HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3410
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3410)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/22/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Rail Corridor Study
Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate the Palo Alto Rail Corridor
Study and Approval of a Negative Declaration
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council: 1) adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) approving the Rail
Corridor Study Report, updated as shown on Attachments B and G, amending the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Vision
Statement of the Study, and 2) approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment C) for the
project.
Executive Summary
At its December 6, 2012 hearing, the City Council Rail Committee voted to forward the Palo Alto
Rail Corridor Study (Report) and list of text changes to the City Council, expressing support for
the revised document. The City Council at its September 18, 2012 hearing had referred the
Report back to the Council Committee to ensure consistency with recent decisions on related
rail projects and ongoing revisions to the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles.
The City Council Rail Committee, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural
Review Board (ARB), Rail Corridor Study Task Force (Task Force) and staff have recommended
approval of the Rail Corridor Study Report (Attachment G; packet copies provided previously to
Council and City Libraries and available online at: www.paloaltorailcorridor.org) with the list of
text changes in Attachment B and the incorporation of the Vision Statement into the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment to the Transportation
Element would formalize the City’s approval of the Report and would give the Report’s key
policy findings greater legal standing. The recommendations in the Report would be subject to
future development, refinement and PTC and Council review. The attached resolution
City of Palo Alto Page 2
(Attachment A) would adopt the document as an official City Report and incorporate the Vision
Statement into the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Background
The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study in July 2010 to evaluate land use,
transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to
potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. The Report, the
outcome of the two year process, analyzed those elements and their potential impacts from the
range of possible rail improvements, including Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or
grade separations, and/or the potential options for the High Speed Rail project.
Since the start of this project in 2010, a lot of changes have occurred, including changes to the
High Speed Rail and Caltrain Modernization projects. Modifications to the report have been
made to reflect those changes, including the City’s official position on rail projects and revised
Guiding Principles. Because the rail projects are still pending and subject to change, the Report
was written to provide a framework with some flexibility to ensure the effectiveness of the
Report as a long range planning document. The purpose is to generate a community vision that
would provide land use and transportation policies to guide development under a variety of
scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to be proactive in advance of changes to the rail system.
Vision Statement
The vision of the project, as stated in the Report, is to:
“create a vibrant, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood
centers that provide walkable, safe, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the
community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the City through an
improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.”
The areas that make up the Rail Corridor have been traditionally viewed as separate and
distinct planning areas. This Report attempts to look at the entire 1,000 acre corridor as an
interconnected subarea within the City, which is challenging because of the diversity of the
corridor and its large size. The intent is to develop a long term comprehensive set of policies
that can be used to guide the area regardless of what improvements are made to the fixed rail
system.
City Council Hearing
The Rail Corridor Study had its initial formal review by the City Council on September 18, 2012.
The Council unanimously voted to refer the study back to the Council Rail Committee for
City of Palo Alto Page 3
further review and input. The item was referred back to the Committee to ensure that the
documents accurately reflect the City’s current position on Caltrain, the High Speed Rail project
and the Rail Committee Guiding Principles, given all of the recent changes and events. The
changes were envisioned to be minor, not changing the intent or vision of the Report. A
summary of the Council’s comments are provided below.
Important to reconcile proposed Comprehensive Plan changes with current rail issues.
Need to reflect most current discussion regarding rail improvements, including Caltrain
and Guiding Principles.
Update diagram to show full impact of rail crossings along Alma.
Need context sensitive solution regarding rail impact for neighborhoods. Need to
consider all neighborhoods equally when examining potential impacts, and then
mitigate appropriately.
Need to acknowledge that modernization includes more than electrification. The
potential impacts of electrification have not yet been identified, analyzed or mitigated.
Need to be careful regarding grade separation and potential impacts.
Should clarify that elevated crossings are not acceptable.
Concern regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding aesthetics and cultural
resources.
Concern about impact of town centers on neighborhoods.
Important to view the study as a guiding document, not prescriptive. Timing is critical
for future funding opportunities.
Support for requirement for timely infrastructure.
Vision statement is very important piece.
Motion approved to refer the report and resolution to the Council Rail Committee.
City Council Rail Committee Hearing
The Report was brought to the December 6, 2012 City Council Rail Committee. The hearing was
also attended by three of the Task Force members. In response to Council and the Council Rail
Committee’s direction, staff provided a list of text changes based on Council and Rail
Committee comments. The text changes were made to better align the document with the
Council’s position on the Caltrain Modernization project, the most recent Guiding Principles (as
approved at the December 6, 2012 Council Rail Committee) and concern regarding potential
grade separated crossings. Some specific changes included replacing “Caltrain Electrification”
with “Caltrain Modernization” and adding language clarifying that any and all crossings must be
mitigated for safety. These changes would be in addition to the list of text changes originally
City of Palo Alto Page 4
provided at the September 18th City Council hearing. Attachment B, List of Text Changes,
incorporates all proposed text changes. Figure 4.5 on Page 4.11 (Attachment B) has also been
modified to accurately show that impacts could occur on all intersections with Alma Street. The
Rail Committee determined that the text and map changes provided by staff met the Council’s
direction. The Council Committee recommended with a vote of 4-0-1 adoption of the Rail
Corridor Study as a vision document to guide and inform future rail corridor policy with the text
changes. Staff also clarified that the Report is a long range planning and vision document
intended to provide guidelines. It does not specifically identify or recommend specific
development projects that may be proposed by property owners.
Discussion
The purpose of this item is to request adoption of a resolution formally approving the Rail
Corridor Study Report and to incorporate the Vision Statement into the existing Comprehensive
Plan to formally recognize the Report as representing the City’s policy positions. The May 16
draft, previously provided and online, is the most current version of the printed Report.
Following the final decision made by Council, staff intends to update the report to reflect the
approved changes, as summarized in Attachment B, List of Text Revisions.
Should the Council approve the resolution, the Transportation Element of the current
Comprehensive Plan would be amended to recognize the Rail Corridor Study Report and to
formally incorporate the Vision Statement. The Report establishes the context for decisions in
the future regarding more detailed policy and physical improvements. It is the first step
towards responding proactively to the City’s needs for the rail corridor area. The
recommendations of the Report would then become part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan
update and future studies and projects for implementation, such as area studies and the Capital
Improvements Program.
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The recommendation of five new goals and new or amended policies for the Comprehensive
Plan is an important component of the Implementation Chapter of the Report. Staff has
modified the policies under Goals 1 and 2 in response to Council comments. The changes were
made to make it clear that impacts must be mitigated, including for any crossings, and that
mitigation measures must be proportionate to impacts. The elements of the study are
generally consistent with goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. The
new goals and associated policies have been identified and recommended to be incorporated
into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the ongoing Amendment process to further the goals of
the Study. The policies and Report will be analyzed as part of the continuing Comprehensive
Plan update process, including the associated Environmental Impact Report. Key revisions are
noted below:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
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. All Neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected
by rail should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
Goal 2: Ensure the Highest Possible Safety at All Rail Crossings and Mitigate Rail Impacts on
Neighborhoods, Public Facilities, Schools and Mixed-use Centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain corridor
should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience. This may
be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the preferred choice being grade
separation, 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.
Rail Corridor Study Report Resolution
Following the September Council and the December Council Rail Committee meetings, staff has
modified the resolution to clarify the Report’s purpose as a vision document for the City. The
resolution now proposes to modify only Policy T-1 of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Element to incorporate the Vision Statement and that the Report is a City approved policy
document. The intent of the Rail Corridor Study Resolution is to formalize the approval of the
document and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to give the recommendations in the Report
added authority. The Report, as a formal document, must be considered when reviewing
development within Palo Alto. The actual implementation of the recommendations of the
Report, including the Goals, Policies, and Programs would be part of future planning studies,
CIP projects, and related environmental clearance. The following addition (underlined) to
existing Policy T-1 is proposed (see attachment B for the consolidated list of proposed changes
to the Report):
Policy T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan:
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use…
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and
neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve
the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city through an
improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. In 2013, the City
approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report to guide redevelopment along the rail
corridor to be consistent with land use and transportation policies advocated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment along the rail corridor shall take into account the land
use and transportation policies discussed in the Rail Corridor Study Report.
The addition to the policy is essentially the same as what was reviewed by the City Council on
September 18, 2012. The vision statement remains the same. However, staff added the last
sentence requiring that future development along the rail corridor must consider the policies of
the Report. Staff believes this addition is important to provide regulatory standing for the
Report in the development review process in the City and for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act for documents prepared by Caltrain and/or the High Speed Rail
Authority.
Public Outreach
A 17-member Rail Corridor Study Task Force was created to represent a cross-section of
neighborhoods, business interests, environmental organizations, and other community
organizations and interests. The Task Force met 15 times to consider information, discuss issues
and policies, and ultimately to recommend the report to Council. Two community meetings
were held in 2011 and 2012 for public input. Staff has also met with citizen and neighborhood
committees, including the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and the City/School Traffic and
Safety Committee. To solicit public feedback, a website and email address was established for
the project. Notices for all meetings were posted on the City’s website at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp and the City
Hall Notice Board. Additional background information was also provided on the webpage. Staff
has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to
send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org,
was been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website,
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as
possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media
Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project
website during the process.
