2015, and created the CAC to engage in further dialog and community
outreach to inform the Council’s amendments.
Between July 2015 and May 2017, the full CAC met 23 times to review elements of the
existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC, and receive and
review community input. The CAC also formed subcommittees to discuss each Element, as
well as a Sustainability subcommittee that considered sustainability-related issues in several
Elements. There were a total of 29 meetings of CAC subcommittees. All CAC meetings were
noticed and open to the public and included time for public comment. All meeting materials
and minutes from CAC meetings are available here:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/
In addition, the City Council has met independently to review elements of the existing
Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC and the CAC, and receive
and review community input. The City Council has discussed the Comp Plan goals and vision
statements, EIR scenarios, and draft Elements at 24 meetings since 2010. City Council
agendas, staff reports, and other relevant materials for Comp Plan discussion items are
available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/city-council/
Section 19.04.080 of the Municipal Code describes two processes for adoption of a
Comprehensive Plan Update and reflects the State law as it existed in 1955. Former
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Government Code sections 65501 through 65510 apply to updates initiated by the PTC, while
former Government Code sections 65511 through 65513 apply to updates initiated by the
Council. The procedures are very similar in both instances: the PTC must hold at least one
public hearing before making a recommendation to the Council. Where the PTC has initiated an
update, Council amendments are referred back to the PTC for a 45 day review period; where
the Council has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred to the PTC for a 90 day
review period. In both cases, once this review period is complete, the City Council may
ultimately adopt an update to the Comprehensive Plan at a noticed public hearing (former Gov.
Code Section 65514).
The Council-initiated process applicable to the update underway is similar to the process under
current State law, which provides that the planning commission shall make a recommendation
to the city council on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments for adoption by the city
council. Under current State law, however, the planning commission has only 45 days after city
council referral to submit its report. As explained above, the prior law incorporated into the
Municipal Code provides the PTC with a review period of up to 90 days.
As noted above, the City Council referred the draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC at
the June 12, 2017 Council meeting, with the referral to be effective upon transmittal of the
draft Plan. Therefore, the Council’s referral is effective and the PTC’s review period begins as of
June 30, 2017 when the document was transmitted to the PTC.
Comprehensive Plan Update Organization
The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains chapters or “elements” that address topics required by
State law, as well as optional elements and topics. This relationship is shown in Table 1. The
Plan includes a total of seven Elements; two are optional. All of these draft elements are based
on the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan, revised to reflect the City Council’s direction
regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the PTC’s proposed revisions and public input.
These draft elements are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the full CAC, CAC
subcommittees, staff, and consultants.
Table 1. State-Mandated and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Elements
State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element
Land Use Land Use & Community Design
Circulation Transportation
Housing* Housing*
Open Space
Conservation
Noise
Natural Environment
Safety Safety
Optional Elements
Business & Economics
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element
Community Services & Facilities
*The City’s current Housing Element was adopted separately in November 2014 and certified by
the State in January 2015, so it has not been part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process.
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2017
Each element begins with a vision statement which lays out the overall objective and spirit of
the element, followed by an introductory narrative. Following the vision statement and
narrative, the plan’s organization is achieved via a series of headings, subheadings and goals.
Goals are high-level statements articulating an end point towards which the City will direct its
efforts. They provide a structure for the subsequent policies and implementation programs that
serve to advance the goals. This structural framework is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Structural Framework of the Comprehensive Plan (Used in All Elements)
Vision Statement summarizing what Palo Alto will be like at the end of the planning
horizon.
Goal General end towards which the City will direct effort.
Policy
Specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear
commitment. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in
order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program.
Program An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to
achieve a specific goal or objective. Programs require resources—primarily time
and money—to complete.
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2017
In addition to formal “elements,” the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of other sections
or chapters intended to improve the usability of the document. These include the introduction,
governance chapter, and implementation chapter. The function of each section and element is
described further below, along with applicable legal requirements. For the elements that the
PTC has chosen not to focus on, we have also briefly summarized changes from the current
Comprehensive Plan. (See the sections that follow for a more in depth discussion of key issues
and changes related to the Land Use and Transportation elements.)
Introduction
Legal Requirements
The Introduction is considered a “section” or “chapter” of the Comp Plan and is not an Element.
It provides background information for users of the Comprehensive Plan.
Organization
The Introduction chapter provides an overview of the basic requirements and format of the
Plan, as well as the public participation and implementation processes for its development. The
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
subsection on major themes has been updated to describe the current planning challenges and
opportunities addressed by this update, specifically, the themes of “meeting housing supply
challenges” and “protecting and sustaining the natural environment.” A new section –
“maintaining a safe community” – has been added to reflect the new, separate Safety Element.
The comprehensive plan update process section has been completely replaced with a
description of the roles and contributions of the CAC, Council and PTC to the Plan’s overall
structure, vision, goals, policies and programs. This section also describes the Plan’s community
engagement framework, including the Summit and Open City Hall.
Land Use Element
Legal Requirements
The State law requiring adoption of a general plan (referred to as the Comprehensive Plan in
Palo Alto) provides that the land use element must: define categories for the location and type
of public and privates uses of land under the City's jurisdiction; recommend standards for
population density and building intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and
include a Land Use Map and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in the
city.