Next Steps
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Subsequent to Council approval of the proposed resolution, the next step will be to work with
the Planning Commission and the consultant to include the Report’s recommendations for the
new Comprehensive Plan goals and policies into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff
will coordinate recommendations for future studies into staff’s work programs and will factor
priority projects into future Capital Improvements Programs.
Resource Impacts
The City Council initially authorized $200,000 for consultant services for this study. A total of
$90,000 was included in the fiscal year 2010-11 and the remaining $110,000 was allocated in
the 2011-12 budget. The contract was amended on June 4, 2012 with a minor budget increase
of $25,000 by the Council to accommodate the additional report drafts and meetings that were
determined to be needed.
Policy Implications
The Report will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use and transportation
policies to guide the effort for the corridor. The Report is consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment
Table on page 6.14 of the Study. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and the California Avenue Area Concept Plan, were
considered with respect to the policies and improvements outlined in the Rail Corridor Study.
Policy T-1 will be immediately amended to incorporate the Vision Statement and to recognize
the Report. The new Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and other program
recommendations will be integrated into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and/or
subsequent studies.
Environmental Review
A Draft Initial Study which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted and
circulated for a 30 day public review on May 25, 2012 (Attachment C). The public comment
period closed at 5:00 PM on June 25, 2012. Copies of the environmental documents have been
provided to the State, Caltrain/San Mateo County Transportation District, Caltrans and Stanford
University for their review and comments. Caltrain and Stanford University have expressed no
objections to the document. No other comments have been received as of the printing of this
staff report. Minor modifications to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were made to
reflect the most recent text changes. Because those changes are minor and do not create
additional impacts, CEQA does not require recirculation of the documents. Additional
environmental review for individual projects would be required as those projects are more fully
developed for implementation. In addition, CEQA review for the Next Steps and
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Implementation section will be conducted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update
and/or as CIP projects are implemented.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B: List of Text Changes and Map of Two-Track On-Grade Configuration:
Crossing and Impact Area Locations (PDF)
Attachment C: Negative Declaration (DOC)
Attachment D: December 6, 2012 Rail Committee Staff Report (w/o attachments)
(PDF)
Attachment E: September 18, 2012 City Council Staff Report (w/ attachments) (PDF)
Attachment F: Rail Committee Guiding Principles (DOCX)
Attachment G: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (previously provided and available online at
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org) (TXT)
Not Yet Approved
1
120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and Amending the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to
Incorporate Certain Findings of the Report
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in
1998, including the Transportation Element; and
WHEREAS, Policy T-1 provides that land use decisions shall be made that
encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The policy also states that
transportation and land area are inextricably linked; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2010, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the preparation of the Rail Corridor Study; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public outreach program in developing the
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report, (the “Project”), including convening a citizen task
force, facilitating outreach to the community and coordinating with other City departments throughout 2010 to 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board heard public comment and reviewed
the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on May 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard public comment
and reviewed the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on May 30, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard public comment and reviewed the Palo Alto
Rail Corridor Study Report on June 25, 2012, September 18, 2012 and January 22, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
certain aspects of the Palo Alto Rail Study Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does HEREBY
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report, as amended by the
Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Policy T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language:
Attachment A
Not Yet Approved
2
120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit
use…
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west
portions of the city through an improved circulation network that binds the city
together in all directions. In 2013, the City approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor
Study Report to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor to be consistent with land use and transportation policies advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment along the rail corridor shall take into account the land use
and transportation policies discussed in the Rail Corridor Study Report.
SECTION 3. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
_________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning
and Community Environment
LIST OF TEXT REVISIONS FOR THE RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY REPORT
January 24, 2013 (Incorporating revisions from September 18 and November 28, 2012)
The word "safe" will be added to the vision statement throughout the document.*
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page ES-03, last full paragraph
ISSUES
Regardless of the final outcome of proposals to upgrade modernize Caltrain operations or add
high speed train service to the Caltrain corridor on the Peninsula, the study area has many
existing issues that should be addressed.
Page ES.04, second bullet under “Rail Corridor”
The preferred alternative for any rail improvements or expansion is the Below-Grade
Open Trench alignment.
Improve all rail crossings to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience.
Grade-separated crossings, if feasible and fully mitigated, are preferred over at-grade
crossings.
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND
Page 2.01, paragraph 3
The study area extends one parcel east of Alma Street and one parcel west of El Camino Real with the exception of the Stanford University main campus and Stanford Shopping Center where the study area follows the right-of-way to address the land uses that front these major transportation corridors." A note will also be added to each diagram legend next to the label study boundary (approximate, see description on p. 2.01)”*
Page 2.08, second paragraph, second bullet
Caltrain Upgrade/Electrification Modernization (No HST)
Page 2.11, third paragraph
Economic Impacts of High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification Modernization in Palo
Alto (2011)
The City Council authorized a consultant to evaluate possible economic and property value
impacts associated with the proposed Caltrain Electrification Modernization Program and the
High Speed Rail as currently planned by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Third bullet
Grade separation, if supported by analysis, at every potential crossing for enhanced
safety, and vehicular circulation and reduced noise from horns and crossing bells.
Fourth paragraph
Economic Impacts of Caltrain Electrification Modernization in Palo Alto
Due to the possibility that the HSR project will not proceed as currently envisioned, a separate
study analyzed economic and property value impacts in Palo Alto for Caltrain electrification
modernization as a stand-alone project. It was concluded that Caltrain electrification
modernization will produce net positive, but modest economic impacts in Palo Alto. Transit
service will improve as a result of electrification, which along with quieter trains that will have
lower vibrations and pollution emissions, will have a net positive impact on the community.
However, more travel delays for drivers at the at-grade crossings and visual impacts for
properties facing electrical facilities will occur. Therefore, all proposed changes must be fully
examined and suitable mitigation measures must be required.
Fifth paragraph
Role and Guiding Principles of the High Speed City Council Rail Committee of the Palo Alto
City Council (2010)(2012)
SECTION 3
ISSUES & VISION
Page 3.06, first paragraph, under “PUBLIC FACILITIES”
INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD KEEP PACE WITH DEVELOPMENT AND SHOULD ACHIEVE A HIGH QUALITY DESIGN.*
SECTION 4
CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY
Page 4.04, third paragraph under “Task Force Recommendations for the Caltrain Corridor”
>> The Caltrain corridor should must be modified to improve safety and to minimize future
noise, vibration or visual impacts on adjoining districts and neighborhoods.
>> The existing at-grade crossings of the Caltrain corridor should be improved to provide
the highest possible level of safety and convenience. Grade separations are preferred, if
appropriate and supported by analysis. but iIn certain circumstances, upgraded, safe at-
grade crossings may be the only feasible option. Detailed engineering studies of trench,
grade separated and at-grade options are necessary and should include the potential
impact of increased train traffic and bicycle/pedestrian/vehicular traffic.
>> Additional safe and convenient 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 outside the study area. Engineering studies need to be
undertaken and analyzed. A variety of potential solutions should be studied including at-
grade and grade-separated options. Engineering studies need to be undertaken and
analyzed.
Page 4.08, first bullet under “Task Force Recommendations for the Caltrain Corridor with the Rail in a Below-Grade Open Trench”
>> Explore a variety of configurations for trench cover design which could include cantilevers, lattice covers and full slab covers accommodate additional pedestrian and bicycle connection opportunities.*
Page 4.10, second paragraph
Of particular importance is the physical impact that will likely result to properties and natural
resources adjoining Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill Avenue, West Meadow Drive, and West
Charleston Road as a result of if grade separations that may be are required to ensure safe and
convenient crossings and efficiency of rail operations. These grade separation impact areas are
illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 4.5.
Page 4.11, Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5 (Attachment B) has been amended to show that the purple “impact zone” bars have
been extended in all directions on Alma Street.
Page 4.13, Table 4.1, item 7, third column
Castilleja Elementary School will be changed to Castilleja School.*
Page 4.14 Table 4.1, item 10, third column, second bullet
Improvements including widening of tunnel to be ADA compliant and also to provide visibility and lighting*
Page 4.22, second column, second paragraph, third bullet, first sub-bullet
o Corridor-wide: Design elements that can be applied throughout the
corridor to ensure continuous identity across the city. This includes
identifying and protecting appropriate existing large trees to preserve
and may also include the addition of new elements such as; large street
trees, street lighting, regulatory signage, signalization and wayfinding,
uniformly-designed legible bicycle facilities.*
SECTION 5
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN
Throughout the entire document the South Palo Alto Mixed-Use Center will be renamed the El Camino Way Mixed-Use Center. *
Page 5.02, Under “Task Force Recommendations for the Mixed Use Centers”, a new bullet point will be added.