Organization
The Land Use Element addresses: growth management, compatibility and design policies within
each land use designation, urban design, historic and archaeological resources, parks and
gathering places, public streets and public spaces, including parking, gateways, the urban
forest, utilities and infrastructure, and public art, as well as the Palo Alto Airport. The Land Use
Element also includes the Land Use Map and land use designations. See the discussion of Key
Issues below for more information.
Transportation Element
Legal Requirements
State general plan law says that the circulation element must correlate directly with the land
use element. According to Government Code Section 65302, the circulation element should
include the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities
and facilities. In addition, the element must plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation
network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and
convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the
general plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element addresses most of the
required aspects of the required circulation element, including complete streets, expressways
and freeways, transit, walking, bicycling, parking, and special transportation needs. The portion
related to local public utilities is addressed in other elements.
Organization
The Transportation Element addresses: sustainable transportation; decreasing traffic delay and
congestion; streets; neighborhood impacts; motor vehicle and bicycle parking; road safety;
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
transit-dependent community; and regional collaboration and coordination. See the discussion
of Key Issues below for more information.
Natural Environment Element
Legal Requirements
In Palo Alto, the existing Natural Environment Element encompasses four of the seven
mandatory elements of a general plan (Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety). In this
Comp Plan Update, Safety is separated into a separate element, so the updated Natural
Environment encompasses three legally-required elements of a general plan. Therefore, the
Natural Environment Element must respond to clearly-defined statutory requirements, as well
as a number of legislative changes in general plan law over the past fifteen years since the
current Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
State general plan law says that the conservation element must address the “conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force,
forests, soils, rivers and other waters, wildlife, and minerals” (Gov. Code, § 65302(d)(1).)
According to Government Code Section 65560, the open space element should cover any parcel
or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to 1) the preservation of
natural resources; 2) the managed production of resources (in the case of Palo Alto, this is
limited to Williamson Act-contracted lands only) ; 3) outdoor recreation; 4) public health and
safety (which is also addressed in the Safety Element); 5) support of the mission of military
installations (there are none within the Palo Alto SOI); or 6) the protection of any Native
American historic, cultural, burial or sacred site. (In the Comprehensive Plan, protection of
tribal burial sites and sacred sites are addressed as archeological resources under Goal L-7 of
the Land Use Element.)
Finally, the noise element is a mandatory element described in Government Code Section
65302(f) that covers the issues and sources of noise relevant to the local planning area. The
element should utilize the most accurate and up-to-date information available to reflect the
noise environment, stationary sources of noise, predicted levels of noise, and the impacts of
noise on local residents, and include measures to address existing or foreseeable noise
problems.
Organization
The Natural Environment Element addresses: open space, including connectivity, habitat, and
public access; the urban forest and the understory; creeks and riparian areas; water resources,
including water quality, water supply, drought, and groundwater; air quality; noise, including
impacts from construction, aircraft, and rail; energy, including carbon-neutral energy,
conservation and efficiency, and grid improvements; and climate change and climate
adaptation. The draft Element reflects Council recommendations to incorporate a new Goal on
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Climate Change and Climate Adaption, and to create a new Safety Element by moving Goals on
Natural Hazards (Goal N-2), Hazardous Waste (Goal N-6), and Solid Waste (Goal N-7) to a
separate Safety Element. The Council also added language to two goals, and revised the vision
statement to address traffic congestion. The Natural Environment Element, as well as the Land
Use and Community Design Element and the Transportation Element, was drafted to be
consistent with the goal and strategies in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP), which has been under preparation in a separate, parallel process and is pending
Council adoption.
Safety Element
Legal Requirements
The Safety Element is a required Element under State general plan law. As noted above, the
current Comprehensive Plan presents Safety Element content as part of the Natural
Environment Element. Based on Council direction, the Safety Element has been drafted as a
standalone Element.
According to Government Code Section 65302(g), the Safety Element must address protection
from seismic hazards, dam failure, landslides and other geologic hazards, flooding, and fires.
There are specific requirements to map, and have policies responding to, flood hazard zones,
wildfire hazard areas, and sea level rise, as well as other topics related to climate adaptation
and resiliency.
According to Government Code Section 65302, the land use element must also identify and
provide for annual review those areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding
identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. Note that although the Government Code
references this requirement as part of the land use element, the City has the flexibility to place
the required information in another Element as appropriate. These floodplain requirements are
fulfilled in the Safety Element.
Organization
The Safety Element includes the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste goals that
were removed from the existing Natural Environment Element. The Safety Element addresses:
community safety, including public awareness, emergency management, and volunteer
programs; natural hazards, including earthquakes, fire, and flood; and human-caused threats,
including hazardous materials, solid waste, and cybersecurity. It also touches on the protection
and respect for civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy; safety from climate impacts; emergency
preparation; and protection from outside threats or terrorism.
Community Services & Facilities Element
Legal Requirements
The Community Services & Facilities Element is an optional element. There are no statutory
requirements for its contents.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
Organization
The Community Services & Facilities Element addresses: community service delivery, including
broad participation, partnerships, access, schools, children youth and teens, seniors, and those
with special needs; City services provided to the public; maintenance of existing parks and
community facilities; planning for future parks and community facilities; and community well-
being. This Element reflects CAC-identified themes, including inclusion, participation in civic life,
vitality of Palo Alto, better connection to schools and school-age children’s needs, services for
teens, emphasis on the diversity of citywide programming, redefinition of “customer service”,
increased and stronger connection to metrics to measure success. In addition, this Element
recognizes the upcoming Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan.
Business & Economics Element
Legal Requirements
The Business & Economics Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements
for its contents.
Organization
The Business & Economics Element addresses: the City’s overall economy, including fiscal
health and business attraction and retention; compatibility and interdependence between
businesses, residential neighborhoods, and the environment; the local culture of innovation
and support for small businesses; flexibility and predictability for businesses seeking City
approvals; and the physical settings of Palo Alto’s retail centers and business employment
districts. This draft Element reflects Council recommendations to adopt the current Goals and
organization of the Element, with updates limited to modifications to the wording of Goal B-2
and Goal B-3. The Element also reflects Council direction to consider policies and programs that
would mitigate impacts of job growth, such as parking, housing and traffic.
Governance
Legal Requirements
The Governance chapter is a not an “element” of the Plan and is not required by State law. It
addresses community involvement in local decision-making processes.
Organization
The Governance chapter is intended to provide guidance to citizens and community groups
participating in City decision-making. Substantive changes recommended to the Governance
Chapter mostly focus on the new technologies and tools for citizen participation that have been
developed since the last Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Plan also includes an
Implementation Chapter that identifies specific actions to be taken to carry out the Plan. For
each action, the priority, anticipated level of effort, and responsible agency or department is
identified.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
Implementation
Legal Requirements
Similar to Governance, the Implementation Chapter is not a Plan Element, but is intended as a
description of the steps to be taken in order to achieve the Plan’s goals. It consolidates and
repeats implementation programs from all of the elements of the plan into a single list.
Organization
The Implementation chapter has two main parts: a background narrative and a table that
consolidates and prioritizes the timing for all programs in the Comp Plan.
The narrative explains how programs implement the Comp Plan and how the timing of that
implementation is established by decision-makers based on evolving priorities and available
resources. The narrative clarifies that it will not be feasible to implement all of the programs
over the 15 year life of the plan. This means that the City has to prioritize, and the text
acknowledges that priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time. The narrative also
calls on the PTC to conduct an annual review of the plan as required by State law, and
concludes with a caveat: “The Implementation Plan was designed to advance the overarching
vision and themes of the Comprehensive Plan. The City recognizes there are resource constraints
and a need to focus those resources.”
The Implementation table provides the following information for each program in the Comp
Plan:
x Lead Department or Agency: The City Department that would have primary
responsibility for tracking and completing the program.
x Timing: Five categories are used:
o R: “Routine” activities that are part of the normal course of business for staff;
o IP: “In progress” – programs that are already underway to complete a specific,
defined work effort;
o S: “Short-term” – programs planned for implementation within the first five
years after Comprehensive Plan adoption;
o M: “Medium-term” – typically means programs that would be implemented or
completed roughly within five to ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption;
and
o L: “Long-term” – programs that would be implemented or completed more than
ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption.
With resource constraints and changing circumstances, it is expected that the timing
identified here may change. For example, as short-term programs begin, they will
change to “In Progress.”
x Anticipated Level of Effort: Gives an order-of-magnitude of cost in terms of staff and
monetary resources required to implement the program.
Some programs are already budgeted and ongoing, while the City Council will need to identify
resources during future budget cycles in order to implement other programs. The PTC may
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
recommend changing priorities or adding/subtracting programs in the course of their regular
annual review, which staff is recommending occur in December each year. Staff may then
recommend prioritization or funding during the annual budget process, which begins shortly
thereafter.
PTC Review
As shown in Table 3 below, the PTC will be reviewing the Land Use and Transportation Elements
in July, August and September 2017.
The PTC brings a new and valuable perspective, one that is enriched by the Commission’s work
on planning issues, policies and projects, to the Comprehensive Plan Update. The PTC can add
the greatest value to the draft Comprehensive Plan Update by focusing on key issues and
questions in the Land Use and Transportation Elements and bringing their experience and
needs as key users of the Comp Plan to this review. It is anticipated that the PTC’s
recommendations to the City Council will take the form of a report that includes one or more
motions with a list of suggested changes to the Draft Plan transmitted to the PTC on June 30,
2017. These suggested changes would be at a policy level, not at the level of wordsmithing
existing policies. For example, the PTC could recommend “Strengthen the policies on transit
dependent populations” instead of editing the language of the existing policies on this topic.
The Council will be reviewing these elements after the PTC review has been completed (see
Table 3 below) when the Council holds its final set of hearings to adopt the Comp Plan Update
and will review the PTC report then.