>> Include public art throughout the corridor as a way to reinforce the unique identity of each of the Mixed-Use Centers.*
Page 5.18, fifth paragraph, under “Task Force Recommendations for Southgate/Evergreen
Park Residential Subarea”
The following recommendations are intended primarily to improve access for the neighborhood.
These access improvements are further described in Section 4 of this report.
>> New grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the rail tracks, if supported by
technical studies as safe and feasible, should be provided at Peers Park. This could be a
bridge or trench cover if the trench alternative for rail improvements is constructed.
Page 5.19, fifth paragraph
Task Force Recommendations for Ventura Residential Subarea
In Ventura subarea, most of the recommendations focus on methods to improve access to parks,
open space and school facilities. These recommendations are further described in Section 4 of
this document
>> Provide improvements for pedestrians and bicycles at key intersections along El Camino
Real (Margarita/Matadero; Los Robles/El Camino Way), on routes that will provide
direct linkages to parks and schools to the west.
>> Provide a grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle linkage, if supported by technical studies
to be safe and feasible, to Hoover Park across the Caltrain tracks along Matadero Creek.
>> Identify an additional location for a safe grade-separated crossing of Alma Street and the
rail tracks between Matadero Creek and Meadow Drive.
Page 5.20, fourth paragraph
Task Force Recommendations for Charleston Meadow/Monroe Park Residential Subarea
Like the Ventura Residential Subarea, the Charleston Meadow/Monroe Park subarea suffers
from a lack of access to recreation and open space amenities or nearby schools. Consequently,
connections across the rail corridor and across El Camino are of particular importance.
>> Improve connections to other subareas and neighborhoods to ensure safe and convenient
access to schools and services.
>> Safe grade-separated crossings, that are supported by technical studies, of Alma Street
and the rail line for all travel modes at Charleston and Meadow to improve safety and
convenience are preferred.
>> Identify locations for a safe grade-separated crossing of Alma Street and the rail tracks
between Matadero Creek and Meadow Drive.
SECTION 6
NEXT STEPS & IMPLEMENTATION
Page 6.03-6.04
New Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements (Originally from Attachment C, List of Text
Changes, of the September 18, 2012 City Council packet)
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. All Neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by
rail should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
Goal 2: Ensure the Highest Possible Safety at All Rail Crossings and Mitigate Rail Impacts on
Neighborhoods, Public Facilities, Schools and Mixed-use Centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain corridor
should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience. This may be
grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the preferred choice being grade separation,
if supported by technical studies.
Policy2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of the tracks,
and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections from neighborhoods
to destinations such as schools, parks and services.
Policy2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the
Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of a High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor
should be modified to improve safety and to minimize noise, vibration and visual impacts on
adjoining districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods.
Page 6.06: A note will be added under Table 6.2.
Cost estimates shown in Table 6.2 are based on the following assumptions:
° Detail engineering studies have not been conducted.
° Planning estimates with 2012 dollars.
° Source: City of Palo Alto, Hatch Mott MacDonald.
° Costs do not include any necessary property acquisitions.*
* Changes originally from the September 18, 2012 City Council Hearing packet.
4.11
MAY 16, 2012
CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY
B
BB
CCC
Jane Lathrop Stanford M.S.HooverE.S.
ChallengerSch
StanfordUniversity
Palo Alto H.S.
Juana Briones E.S.TermanM.S.
BarronPark E.S.
El CarmeloE.S. Castilleja School
KeysSchool
FairmeadowE.S.
GreendellE.S.
Addison E.S.
AD
O
B
E
C
R
E
E
K
MAT
A
D
E
R
O
CRE
E
K
SAN
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
Q
U
I
T
O
CRE
E
K
MA
T
A
D
E
R
O
C
R
E
E
K
BA
R
R
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
SAN
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
Q
U
I
T
O
CRE
E
K
MITCHELL PARK HOOVER PARK
PEERS PARK
BOWLING GREEN PARKJOHNSON PARK
HERITAGE PARK
JERRYBOWDOINPARK
BOULWARE PARK
BRIONES PARK
MONROE PARK
TERMAN PARK
ROBLES PARK
STANFORDPALO ALTOPLAYING FIELDS
EL CAMINO PARK
EL PALOALTO PARK& TREE
COGSWELLPLAZALYTTON PLAZA
CUBBERLEYCOMMUNITY CTR
SARAH WALLISPARK
CAMERONPARK MAYFIELDPARK
VENTURA CMTY CTR
CASTILLEJA AVE
QUA
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
ALMA STREET
EL CAMINO REAL
HOM
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
EMB
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
KEL
L
O
G
G
SEA
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
ORE
G
O
N
E
X
W
Y
N C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
UNIVERSITY CIRCLE
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
EL CAM
I
N
O
W
A
Y
MAY
B
E
L
L
A
V
E
ALMA STREET
MIDDLEFIELD ROADMIDDLEFIELD ROAD
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
R
O
A
D
LOS
R
O
B
L
E
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAR
G
A
R
I
T
A
A
V
E
MAT
A
D
E
R
O
A
V
E
COL
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
STA
N
F
O
R
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
O
A
D
PARK BLVD
EAS
T
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
EL CAMINO REAL
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
BRYANT STREET
ROA
D
ALTO
AVE
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
EVE
R
E
T
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL C
A
R
M
E
L
O
A
V
E
AVE
LOM
A
V
E
R
D
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
MEA
D
O
W
D
R
I
V
E
LINC
O
L
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
COL
O
R
A
D
O
A
V
E
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
LOW
E
L
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
HAN
S
E
N
W
A
Y
PAL
O
LYTT
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
PAR
K
B
L
V
D
SER
R
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
PAL
M
D
R
I
V
E
GAL
V
E
Z
ARB. RD ROA
D
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
FOR
E
S
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
A
V
E
N
U
E
ADD
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL V
E
R
A
N
O
A
V
E
WEL
L
S
AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
D
R
CES
A
N
O
C
T
DEL
M
E
D
I
O
A
V
E
FER
N
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
AVE
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
1/2-mile
1/2-mile
1/2-mile
1/2-mile
1/2-mile
E EE E EE E E E E EPPPP
Figure 4.5: Two-Track On-Grade Configuration: Crossing and Impact Area Locations
Legend
Street Undercrossing Impact Area (approx.)
Priority Safety Crossing Improvement Area (Existing Grade Crossings)
Vehicular, Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing
Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing
Critical Intersection for Improvement (School Commute Corridors Adopted by City Council, 2004)
Existing Crossing (See dot color for type)
Potential Crossing Study Area Boundary (Approximate, see description p. 2.01)Public ParkSchoolCreek
Potential Future BRT Station
Caltrain Station
1/2-mile Radius Transit Service Area
CB
E
P
0’ 1,250’ 2500’
NOTES:
1. Some existing crossings shown exist but need improvement. The colored dots indicate the preferred type of
crossing.
2. It is desirable to have a balanced approach along the entire rail corridor for east-west connections. However,
land use (existing homes) and discontinuous streets create considerable difficulty in identifying additional
crossings in the south. Further studies are recommended to explore additional connectivity opportunities across
the rail lines in south Palo Alto.
3. Legend definitions are intended only to illustrate potential locations and impacts for grade separations. Further
studies are needed to determine feasibility and impacts.
Revised June 13, 2012
-• • o •
= =
• '" o
~-' ___ -'""I I~ ..
Rail Corridor Study Page 1 Initial Study
Rail Corridor Study Report
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
May 21, 2012
Attachment C
Rail Corridor Study Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 7
A. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................... 8
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ................................................ 9
C. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 10
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 12
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 13
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 14
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 15
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 17
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 18
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 20
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 21
L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 21
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 22
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 23
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 24
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 25
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 26
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 28
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 29
IV. DETERMINATION....................................................................................................... 29
Rail Corridor Study Page 3 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Rail Corridor Study
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3196
4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
Not Applicable 6. PROJECT LOCATION
The Rail Corridor Study applies to the City of Palo Alto, which is located in the northern part
of Santa Clara County, bounded on the west by the San Francisco Bay, city of Mountain View
to the south, city of Menlo Park to the south, and the Santa Cruz mountains to the west, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The boundaries of the corridor include the area between
Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the
north to the Mountain View city limits on the south, as shown in Figure 2. The study area also
includes sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential
land use, transportation and urban design changes.
Rail Corridor Study Page 4 Initial Study
Figure 2: Palo Alto
Figure 1: Regional Map
Rail Corridor Study Page 5 Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Rail Corridor Study would apply through a large area of the City of Palo Alto and,
therefore, there is no specific General Plan designation applicable to this project.
8. ZONING
The Rail Corridor Study would apply through a large area of the City of Palo Alto and,
therefore, there is no specific Zoning designation applicable to this project.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
The Rail Corridor Study (Study) was initiated in 2010 by the City Council to evaluate land use, transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor in Palo Alto, particularly in
response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those
improvements may include Caltrain upgrades such as electrification and/or grade separations,
and/or High Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important
context, it was not intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant physical component of Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point how rail use in the corridor
may change.