Suggested objectives of the PTC’s review are:
x To recommend needed high-level adjustments to policies and programs in the Land Use
Element, Transportation Element, and the Implementation Plan, to better address major
policy issues.
x To identify any inconsistencies or redundancies between the elements for clarification
or elimination in order to make the document more useable for the PTC and the public.
A draft schedule for PTC review is provided below.
Environmental Review
The Commission will receive the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update in late August or
early September and will be asked to recommend certification by the City Council pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City.
Table 3. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule
Month Topic
June 30 Start of 90-day PTC review period
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
July
July 12
7/12 PTC Hearing
Comp Plan Orientation
July 26 7/26 PTC Hearing
Land Use (1 of 2) Goals L-1 to L-4
August
Aug. 9
8/ 9 PTC Hearing
Land Use (2 of 2) Goals L-5 to L-10 and
Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table
Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing
Transportation (1 of 2) Goals T-1 to T-4
September
+ Sept. 1 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission
Sept. 13
9/13 PTC Hearing
Transportation (2 of 2) Goals T-5 to T-8 and
Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table
Sept. 27
9/27 PTC Hearing
Final Review; Recommendation to Council on the Land Use and
Transportation Elements and the Final EIR
Sept. 30 End of 90-day PTC review period
Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 2017
Key Issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements
Below are key issues in the Comprehensive Plan Update’s changes to policy and program
direction affecting the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The policies and programs on
this list were important updates during the discussion and refinement of these Elements at the
CAC and/or the Council. This list is intended to help the PTC frame their review of these
Elements. The PTC is encouraged to bring its own fresh perspective to these issues and to the
review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This PTC perspective is likely to have
more impact and value for the City Council, which has already reviewed the CAC’s
recommendations.
Land Use Element
This section provides background information from the CAC and Council discussions of key
issues to help the PTC understand the options discussed and the recommendations included in
the June 30 draft.
A. Non-residential Growth Management
The CAC and Council both spent considerable time and energy addressing non-residential
development, especially the amount of future office and R&D space.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
The current Comprehensive Plan manages non-residential development through Policy L-8,
which places an absolute numerical cap on the amount of non-residential space in the nine
“monitored” planning areas shown on Map L-6, as well as through Program L-8, which has a
similar cap for downtown. After learning about the existing system and reviewing data on past
non-residential growth and capacity remaining under the current caps, the CAC developed a
series of new options for Council’s consideration. The CAC’s growth management options
evolved into three major components: a cumulative growth cap, an annual limit, and a
downtown cap. The CAC, primarily through the work of the Sustainability subcommittee, also
developed a list of development requirements and community indicators, intended to regulate
the quality of growth alongside other policies to regulate the quantity of growth.
x December 15, 2016 CAC staff report: Initial introduction to the Land Use Element,
including growth management policies: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Dec-15-2015-CAC-packet1.pdf
x April 6, 2016 Land Use subcommittee agenda packet, including discussion of dynamic
growth management tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/CACLandUseSucommitteeAgendaPacket-20160406.pdf
x April 19, 2016 full CAC staff report, including discussion of dynamic growth management
tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CAC-Packet-
04.19.2016-Memo.pdf
x May 17, 2016 CAC staff report presenting multiple options for growth management
policies and programs: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf
x June 13, 2016 Land Use subcommittee staff report with detailed discussion of evolving
growth management policy options and questions for refinement:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CAC_Subctte-Memo-
06.13.16_Corrected.pdf
x June 24, 2016 continuation of June 13 subcommittee discussion of growth management
policy options, presented in a staff report: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160624.pdf and attachment:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Att.-A-Land-Use-
Growth-Management-Options.pdf
x July 19, 2016 full CAC staff report summarizing growth management policy options
developed by the Land Use subcommittee: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_7.19.16.pdf
x July 26, 2016 Sustainability subcommittee staff report; initial exploration of
performance measures and community indicators:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160726.pdf
x August 16, 2016 full CAC staff report, describing the work of both the Sustainability and
the Land Use subcommittees. Presents three major components of growth management
policy options: overall cumulative growth management policy options, performance
measures, and numerical caps. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_08.16.16.pdf
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
x September 20, 2016 full CAC staff report, reporting consensus that the Land Use and
Sustainability subcommittees had drafted a full range of growth management policies
and programs that accurately represented the range of options to forward to the City
Council for discussion: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff-Report_Sept20-2.pdf.
Beginning on November 28, 2016, the City Council reviewed the draft Land Use Element that
the CAC unanimously recommended at its September meeting, including the growth
management options. The November 28 Council packet, which includes a detailed description
of the CAC-drafted range of cumulative cap options, annual limit options, and downtown cap
options, is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54761
On November 28, 2016, Council provided some initial feedback, and requested additional
information, but did not make any formal motions. The Council took up the Land Use Element
again on January 30, 2017. The staff report for January 30 is here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55582. The comments from
November 28, 2016 are summarized in Attachment, C, which begins on page 147 of the packet.
The Council discussed the cumulative cap, annual limit, and downtown cap in detail at its
January 30, 2017 meeting. Ultimately, the Council moved to:
x Maintain the existing citywide (cumulative) cap on non-residential development,
recognizing that 1.7 million new square feet are remaining, and focus the cap on
office/R&D development only, rather than including retail and other non-residential
uses. Also, continue to exempt medical office uses in the SUMC vicinity and require
annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and
determine whether the cap should be adjusted. (Goal L-1, Policy L-1.9)
x Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance making permanent the interim Annual Limit of
50,000 square feet of New Office/R&D Development, separate from the
Comprehensive Plan Update; and
x Eliminate the Downtown Cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus on monitoring
development (see Program L1.9.1) and parking demand (see Transportation Element
Program T5.1.3).
x Maintain the policy requiring the highest quality development with the least impacts,
(see Goal L-1, Policy L-1.10) but delete policies and programs that refer to specific
development requirements.
x Delete the policies that refer to creating Community Indicators from the Comp Plan
since there are several other city programs that assess community indicators.
The Council motion on the Land Use Element, including direction on growth management
policies, is available in the January 30, 2017 action minutes, here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153 (see page 5). While staff
would be happy to answer questions about the CAC’s growth management options and the
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Council’s decisions, we urge the PTC to focus on areas where they can add their perspective(s)
or recommend adjustments that would improve the usability of the plan, rather than re-visit
the Council’s high level decisions.
B. Housing
The CAC and Council discussed the need for Palo Alto to be more assertive in sustaining a socio-
economically diverse community by addressing the high cost of housing. The draft Land Use
Element reflects a broad and comprehensive interpretation of “housing that is affordable”
rather than a narrower focus on “affordable housing.” Policies and programs refer to “housing
that is affordable,” meaning housing that is at the lower end of the local price range due to age,
size, design, location, or other characteristics, but is not legally required to be affordable to a
certain income level (Program L1.3.1, Program L2.5.1, Policy L-2.7). There was also consensus
on the need to preserve existing housing that is affordable and to minimize displacement of
existing residents. (Policy L 2.7 and 2.8)
CAC members offered a range of different ideas about how to address housing supply and
affordability. Many CAC discussions of housing issues occurred as part of discussions of related
issues of design and land use planning. For example, some CAC members expressed willingness
to exceed the City’s height limit in order to build additional housing, especially housing for
seniors and people with special needs, while others did not agree. (See below for background
on height limit discussions.) Some strongly supported protecting local retail and/or existing
surface parking in shopping centers, particularly Stanford Shopping Center, while others felt
that these spaces could be considered as potential locations for new housing. (See D below for
background on discussion of commercial centers.)
The array of housing policies and programs under Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8 in the June 30
draft Element is based on both CAC draft policies and Council direction on the components of
the preferred scenario in the Comp Plan EIR. The Council also discussed locations for new
housing, adding programs to explore housing in the Stanford Research Park, near Stanford
University Medical Center and, under certain circumstances, at the Stanford Shopping Center.
(See Policy L-2.4 and its programs).
Following Council direction, the June 30 draft Element includes policies to:
x Allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes for greater affordability and
laying out strategies to increase housing supply (Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8)
Height limits were an issue closely related to both housing and growth management. The
subcommittee and full CAC discussed height limits extensively and developed a range of
options for Council consideration that included keeping the existing 50-foot height limit,
allowing some flexibility if needed to achieve better design (e.g. to allow taller ground floor
retail spaces), and to allow heights of up to 65 feet – or even taller - in specific areas to
encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing options. See the May 17, 2016 full
CAC staff report for a discussion:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf
(page 6-7).
The Council considered the range of height limit policy options in its January 30, 2017 review of
the Land Use Element. Councilmembers noted that the City’s 50 foot height limit is currently
referred to in a narrative section of the Comprehensive Plan, but is not contained in any goal or
policy and the Council motion was to maintain the current 50 foot height limit in the zoning
ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update. Therefore, the June 30 draft Element
does not include a policy establishing a height limit; however, the Council was clear that they
do not see a strong need to change the existing 50-foot height limit. The Council motion is here
(see page 5): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153
C. Neighborhoods
Throughout the development of the draft Land Use Element, there was strong consensus on
both the Council and the CAC that the Comp Plan should continue to set high standards for
urban design and protect neighborhood character through a focus on neighborhood
compatibility. In this context, a major topic of CAC focus was basement construction.
The CAC received extensive and detailed public comments on the issue of basements in single
family homes and the array of potential impacts they can cause to groundwater supply,
flooding, occupancy densities, and public safety. The CAC also explored a policy and program
addressing concerns about basement design and the impact of large basements on
neighborhoods. CAC staff reports on this issue were provided on July 19, 2016
(http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-
Memo_7.19.16.pdf - see page 8), August 16, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_08.16.16.pdf -see page 16), and September 20,
2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff-
Report_Sept20-2.pdf - see page 5). These efforts resulted in a draft policy to avoid the
negative impacts of basement construction (Goal L-3, Policy L-3.5), which Council refined
through its review.
The following Land Use Policies address the key Policy Updates in Goals 4 through 10. They address
current and emerging issues.
D. Hotels
Identify suitable hotel locations and explore increasing Hotel FAR (Goal L-4, Policy L-4.4). This
policy was added by the Council.