The vision of the project, developed with a citizen Task Force and stated in the Report, is to “create a vibrant, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers that
provide walk-able, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and
beyond, and to connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation
network that binds the city together in all directions.” The purpose of the study was to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The Study treats the entire corridor as an interconnected but diverse 1,000 acre sub-
area within the City.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan. The project would not result in any development. In
accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance with regulations
The Study outlines specific policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor
area, including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The recommendations are focused on two general categories: 1) Circulation and Connectivity and
2) Land Use and Urban Design. The report discusses the context, issues and vision of both of
these two items. The report identified several important themes:
East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers shall be removed.
A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved.
All residential neighborhoods must be protected.
Rail Corridor Study Page 6 Initial Study
New development requires timely infrastructure improvement.
The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings.
From these issues, the Study identifies and makes recommendations for several future projects
to help implement the vision. These next steps for implementation consist of recommendations
for priority safety, connectivity/circulation both related to and independent of the rail corridor
itself, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan Policies. The Study identifies these as
priorities that would be incorporated into future City efforts and projects.
The safety and connectivity/circulation recommendations include improvements to existing rail
crossings, undercrossing and to existing school commute corridors, as identified by the City
Council in the School Commute Corridors Network. The Study designates several areas to be
part of future area studies, including the Downtown, the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed Use Center, Alma Street, El Camino Real and the Rail Corridor itself.
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to be modified as follows:
Policy T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language:
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use…
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve
the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city through an
improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. In 2013, the City
approved the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report to guide redevelopment along the rail
corridor to be consistent with land use and transportation policies advocated in the Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment along the rail corridor shall take into account the land
use and transportation policies discussed in the Rail Corridor Study Report.
Implementation Process The immediate proposal is for the City Council to approve the document and to incorporate the
Vision of this study into the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of the improvements,
and area studies discussed above all require subsequent processes which will include an
associated environmental clearance. This document identifies these projects as planned
priorities but the approval of this document would not automatically implement these actions. All projects are required to conform to the City of Palo Alto rules and regulations, which can
include a General Plan amendment, Architectural Review or approval by City Council by
resolution or an ordinance. The City is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan. If this
study is approved by Council, the incorporation of the Study’s policy recommendations would
be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and be included as part of the Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared.
Rail Corridor Study Page 7 Initial Study
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The City of Palo Alto is surrounded primarily by other urban uses, but has two significant
natural and sensitive areas on the most eastern (San Francisco Bay/Baylands) and western
(Santa Cruz Mountains/Foothills) edges of the city. The map provided above shows these adjacencies. The Rail Corridor Study area is located within a part of the City that is fully
developed and urbanized.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
California State Clearinghouse
City of Menlo Park
City of Mountain View
Caltrain
California Department of Transportation
Stanford University
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier
Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
Rail Corridor Study Page 8 Initial Study
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
1,2,5 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor? 1, 2-Map L4,
5
X
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
1, 2-Map L4, 5
X
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
1,2,5 X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 9 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
f) Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION: The Rail Corridor Study and the vision statement do not propose any specific development. The Study
includes recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements,
future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study
and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Physical development that would be part of improvements would be subject to the City’s Architectural Review process. The
Architectural Review entitlement is required for all the exterior improvements to ensure the project is
designed with high aesthetic quality and is harmonious with its surroundings. Environmental review
would be included in the project review.
The proposed Study recommendations and vision will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All
improvements are subject to Architectural Review to address aesthetics, and once fully developed, all
individual components of the recommendations that the City will seek to implement will be further
reviewed for impacts and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant
Issues
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 10 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 2-MapL9 X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)?
1 X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1 X
DISCUSSION: The Study and vision statement do not include lands that are located in “Prime Farmland”, “Unique
Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The areas that are the subject of this Study are not zoned for agricultural use, and are not regulated by the Williamson
Act. The areas affected are within a developed urbanized area and have no impacts on forest or
timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
1,5 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and
other public benefits.
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including
Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after
consultation with the district committees and others.
Rail Corridor Study Page 11 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10);
1,5 X
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)?
1,5 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
1,5 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants? 1,5
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
1 X
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI
1 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 1 X
f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
Rail Corridor Study Page 12 Initial Study
The Study and vision statement includes recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
Rail Corridor Study area is in a developed urbanized location within the City of Palo Alto. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance with regulations related to Air Quality. The City of Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air
pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality
through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. The Rail Corridor Study will not create any new significant air quality impacts. Construction activities related
to the implementation of the Study’s recommendations and future projects would be evaluated in a
project-specific environmental analysis for potential effects on air quality. Once fully developed, all
individual components of the Study that the City would seek to implement would be required to mitigate any potential air quality impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 2-MapN1, 5 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1,2-MapN1, 5 X
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,8-MapN1, 5 X
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
1,2,3,4,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 13 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION: The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would cause a less
than significant to no impact to biological resources within the City. The Study includes
recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. The areas within the rail corridor study boundaries are all in urbanized areas and are fully disturbed. The subsequent projects
that the City may implement would be further reviewed for potential biological impacts, and additional
CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
1,10 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
1,2-MapL8 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
1,2-MapL8 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2-MapL8 X
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
1,2-MapL7,
10
X
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and vision statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive
Plan would not result in any development. The Study area is located within a fully developed and
Rail Corridor Study Page 14 Initial Study
disturbed portion of the City. The Study recommends the preservation of historic resources. Future
projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further
reviewed for potential cultural and archaeological impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis.
For all those future projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to
address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide
proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during
construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
11 X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN10 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
2-MapN5 X
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
1 X
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
2-MapN5 X
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
2-MapN5 X
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 15 Initial Study
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision statement reflects the study’s recommendation for future consideration safety
and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The incorporation of the Vision statement and separate approval of the Rail Corridor Study would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would
seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential geology, soils and seismicity impacts, and
subject to additional CEQA analysis.
Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward faults. Although hazards exist,
development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed
through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building
codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential
impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant
Issues
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1,5,9 X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1,5,9 X
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in
Rail Corridor Study Page 16 Initial Study
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a
project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality
would be considered significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate
change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size **
Single-family 56 du
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf
**If project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant.
The Study and Vision Statement supports recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The amendment of the vision statement to the Comprehensive Plan and the approval of the Rail Corridor
Rail Corridor Study Page 17 Initial Study
Study would not result in any development. Future projects that are guided by the Study that the City
would seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential greenhouse gas impacts, and subject
to additional CEQA analysis.
It is not anticipated that the Study’s recommendations would create any new significant operational GHG emissions. The intent of the study is to coordinate land use and transportation decisions,
including encouraging bicycle and pedestrian modes of transport and to reduce automobile trips where
possible. The subsequent projects guided by the Vision Statement that the City may implement based
on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
1,5 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
1,5 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
1,5 X
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
1,5 X
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
1,2-MapN9 X
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1 X
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 18 Initial Study
h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1,2-MapN7 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
1,2-MapN7 X
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement supports recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive
Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for hazards and hazardous materials impacts,
and subject to additional CEQA analysis.
The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The
recommendations do not involve the use, creation or transportation of hazardous materials and seek to improve safety. The actual implementation of the Study is anticipated to have little to no impacts with
regard to public safety, hazards and hazardous materials. The subsequent projects that the City may
implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential
impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
2-MapN2 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 19 Initial Study
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
1,5 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
1,5 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
1,5 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
2-MapN6 X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
2-MapN6 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area?
2-MapN8 X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
2-MapN6 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement supports the recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies and
the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and adoption of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for hydrology and water quality impacts, and subject to
additional CEQA analysis.
The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. All development
is required to comply with building codes that address flood safety issues. Development projects are
required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by
the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the
potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address
procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the construction
process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water quality. The
Rail Corridor Study Page 20 Initial Study
subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be
further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant
Issues
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1,2,3,4,5 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
1,2 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
1,5 X
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height?
1,5 X
f) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area?
1,5 X
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
1,2,3 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement supports the recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. The policies included in the Study have been analyzed and determined to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. New land uses that would not be allowed in the
Comprehensive Plan are not proposed. The entire study area is located within a fully developed or previously disturbed area. Future development is required to be consistent with existing land uses
within the City. Future projects supported in the Study that the City would seek to implement would
be further reviewed for land use impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The subsequent
projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further
reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Rail Corridor Study Page 21 Initial Study
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant
Issues
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
1,2 X
DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for
other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
1,2,12 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels?
1,2,12 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1,2,12 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,2,12 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 22 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
1 X
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
1 X
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
1 X
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 X
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1 X
l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
1,12 X
DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration of safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for noise impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. All development,
including construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10),
which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term
temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are
expected to be less than significant. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA
analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 23 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1 X
d) Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs? 1 X
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1 X
DISCUSSION: The Study and Vision Statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration of safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and the Vision Statement as amended in the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the approved Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for population and housing impacts,
and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and adoption of the Vision Statement would not
cause housing or population impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 24 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION: The approved Study and the Vision Statement amended in the Comprehensive Plan supports the
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects recommended in the approved Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for public safety impacts, and subject to additional CEQA
analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The
approval of the Study and vision statement recommend projects to improve safety and would not cause
public safety impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1 X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement to be amended to the Comprehensive Plan supports the
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Future projects that are
recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for
recreation impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully
developed and or previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and vision statement would not cause a population increase that would create recreation impacts. The subsequent projects that the
Rail Corridor Study Page 25 Initial Study
City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1,5 X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
1,5 X
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1,5 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1,5 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)?
1,2,5 X
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more?
1,5 X
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by
1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 26 Initial Study
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
1,5 X
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1,5 X
l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
1,5 X
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
1,5 X
n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,5 X
o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
1,5 X
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the
Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. The Study includes recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new
Comprehensive Plan policies. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would
seek to implement would be further reviewed for transportation and traffic impacts, and subject to
additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously
disturbed area. The approval of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the Comprehensive Plan would not cause traffic impacts. The Study recommends projects that would
improve safety and reduce traffic congestion, while enhancing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study
would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at
that time. Mitigation: None Required
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Rail Corridor Study Page 27 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
1,5 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
1,5 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
1,5 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
1,5 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
1,5 X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1,5 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1,5 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION: The Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan includes
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
adoption of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for utility and service system impacts, and would be subject to additional CEQA
analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and/or previously disturbed area. No
development is recommended within undeveloped areas that are not currently served by existing
public services. The approval of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not cause utility and service system impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Rail Corridor Study Page 28 Initial Study
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1,2,3,4,5,10 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1 X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION: The Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan includes
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for environmental impacts, and subject to additional CEQA
analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The
project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. The approval of the Study and Vision would not eliminate an important
example of California History.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does it have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. The project is located within a fully developed area and will not
result in considerable effects to the environment, and therefore, would create less than significant
impacts on the quality of the environment.
Rail Corridor Study Page 29 Initial Study
The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study and
amendment of the Vision Statement to the Comprehensive Plan would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance 4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001 5. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, May 2012 (www.paloaltorailcorridor.org)
6. Not used
7. Not used
8. Not used 9. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010 10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory
11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS A. Executive Summary from the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, May 2012
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Rail Corridor Study Page 30 Initial Study
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
___________________________________ May 24, 2012 and revised January 14, 2013 Project Planner Date
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3359)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 12/6/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Rail Corridor Study
Title: Rail Corridor Study Review
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
At the September 18, 2012 City Council hearing for the Rail Corridor Study, the City Council
unanimously voted to refer the study back to the Council Rail Committee for further review and
input. The City Council referred the item to the Committee to ensure that the documents
accurately reflect the City’s current position on Caltrain, the High Speed Rail project and the Rail
Committee Guiding Principles given all of the recent changes and events. A summary of the
Council’s comments are provided below.
Important to reconcile proposed Comprehensive Plan changes with current rail issues.
Need to reflect most current discussion regarding rail improvements, including Caltrain
and Guiding Principles.
Update diagram to show full impact of rail crossings along Alma.
Need context sensitive solution regarding rail impact for neighborhoods. Need to
consider all neighborhoods equally when examining potential impacts, and then
mitigate appropriately.
Need to acknowledge that modernization includes more than electrification. The
potential impacts of electrification have not yet been identified, analyzed or mitigated.
Need to be careful regarding grade separation and potential impacts.
Should clarify that elevated crossings are not acceptable.
Concern regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding aesthetics and cultural
resources.
Concern about impact of town centers on neighborhoods.
Important to view the study as a guiding document, not prescriptive. Timing is critical
for future funding opportunities.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Support for requirement for timely infrastructure.
Vision statement is very important piece.
Motion approved to refer the report and resolution to the Council Rail Committee.
In response to Council and the Council Rail Committee’s direction, a list of text changes based
on Council and Rail Committee comments is being provided as Attachment A. The text changes
were made to better align the document with the Council’s position on the Caltrain
Modernization project, the most recent Guiding Principles and concern regarding potential
grade separated crossings. The strikeouts indicate deletion and the underlined text are
proposed additions. These text changes may need to be further updated as the Rail Committee
continues to refine the Guiding Principles. With that in mind, staff is requesting feedback from
the Council Rail Committee on the proposed text changes and input regarding further changes
that may be necessary.
Attachments:
Attachment A - List of Text Revisions (DOC)
Attachment B - P. 4.11 Figure 4.5 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2723)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/18/2012
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Rail Corridor Study
Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan To Incorporate Certain Findings of the
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and Approval of a Negative Declaration.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) approving the 2012 Rail
Corridor Study Report, as updated as shown on Attachments B and G, amending the
Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to incorporate some key policy
findings of the Report, and that Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment C) for
the project.
Executive Summary
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the
Rail Corridor Study Task Force (Task Force) and staff have recommended approval of the Rail
Corridor Study Report (Attachment G; packet copies to Council and City Libraries only and
available online at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/committees/rctf.asp?NewsID=1235&TargetID=59
with list of text changes in Attachment B) and the incorporation of key policies and programs
into the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment to the
Transportation Element would formalize the City’s approval of the Report and would give the
Report’s key policy findings greater legal standing. However, the recommendations in the
Report would be subject to future development, refinement and PTC and Council review. The
City Council initiated a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study on June 12, 2010 to evaluate land use,
transportation, and urban design elements of the corridor. The Report is a direct outcome of
the discussions and work of the citizen Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study with support from
City staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group (BMS). The 17 member task force,
representing a variety of stakeholders (residents, businesses, civic organizations, etc.), was
convened to provide input into the process.
The purpose of this document is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation
and urban design along the Caltrain corridor, while furthering the City Council Rail Committee
Guiding Principles. The Report identifies the issues and vision for land use and circulation and
attempts to look at the entire 1,000-acre corridor as an interconnected, but diverse subarea
within the City. Recommendations are also made for implementing the vision described in
the study. The attached resolution (Attachment A) would adopt the document as an official
City Report and incorporate key policies and programs into the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Background
The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study in July 2010 to evaluate land use,
transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to
potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. The Report, the
outcome of the two year process, analyzed those elements and their potential impacts from the
range of possible rail improvements, including Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or
grade separations, and/or the potential options for the High Speed Rail project. Although the
High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not intended to be the focus of this
project. Both the Caltrain and High Speed Rail projects are still pending and the ultimate form
those projects may take will not be known for some time. The purpose was to generate a
community vision that would provide land use and transportation policies to guide
development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to be proactive in advance of
changes to the rail system.
The boundaries of the rail corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El
Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View
city limits on the south. Council’s authorization included the formation of a Task Force to assist
in the preparation of the study and to provide a forum for public input. The 17-member Task
Force is made up of several different stakeholder groups, including residents and business
owners, and representatives of the school district, a non-profit housing venture, environmental
groups, and Stanford University, as well as a Caltrain rider.
Vision Statement
The vision of the project, as stated in the Report, is to:
“create a vibrant, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood
centers that provide walkable, safe, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the
community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the City through an
improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.”
The areas that make up the Rail Corridor have been traditionally viewed as separate areas. This
Report attempts to look at the entire 1,000 acre corridor as an interconnected subarea within
the City, which is challenging because of the diversity of the corridor and its large size. The
intent is to develop a long term comprehensive set of policies that can be used to guide the
area regardless of what improvements are made to the fixed rail system. As such, the Report
does not analyze in detail the various impacts of the various rail alternatives, such as noise,
traffic and air quality, which are beyond the scope and resources of this study.
Task Force
The Rail Corridor Study Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the Council-
authorized Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study, with support from City staff and the
consultant, BMS. This Report represents the consensus of the Task Force as a whole, as an
outcome of fifteen (15) publicly noticed meetings. Through the Task Force meetings and
community workshops, staff has also received detailed feedback on the draft report from the
public. The Task Force members also acted as a conduit and a voice for their specific
stakeholder groups and for other interested members of the public. The public process also
included input from liaisons of various City boards and commissions to represent their
respective groups, including the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC).
A study area tour was held on September 10, 2011 with a majority of the Task Force, as well as
interested members of the public, to familiarize them with the corridor. The highlights of the
four hour tour included the South of Forest Area, the Homer tunnel, California Avenue, the
Churchill Avenue train crossing area, the intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road,
rail crossings at Charleston Road and at Meadow Avenue, and the new residential
developments near the Elks Lodge in south Palo Alto. At the final Task Force meeting on May 1,
2012, the Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report, including
the Implementation Chapter.