E. Commercial Centers
Identify characteristics of commercial centers- including exploring additional retail FAR at
Stanford Shopping Center and preparing coordinated area plans for the Fry’s site and the
surrounding California Avenue area and downtown (Goal L-4, Policies L-4.6 to L-4.8).
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17
F. Employment Districts
Foster compact employment districts that reduce auto trips. Explore a diverse mix of uses at
Stanford Research Park, including residential, retail and a hotel (Goal L-5, Program L-5.1).
G. Urban Design
Promote compatibility and avoid abrupt changes in scale and density (Goal L-6, Policy L-6.7).
H. Historic Resources
Protect historic resources, including protecting resources that have not been evaluated for
inclusion in State or Federal Historic Resources Inventory prior to substantial alteration or
demolition. Consider revising the TDR ordinance so development transferred from historic
buildings downtown can only be used for residential development. (Goal L-7, Policies L-7.2 and
L-7.13)
I. Civic Uses
Support existing community facilities and create new gathering places. Facilitate creation of
new parkland to serve Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. (Goal L-8, Policy L-8.1)
J. Public Streets and Spaces
Create and enhance publicly accessible outdoor gathering spaces (Goal L-9, Policies L-9.4 to
9.6).
K. Palo Alto Airport
Minimize environmental impacts associated with airport operations, including noise and
bayland protection and enhancement (Goal L-10, Policies L -10.3 to 10.6).
Transportation Element
In the Transportation Element, key policy questions include prioritization of future
transportation infrastructure investments and sustainability-based strategies and initiatives.
There was more consensus at the CAC and at the Council on the Transportation Element as
compared to the Land Use Element. For example, at the CAC, there were no issues or policies
within the draft Transportation Element that resulted in the CAC generating policy options for
Council decision. Therefore, this section does not include a detailed review of CAC policy
options and Council direction, as presented above for the Land Use Element, but this section
gives a brief overview of how the Element was developed, and provides links past CAC and
Council staff reports that offer more detailed background information.
The CAC discussed the Transportation Element at 6 full meetings and 4 subcommittee meetings
from September 2015 through July 2016. The Sustainability subcommittee also discussed the
Transportation Element. The staff report for the first CAC discussion of the Element provides
the background of the contents of the 1998 Element, previous PTC revision process, the Council
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18
direction on Element goals and vision, and a goal-by-goal overview of key issues and related
City efforts. It is available here:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Agenda-Item-3-
Transportation-Element-Discussion.pdf
The staff report for the first CAC review of a Draft Transportation Element includes background
on Transportation Element subcommittee areas of consensus and topics for further CAC
discussion, including an evolving discussion of approaches to parking, and the appropriate
balance between encouraging alternative’s to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips without
demonizing drivers. See:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Staff-Report.pdf
The CAC considered recommending the draft Element to Council at their June 21, 2016
meeting. The staff report prepared for that meeting contains a detailed summary of the CAC
and subcommittee process of deliberation that led to the draft Element, including the issues
that garnered both consensus and differences of opinion through the process. It also provides
links to interim drafts of the Element. It is available here:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_06.21.16.pdf
After in-depth discussion on June 21, the CAC unanimously recommended the draft Element to
the Council at their July 19, 2016 meeting.
The City Council first reviewed the CAC draft Transportation Element at the Council’s August 15
and September 19, 2016 meetings. The Council staff report summarizes the CAC process and
outlines key issues on which staff sought Council feedback, including overall Element
organization, strategies for reducing SOV trips, a phased approach to parking supply, and
utilizing both vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and level of service (LOS) as metrics for traffic
analysis. It is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53339
In addition to responding to issues raised by the CAC, the Council also focused on the policies
and programs supporting the City’s new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy
and the associated Transportation Management Association (TMA); ensuring that policies
accurately reflect the new Residential Parking Program (RPP); and carefully reviewing the
legally-required list of planned transportation infrastructure investments. The final Council
staff report covering the draft Transportation Element is from its May 1, 2017 meeting. That
staff report reviews the Council’s prior feedback on transportation infrastructure investments
and other revisions made in response to Council direction. The May 1, 2017 Council staff report
is available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57258
Key policy topics for PTC discussion include:
x Transportation Infrastructure Investments: the Council considered and provided
direction on this list, which reflects the planned improvement assumed as part of the
Comp Plan EIR analysis. The Council-approved list appears in the background section of
the draft Element (page T-12) and is:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19
o Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists at Caltrain
crossings.
o Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for
pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue.
o Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing of Caltrain
in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto.
o Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle +
Pedestrian Transportation Plan as amended.
o The US 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge.
o El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape improvements.
o Downtown mobility and safety improvements.
o Geng Road extension to Laura Lane.
o Middlefield Road corridor improvements.
x Single-occupant vehicle use: The Element tackles this topic from several angles,
developing a comprehensive strategy throughout Goal T-1 of this Element that
encompasses:
o making it easier and more convenient to use alternatives to the automobile
(Policy T-1.1)
o improving first/last mile connections (Program T1.6.1, Policy T-1.13), with an
emphasis on continuing the free shuttle program (Policy T-1.14)
o increasing efforts to market, promote, and educate about alternatives to the
automobile and make transit more convenient (Policies T-1.7 through T-1.12)
o identifying funding sources for transit and alternative transportation
improvements (Policy T-1.25, T-1.26 and T-1.27)
o preparing for technological and societal changes that will affect transportation,
including zero-emission vehicles (Policy T-1.3 and T-1.4). Council directed
addition of a new policy on autonomous vehicles, which was crafted with input
from staff technical experts (Policy T-1.5).
x TDM requirements: The Element formalizes a program to implement TDM requirements
for future development. The program establishes specific quantified goals for trip
reduction and is closely tied to an EIR mitigation measure to reduce traffic congestion
impacts. (Goal T-1, Program T1.2.2)
x Traffic congestion: Policies and programs under Goal T-2 address traffic congestion,
including through expanding the existing TMA (Policy T-2.2) and addressing school-
related congestion (Policies T-2.6 and T-2.7)
x VMT and LOS: The draft Element maintains a policy of using conventional vehicular LOS
to evaluate the potential impacts on traffic congestion as a result of new development.
Utilizing both LOS and VMT metrics provides the City with a comprehensive view to
address traffic and to reflect its sustainability goals. (Goal T-2, Policy T-2.3 and Program
T2.3.1)
x Enhancing connectivity: Policies and programs under Goal T-3, Efficient Roadway
Network, emphasize the City's commitment to Complete Streets principles (PolicyT-3.5),
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 20
improved connections to primary destinations (Policy T3.10.3), and prioritize the safety
of school children (Policy T-3.14).
x Neighborhood impacts: Traffic calming and minimizing impacts to neighborhood streets
(Goal T-4)
x Parking: Under Goal T-5, the draft Element includes a phased approach to managing
parking demand and evaluating changing parking needs over time (Policy T-5.1); the
concept of parking pricing is introduced as well (Program T-5.2.2). It also includes a
policy to work to protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business
districts (Policy T- 5.11).
x Safety: As a key component of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, policies under
Goal T-6, Roadway Safety, prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over
vehicle level of-service at intersections and vehicle parking (Policy T-6.1), and add a new
Vision Zero policy (Policy T-6.2).
x Transit-dependent community: With a series of new policies and programs under Goal
T-7, this draft Element expands support for the transit-dependent community to
address the needs of those who are dependent on transit due to economic disadvantage
or choice, as well as maintaining policies and programs that improve access for seniors
and those with mobility constraints.
x Regional cooperation: Policies and programs under Goal T-8 emphasize working with
other State and regional agencies to prioritize Caltrain grade separations (Policy T-8.1),
freeway improvements (Policy T-8.6), and bicycle (Policy T-8.11), pedestrian (Policy T-
8.12), and transit projects (Policy T-8.10).
Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information
Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679
Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Council motions: A table showing all Council motions on the Land Use and Transportation
Elements, as well as the revisions made in response to each motion, is available here:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Att.F_050117_Council-
Motion-LU-Transp_Table_w_links.pdf
1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
Land Use and Community Design Element Vision Statement and Goals Comparison
1998-2010
Land Use and Community Design Element
VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
June 30, 2017 Version
Land Use and Community Design Element
VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
Vision Statement
Palo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live,
work, and visit. The elements that make Palo
Alto a great community—its neighborhoods,
shopping and employment centers, civic uses,
open spaces, and natural resources—will be
strengthened and enhanced. The diverse range
of housing and work environments will be
sustained and expanded to create more choices
for all income levels. All Palo Alto
neighborhoods will be improved, each to have
public gathering spaces, essential services and
pedestrian amenities, to encourage less
reliance on the automobile.
Vision Statement
Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance
our future growth needs with the
preservation of our neighborhoods, address
climate protection priorities through
sustainable development near neighborhood
services and enhance the quality of life of all
neighborhoods.
LOCAL LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL 1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing
Residents and Visitors with Attractive
Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts,
Public Facilities, and Open Spaces.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL 1: A compact and resilient city providing
residents and visitors with attractive
neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts,
public facilities and open spaces.
CITY STRUCTURE
GOAL L-2: An Enhanced Sense of “Community ”
with Development Designed to Foster Public Life
and Meet Citywide Needs
A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
GOAL L-2 An enhanced sense of “community”
with development designed to foster public life,
meet citywide needs and embrace the principles
of sustainability.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential
Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct
Character and Within Walking Distance of
Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public
Gathering Places.
DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL L-3 Safe, attractive residential
neighborhoods, each with its own distinct
character and within walking distance of
shopping, services, schools and/or other public
gathering places.
1998-2010
Land Use and Community Design Element
VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
June 30, 2017 Version
Land Use and Community Design Element
VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
CENTERS
GOAL L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers That
Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial Services
and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering
Places for the City’s Residential Neighborhoods and
Employment Districts.
COMMERCIAL CENTERS
GOAL L-4 Inviting pedestrian scale centers that
offer a variety of retail and commercial services
and provide focal points and community
gathering places for the city’s residential
neighborhoods and employment districts.