City Council Rail Committee
The Rail Corridor Study Report was the subject of three meetings before the City Council Rail
Committee. A brief update was provided on January 26, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the first draft
of the Rail Corridor Study Report was presented for their review and comments. The primary
comment received was a request to make the references to the future of the rail line more
general because the future of the High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects is
uncertain and continues to change.
On April 26, 2012, the Committee met and provided further comments. Staff and BMS
informed the Committee that various changes had been made to the document in response to
their feedback and subsequent public hearings. It was emphasized that the Report was crafted
to be consistent with the City’s position on the High Speed Rail project and the City Council Rail
Committee Guiding Principles. The document was also revised so that it would be as flexible as
possible to provide a longer horizon to better respond to the rapidly changing High Speed Rail
and Caltrain Electrification projects. The Committee was generally supportive of the direction
of the document.
Community Workshops and PABAC/CSTSC Joint Meeting
Two community workshops were held on the Rail Corridor Study. The first Community
Workshop was held on May 19, 2011 at the Lucie Stern Community Room. The public was
provided with a project overview, including the schedule and process. The attendees were
requested to provide their vision of the future of the corridor, preferred uses in specific areas,
view of the role of the corridor and priorities regarding transportation improvements.
A second Community Workshop was held on March 29, 2012 at the Lucie Stern. In order to
encourage a greater attendance of this workshop, additional public outreach was implemented,
including the mailing of over 7,000 notice cards, publication of the notice in the Palo Alto
Weekly, and posting of announcements at City Hall, the City’s social networking sites and the
libraries. Staff requested the Task Force members to publicize the meeting and encourage that
their neighbors attend the meeting. Because of the greater outreach, the second workshop
was well attended with more than 50 attendees, including many residents of South Palo Alto. A
few key issues were raised, including safety for children, pedestrians and bicyclists, treatment
of all neighborhoods fairly, and protecting schools from rail impacts. Some members of the
public stated that although additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings were desired, additional
vehicular crossings were not. The community members were generally appreciative and
supportive of the Report.
In addition to the community workshops, staff and BMS also met with the representatives of
the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee
(CSTSC) on February 16, 2012. The participants were generally supportive of the work that had
been done. The majority of the attendees encouraged trenching for rail projects and improving
safety for children, bicyclists and pedestrians, especially with grade separated crossings.
Discussion
The purpose of this item is to request adoption of a resolution formally approving the Rail
Corridor Study Report and to incorporate specific policies and programs into the existing
Comprehensive Plan to formally recognize the Report as representing the City’s policy
positions. The PTC conducted its final review of the Rail Corridor Study Report and resolution
on May 30, 2012, following review by the ARB on May 24, 2012. Both the PTC and ARB
unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the resolution approving the Report
and to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The May 30th PTC and May 24th ARB staff reports and
excerpt minutes are provided as Attachments D and E. The May 16 draft, included in the
packet and online, is the most current version of the printed Report. In addition, following the
final decision made by Council, staff intends to update the report to reflect the changes
suggested by the PTC and ARB. Those changes have been summarized on Attachment B, List of
Text Revisions. Following a final decision by the City Council, all those changes and any other
changes per Council direction would be incorporated into a final Report.
Should the Council approve the resolution, the Transportation Element of the current
Comprehensive Plan would be amended to recognize the Rail Corridor Study Report and to
formally incorporate some of its key policy findings into the Comprehensive Plan to provide a
regulatory framework for these key policies. The Report establishes the context for decisions in
the future regarding more detailed policy and physical improvements. It is the first step
towards responding proactively to the City’s needs for the rail corridor area. The
recommendations of the Report would then become part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan
update and future studies and projects for implementation, such as area studies and the Capital
Improvements Program.
To develop an understanding of the broad study area, the Report described related plans,
programs and policies and created two areas of focus: (1) Circulation and Connectivity and (2)
Land Use and Urban Design, as endorsed by the Task Force, public and various boards and
commissions. The background, existing conditions, issues and visions are discussed in detail in
the subsequent chapters. Those sections are followed by an Implementation chapter, which
includes project improvement and policy recommendations for inclusion into the
Comprehensive Plan and other City programs, designed to help implement the vision.
Key Themes
Five overall themes emerged as critical components for the success of this Report as a guiding
document. Those themes are:
1. East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers should be removed.
2. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved (although this
was not unanimous).
3. All residential neighborhoods must be protected and treated equally.
4. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement.
5. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings.
In addition to the general categories of Land Use and Urban Design and Circulation and
Connectivity, there was also focus on the rail alignment itself and on public
facilities/infrastructure to support existing and new development. The rail corridor issue is
discussed in the following section. One of the consistent messages heard throughout the
process has been the need to ensure infrastructure to keep pace with development. This
includes transportation facilities, schools and parks.
Rail Alternatives
The City Council’s most recent position on the High Speed Rail (HSR) project is to oppose it in
any form, although there is continued discussion of the merits of 1) a below-grade trench and
2) the blended two-track Caltrain/HSR project. The Task Force focused on those two rail
alternatives that would capture the range of issues that could occur under any of the various
alternatives being discussed by the State. The report includes three key recommendations to
address the issues related to the railroad alignment, given some form of Caltrain or HSR
expansion occurs.
The preferred high speed train alternative is a continuous below-grade trench, with the
incorporation of trench covers and bridges at key locations.
Rail crossings should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and
convenience.
Rail impacts on neighborhoods and mixed-use centers should be mitigated.
Circulation and Connectivity
The Circulation and Connectivity Chapter focused on:
Physical barriers to east-west connections, particularly for pedestrians and bicycles, at
the railroad tracks, Alma Street, and El Camino Real
Alma Street, emphasizing the importance of maintaining traffic capacity of Alma, as well
as improved aesthetic design.
Corridor-wide design principles.
Enhancing connection opportunities and safety along the rail corridor, again particularly
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
In order to try to provide opportunities to improve the connectivity of the area, the study
proposes to look at the City’s roadways as a layered network, recognizing that different types of
streets have different primary functions. By identifying the purpose of the streets within the
corridor, the Report recommends how the streets should be treated to enhance circulation and
connectivity.
Six key recommendations were developed to implement the vision and issues for circulation
and connectivity. They consist of:
Improve east-west connectivity across the rail corridor, Alma Street and El Camino Real.
Provide additional rail crossings in the southern section of the corridor.
Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections to citywide facilities.
Create a walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly framework that provides convenient
and safe access to goods and services.
Implement a layered street framework.
Retain traffic carrying capacity where needed.
Land Use and Urban Design
The Land Use and Urban Design chapter focuses on the following overarching concerns:
Conservation of residential neighborhoods and historic resources.
Improving access to and facilities for public services and resources.
Providing more opportunities for commercial goods and services, especially in the
southern portion of the City of Palo Alto.
Improving public spaces, including streetscape and pedestrian facilities
Enhancing underutilized land resources.
This chapter refines the designations of the very diverse corridor as Mixed-Use Centers and
Residential Subareas. The Mixed Use Centers consist of the 1) Downtown/University City
Center, 2) California Avenue Town Center, and 3) South Palo Alto/El Camino Way Neighborhood
Center. The Report also outlines the concept of a “keystone block” for each center. The
keystone blocks are comprised of key multiple parcels within the subareas that can unify the
district and ensure the success of the area.
Recommendations developed for the Land Use and Urban Design issues include the following:
Conserve, protect and preserve historic and natural resources.
Enhance the three mixed-use centers to create unique places that serve the community.
Protect existing residential neighborhoods.
Encourage a diverse mix of housing.
Encourage improved utilization of land resources.
Implementation
The Implementation and Next Steps Section provides recommendations made by the Task
Force to improve the livability of the study area and benefiting the rest of the City. The key
components of this section are the identification of transportation improvements/connections
and proposed Comprehensive Plan policy amendments. Because this is not intended to be a
technical study, these recommendations represent big picture goals and policy statements to
assist the City with future decisions regardless of what happens to either Caltrain or any other
rail project. The implementation projects have been presented in three priority categories.
Tier One implements existing goals and policies. Tier Two implements other key safety
projects. Tier Three projects are important enhancements for connectivity, safety and
accessibility, but not so immediately critical as the other tiers. These are recommendations
deemed best to achieve the Report’s vision, but they do not preclude other measures that may
be identified in the future. The Tier One priority projects, as listed in Table 6.1 on page 6.05,
include:
Implement existing safety goals and policies, including the School Commute Corridors
Network Crossings.
Rail safety crossing improvements for Charleston Road.
Rail safety crossing improvements for Churchill Avenue.
Rail safety crossing improvements for East Meadow Drive.
Recommended priority projects would be implemented through the City’s Capital
Improvements Program scheduling. The Implementation Section also recommends future
studies that would help achieve the vision and goals of the Report. Those studies include:
Transportation and public improvement plans for Alma Street.
Detailed area studies (similar to the California Avenue Concept Plan) for the
Downtown/University Mixed Use City Center and the El Camino Way/South Palo Alto
Neighborhood Mixed Use Center.