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL L-5: High Quality Employment Districts, Each
With Their Own Distinctive Character and Each
Contributing to the Character of the City as a
Whole.
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL L-5 High quality employment districts,
each with their own distinctive character and
each contributing to the character of the city as
a whole.
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC SPACES
GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create
Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City
Streets and Public Spaces.
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC SPACE
GOAL L-6 Well-designed buildings that create
coherent development patterns and enhance
city streets and public spaces.
HISTORIC CHARACTER
GOAL L-7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo
Alto’s Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
GOAL L-7 Conservation and preservation of Palo
Alto’s historic buildings, sites and districts.
CIVIC USES
GOAL L-8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural
Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and
Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and
Enrich Public Life.
PARKS AND GATHERING PLACES
GOAL L-8 Attractive and safe parks, civic and
cultural facilities provided in all neighborhoods
and maintained and used in ways that foster and
enrich public life.
PUBLIC WAYS
GOAL L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and
Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of
the City.
PUBLIC STREETS AND PUBLIC SPACES
GOAL L-9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and
streets that enhance the image and character of
the city.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
GOAL L-10 Maintain an economically viable local
airport with minimal environmental impacts.
Attachment D
Links to Documents on CAC, its Subcommittees and City Council Deliberations on the Draft Land Use
Element
CAC and its Subcommittees’ Deliberations on Land Use
December 15, 2016 CAC staff report: Initial introduction to the Land Use Element, including
growth management policies: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Dec-15-2015-CAC-packet1.pdf
April 6, 2016 Land Use subcommittee agenda packet, including discussion of dynamic growth
management tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/CACLandUseSucommitteeAgendaPacket-20160406.pdf
April 19, 2016 full CAC staff report, including discussion of dynamic growth management tools:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CAC-Packet-04.19.2016-
Memo.pdf
May 17, 2016 CAC staff report presenting multiple options for growth management policies and
programs and height limits: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf
June 13, 2016 Land Use subcommittee staff report with detailed discussion of evolving growth
management policy options and questions for refinement:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CAC_Subctte-Memo-
06.13.16_Corrected.pdf
June 24, 2016 continuation of June 13 subcommittee discussion of growth management policy
options, presented in a staff report: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160624.pdf and attachment:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Att.-A-Land-Use-Growth-
Management-Options.pdf
July 19, 2016 full CAC staff report summarizing growth management policy options developed
by the Land Use subcommittee: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_7.19.16.pdf
July 26, 2016 Sustainability subcommittee staff report; initial exploration of performance
measures and community indicators: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160726.pdf
August 16, 2016 full CAC staff report, describing the work of both the Sustainability and the Land
Use subcommittees. Presents three major components of growth management policy options:
overall cumulative growth management policy options, performance measures, and numerical
caps. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-
Memo_08.16.16.pdf
September 20, 2016 full CAC staff report, reporting consensus that the Land Use and
Sustainability subcommittees had drafted a full range of growth management policies and
programs that accurately represented the range of options to forward to the City Council for
discussion: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff-
Report_Sept20-2.pdf.
City Council Deliberations on the Land Use Element
The November 28, 2016 Council packet, which includes a detailed description of the CAC-drafted
range of cumulative cap options, annual limit options, and downtown cap options, is here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54761
The Council took up the Land Use Element again on January 30, 2017. The staff report for
January 30 is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55582. The City
Council comments from November 28, 2016 are summarized in Attachment, C of that January
30, 2017 packet. The Council discussed the cumulative cap, annual limit, and downtown cap in
detail at its January 30, 2017 meeting. The Council motion on the Land Use Element, including
direction on growth management policies and height is available in the January 30, 2017 action
minutes, here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153 (see page 5).
1
Gitelman, Hillary
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, July 27, 2017 4:44 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Mike Alcheck; Waldfogel, Asher
Subject:Suggestions on the land-use discussion for PTC review
Hello Hillary and Palo Alto Planning Staff
Thank you for your management of the final steps of the Comprehensive Plan process.
As discussed in our PTC meeting last night, I would like to memorialize the items that I would like to see addressed in our Land Use discussion, in addition to items that are already covered in your first staff report on
this topic.
zoning changes to encourage missing-middle housing and denser housing around downtown corridors
o Trade-offs between TDM measures and parking requirements
o Maximum density relief to allow for more small units
o Height limits: potential changes to currently 50 ft height limit in appropriate areas and for appropriate users
Coordinated Area Plans for several key sites in Palo Alto
o University Ave downtown
o Cal Ave downtown
o Fry’s site
Specific plan for University Ave Transit Center (including detailed plan for “underground caltrain”)
Consider pedestrianization of part of University Ave
Adding housing in retail centers: encourage housing in Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country
Finally, as I mentioned in my discussion of “principles that should guide our Comp Plan” (as you may remember, I had suggested a set of principles for the parking section of the transportation element), I also think that there should be some principles for land use.
Among those principles should be that we want to lower the cost to develop housing for our residents, and to lower the cost of
housing to the residents themselves.
Thank you for your consideration! Eric
--
Eric Rosenblum
206 604 0443