Rail Corridor/Alma Street crossing improvements and engineering studies, to identify
the feasibility of proposed improvements, and estimated costs prior to incorporating
into the CIP.
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The recommendation of new or amended policies for the Comprehensive Plan is an important
component of the Implementation Chapter of the Report. Most of the elements of the study
are consistent with goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Five new
goals and associated policies were identified and recommended to be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan as part of the ongoing Amendment process to further the goals of the
Study. Certain policies and programs can immediately be implemented into the existing
Transportation Element without much additional environmental analysis. These policies are
detailed below and covered in the Negative Declaration. Other policies and programs
recommended by the Report will require more detailed analysis and therefore will be analyzed
as part of the continuing Comprehensive Plan update process.
Although the Task Force has recommended approval of the goals and policies, there was some
difference of opinion regarding Policy 1.1. There were some Task Force members, as well as
members of the public, who do not believe the below-grade trench should be referenced as the
only preferred option. This topic was the subject of some debate, but a clear majority of the
group supported the policy as proposed.
Goal 1: Rail improvements should be constructed in a below-grade trench.
Policy 1.1: The City’s preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is below
grade.
Policy 1.2: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
Policy 1.3: All Neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail should be treated with equal
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
Goal 2: Ensure the highest possible safety at all rail crossings and mitigate rail impacts on
neighborhoods, public facilities, schools and mixed-use centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain
corridor should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and
convenience. This may be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the
preferred choice generally being grade separation.
Policy 2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of the
tracks, and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections from
neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and services.
Policy 2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of
operations in the Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of High Speed
Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize future
noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts and neighborhoods.
Goal 3: Connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation network
that binds the City together in all directions.
Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings
along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon Expressway.
Policy 3.2: All four existing at-grade rail crossings shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
Goal 4: Provide improved access to parks and recreation facilities and schools and assess future
needs for these facilities.
Policy 4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and schools
within the corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities. Opportunities to
increase school capacity and facility development and use should be evaluated and
coordinated between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City.
Goal 5: Infrastructure should keep pace with development.
Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required for
parks, recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded schools in order
to keep pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm drainage and wastewater
management should be evaluated and implemented in conjunction with development.
Rail Corridor Study Report Resolution
The intent of the Rail Corridor Study Resolution is to formalize the approval of the document
and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to give the recommendations in the Report added
authority. With the resolution and the amendment into the Comprehensive Plan, the Report
becomes a formal document that must be considered when reviewing development within Palo
Alto. The Resolution would amend or add three policies and three programs in the
Transportation Element to reflect the Report recommendations, including the Vision
Statement. However, the actual implementation of the recommendations of the Report would
be part of future planning studies, CIP projects, and related environmental clearance. The
following additions (underlined) to existing programs and policies are proposed (as modified by
the PTC):
Program T-1:
Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing
minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and
walking.
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and
neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that
serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city
through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. In
2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use
and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would
encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and
advocated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Program T-17:
Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a
regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain
to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension
of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but
would be significantly more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision
statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s
preference for the below-grade rail alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on
grade alignment. The City is opposed to the above grade aerial rail options.
Program T-21:
Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and
the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible.
There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle
railroad crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Street
and the Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve
northeast-southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned
as a way to increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train
frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the
2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in
subsequent studies and shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High speed
Rail Authority plans.
Policy T-28:
Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network
without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network.
Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to
minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to
balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds,
especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made
within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases
in roadway capacity. The primary exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford
University plans to implement an expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and
construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the
City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted
below.
Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for
bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users….
The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general
terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent studies.
The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections
between the east and west portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian
and bicyclist friendly places.
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
The first Planning and Transportation Commission study session on the Rail Corridor Study was
held on June 8, 2011. Staff and the consultant, BMS Design Group, provided a detailed
introduction and an update on the Rail Corridor Study and Task Force. The PTC provided
extensive input regarding the study. The items of concerned raised by the PTC included
increasing public outreach, the importance of Alma Street, and connectivity in South Palo Alto.
A second study session before the PTC was held on March 14, 2012. The PTC expressed
support for the document and provided comments and direction to staff and the consultant.
Some of the more important comments included the need for clear vision statements, avoiding
impractical goals/actions, making the City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles more
prominent (especially the third principle regarding equal treatment among neighborhoods), the
need for future area plans and stronger urban design policies. The PTC staff report and minutes
of the June 8, 2011 and March 14, 2012 meetings can be found online
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp).
The final hearing on the request for a recommendation by the PTC to the City Council was held
on May 30, 2012. The staff report and minutes for the May 30th hearing have been included as
Attachment D. The PTC have recommended an additional policy to clarify that the City is
opposed to an elevated rail alignment, all neighborhoods must be treated equally and that
existing vehicular crossings remain open. These changes have been added to the Resolution
(Attachment A). The PTC again expressed support for the Report and associated resolution, but
expressed some concerns. Those concerns included making sure policy statements are explicit,
especially regarding rail alignment, ensuring that the north and south neighborhoods are
treated equally, properly identifying potential impacts at all rail crossings, and confirming that
the goals and policies of the implementation chapter would be incorporated into the larger
Comprehensive Plan update for consistency. The PTC had the following specific comments:
Make policy language more positive.
Policy statements should be explicit.
North and South Palo Alto must be treated equally.
Vehicular rail crossings must be retained.
Make sure Figure 4.5 for Alma Street shows all potential impacts at critical rail crossings.
Rename Palo Alto Mixed Use Center with more descriptive name.
Report should include the Rail Committee Guiding Principles 1 and 3.
Substitute “high speed rail” with “rail”.
The PTC offered specific modifications to the language of the Resolution and unanimously
recommended adoption of the resolution and the accompanying Negative Declaration.
Architectural Review Board
The Report was also brought to the Architectural Review Board for a study session on March
15, 2012 and a hearing on May 24, 2012. The ARB was also supportive of the document and
expressed a desire to confirm that this effort would be incorporated and not ignored. The ARB
had similar comments to the PTC. The comments included support for the “keystone block”
concept, the need to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation, especially along the tracks,
and the importance of development of a vision statement for Alma Street. The ARB staff report
for the March 15 study session can be found online at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/architectural.asp.
The ARB recommended approval of the Report and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at
its May 24th hearing. The one change the ARB recommended was to the vision statement. The
Board recommended that the word “safe” be added. This modification has been added to the
list of changes and also to the vision statement in the staff report. The May 24th ARB staff
report and minutes are provided as Attachment E.
Public Outreach
To solicit public feedback, a website and email address was established for the project. Notices
for all meetings are posted on the City’s website in the Know zone
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp) and the City
Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff
has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to
send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org,
has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website,
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as
possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media
Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project
website during the process.
Next Steps
Subsequent to Council approval of the proposed resolution, the next step will be to work with
the Planning Commission and the consultant to include the Report’s recommendations on new
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff will
coordinate recommendations for future studies into staff’s work programs and will factor
priority projects into future Capital Improvements Programs.
Resource Impacts
The City Council initially authorized $200,000 for consultant services for this study. A total of
$90,000 was included in the fiscal year 2010-11 and the remaining $110,000 was to be
allocated in the 2011-12 budget. The contract was amended on June 4, 2012 with a minor
budget increase of $25,000 by the Council to accommodate the additional report drafts and
meetings that were determined to be needed.
Policy Implications
The Report will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use and transportation
policies to guide the effort for the corridor. The Report is consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment
Table on page 6.14 of the Study. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and the California Avenue Area Concept Plan, would be
considered with respect to the policies and improvements outlined in the Rail Corridor Study.
The Report and Vision Statement of the Report would immediately amend Programs T1, T17
and T21, amend Policies T28, and add Policies T-6.1 and T-38.1 in the Transportation Element.
The new Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and other program recommendations would
be integrated into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and/or subsequent studies.
Environmental Review
A Draft Initial Study which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted and
circulated for a 30 day public review on May 25, 2012 (Attachment C). The public comment
period closed at 5:00 PM on June 25, 2012. Copies of the environmental documents have been
provided to the State, Caltrain/San Mateo County Transportation District, Caltrans and Stanford
University for their review and comments. Caltrain and Stanford University have expressed no
objections to the document. No other comments have been received as of the printing of this
staff report. Minor modifications to the Initial Study and Negative Declarations were made to
reflect the PTC and ARB comments. Because those changes are minor and do not create
additional impacts, CEQA does not require recirculation of the documents. Additional
environmental review for individual projects would be required as those projects are more fully
developed for implementation. In addition, CEQA review for the Next Steps and
Implementation section will be conducted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update
and/or as CIP projects are implemented.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B: List of Text Changes and Figure 1 of Grade Configuration (PDF)
Attachment C: Negative Declaration and Initial Study (PDF)
Attachment D: May 30, 2012 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF)
Attachment E: May 24, 2012 ARB Staff Report and Minutes (PDF)
Attachment F: Rail Committee Guiding Principles (PDF)
Attachment G: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study - Councilmembers and Libraries only. Also
available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31091 (TXT)
Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Not Yet Approved
1
120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the
2012 Rail Corridor Study Report and Amending the Transportation
Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate Certain
Findings of the Report
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in
1998, including the Transportation Element; and
WHEREAS, Policy T-1 provides that land use decisions shall be made that
encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The policy also states that
transportation and land area are inextricably linked; and
WHEREAS, Program T-21 provides that the City shall study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and
implement if feasible; and
WHEREAS, Program T-17 provides that the City shall support Caltrain
electrification; and
WHEREAS, Policy T-28 provides that the City shall make effective use of the
traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the
needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2010, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the
preparation of the Rail Corridor Study; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public outreach program in developing the
2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report, (the “Project”), including convening a citizen task force, facilitating outreach to the community and coordinating with other City
departments throughout 2010 to 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board heard public comment and reviewed
the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on May 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard public comment
and reviewed the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on May 30, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard public comment and reviewed the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report on June 25, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
certain aspects of the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Study Report.
Not Yet Approved
2
120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does HEREBY
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report, as amended by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Program T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels
employing minimum.
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west
portions of the city through an improved circulation network that binds the city
together in all directions. In 2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor
Study Report to provide land use and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated in the Comprehensive
Plan.
SECTION 3. Program T-17 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language:
Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease
noise and air pollutions. Extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is
an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but would be significantly more expensive
and would take a long time to build. The Vision statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s preference for the below grade alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade alignment. The City is
opposed to the above grade aerial rail options.
SECTION 4. Program T-21 of the Transportation Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language:
Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street
and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible.
There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma
Not Yet Approved
3
120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012
Street and the Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians
and improve northeast-southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle
undercrossings are envisioned as a way to increase grade crossing safely and
reduce delays for users, especially as train frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans and
shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority
plans.
SECTION 5. Policy T-28 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add the following underlined language:
Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network.
Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to
minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A
challenge is to balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds, especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will
provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. The primary exception is
the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford University plans to implement an
expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below.
Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing
for bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more
detail in subsequent area plans. The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study
Report supports enhancing connections between the east and west portions of the
City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly places.
SECTION 6. Goal T-2 of the Transportation Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add Policy T-6.1:
Policy T-6.1: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated
with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four
existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
SECTION 7. Goal T-5 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add Policy T-38.1:
Not Yet Approved
4
120618 jb S://013/Planning/Reso Rail Corridor Study Report 2012
Policy T-38.1: All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements
should be treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment
impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
SECTION 8. The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for this project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager
_________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and Community Environment
ATTACHMENT C
LIST OF TEXT REVISIONS
Report of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force
September 10, 2012
The following is a list of text revisions that will be made to the final draft based on
input provided during the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and
Transportation Commission hearings.
■ The word "safe" will be added to the vision statement throughout the document.
■ p. 2.01, paragraph 3 will be revised to read: "The study area extends one parcel east
of Alma Street and one parcel west of El Camino Real with the exception of the
Stanford University main campus and Stanford Shopping Center where the study area
follows the right-of-way to address the land uses that front these major transportation
corridors." A note will also be added to each diagram legend next to the label study boundary
(approximate, see description on p. 2.01)”
■ p. 3.06, The first paragraph under Public Facilities will be revised to read:
"INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD KEEP PACE WITH DEVELOPMENT AND SHOULD
ACHIEVE A HIGH QUALITY DESIGN.
Implementation of schools, parks, recreation and cultural facilities, and transportation
improvements should keep pace with development. In particular, ensure adequate
transportation facilities, schools and parks are in place concurrently with development.
New facilities should be designed to be attractive and compatible with the
surrounding context. Establish and enforce measurable standards to ensure that this
is achieved."
■ p. 4.08, first bullet under Task Force Recommendations, additional text will be added
that reads: "Explore a variety of configurations for trench cover design which could include cantilevers, lattice covers and full slab covers accommodate additional pedestrian and bicycle connection opportunities.
■ p. 4.11, Figure 4.5 will be updated to show conceptual impacts on Alma Street for all
priority existing rail crossings (4). See attached figure.
■ p. 4.13, Table 4.1, item 7, third column: Castilleja Elementary School will be changed
to Castilleja School.
■ p. 4.14 Table 4.1, item 10, third column, second bullet the text will be revised to read:
"Improvements including widening of tunnel to be ADA compliant and also to provide
visibility and lighting."
■ p. 4.22, second column, second paragraph, third bullet, first sub-bullet text will be
modified to read:
"Corridor-wide: Design elements that can be applied throughout the corridor to
ensure continuous identity across the city. This includes identifying and protecting
appropriate existing large trees to preserve and may also include the addition of
new elements such as; large street trees, street lighting, regulatory
signage, signalization and wayfinding, uniformly-designed pedestrian crossings
and facilities, and uniformly-designed legible bicycle facilities."
■ p. 5.02, Under Task Force Recommendations for the Mixed Use Centers, a new bullet
point will be added as follows: "Include public art throughout the corridor as a way to
reinforce the unique identity of each of the Mixed-Use Centers."
■ Throughout the entire document the South Palo Alto Mixed-Use Center will be
renamed the El Camino Way Mixed-Use Center.
■ p. 6.03-6.04: The policies under Goals 1 and 3 have additions, see below.
■ p. 6.06: A note will be added under Table 6.2 that reads:
"Note regarding cost assumptions in Table 6.2 which follows
Cost estimates shown in Table 6.2 are based on the following assumptions:
° Detail engineering studies have not been conducted.
° Planning estimates with 2012 dollars.
° Source: City of Palo Alto, Hatch Mott MacDonald.
° Costs do not include any necessary property acquisitions."
Revised Task Force recommendations for new policies that should be considered for
inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update
Goal 1: Rail Improvements Should be Constructed in a Below-Grade Trench.
Policy 1.1: The City's preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
Policy 1.2: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto.
Policy 1.3: All Neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail should be treated with equal
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
Goal 2: Ensure the Highest Possible Safety at All Rail Crossings and Mitigate Rail
Impacts on Neighborhoods, Public Facilities, Schools and Mixed-use Centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain corridor
should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience. This may
be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the preferred choice being grade
separation.
Policy2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of the tracks,
and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections from
neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and services.
Policy2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the
Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of a High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor
should be modified to improve safety and to minimize noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining
districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods.
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study September 10, 2012 2
Goal 3: Connect the East and West Portions of the City Through an improved
circulation network that binds the City together in all directions.
Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings along
Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon Expressway.
Policy 3.2: All four existing at-grade rail crossings shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
Goal 4: Provide Improved Access to Parks, Recreation Facilities and Schools and
Assess Future Needs for these Facilities.
Policy4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and schools within the
corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities. Opportunities to increase school
capacity and facility development and use should be evaluated and coordinated between
the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City.
Goal 5: Infrastructure Should Keep Pace with Development.
Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required for parks,
recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded schools in order to keep
pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm drainage and wastewater management
should be evaluated and implemented in conjunction with development.
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study September 10, 2012 3
Figure 4.5: Two-Track On-Grade Configuration: Crossing and Impact Area Locations
./
Legend -!Ii
Ii> o ..
E
P
~
~
Street Undercrossing Impact Area (approx.)
Priority Safety Crossing Improvement Area (Existing Grade Crossings)
Vehicular, Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing
Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing
Crilicallnterseclion lor Improvement (School Q)mmure eorrio(}(sAdlJpleci by City CoullCil, 2(04)
Existing Crossing (See dOl color lor type)
POlenlial Crossing
Study Area Boundary (Approximate, see description p. 2.01)
Public Park
School
Creek
Potential future BRT Slatioo
Caltrain Station
1/2-mile Radius Transit Service Area
~ o· 1.250· 2500· I~ !~ .. ~~""~i
1-,-------
~/
/
CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY
NOTES:
1. Some eXisting crossings shown exist but need improvement. The colored dots indicate the prelerred type 01
crossing.
2. II is desirable \0 have a balanced approach along the entire rail corridor for east-west connections. However,
land use (existing homes) and discontinuous streets create considerable difficulfy in identifying additional
crossings in the south. Further studies are recommended to explore additional connectivity opportunities across
the rail lines in south Palo Alto.
3. Legend definitions are intended only to illustrate potential locations and impacts lor grade separations. Further
studies are needed to determine leasibili ty and impacts.
Reviled June ]3,2012 ____________________________________________________________ HAY 16,1011
DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________________________________
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental
Quality Act
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: September 18, 2012
Project Name: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report
Project Location: City of Palo Alto
Applicant: City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Owner: Various property owners and
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Description:
The proposal is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision
Statement and specific policies into the Comprehensive Plan. No development is proposed. The
Study outlines specific policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor area,
including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The Rail
Corridor Study was initiated the City Council to evaluate land use, transportation and urban
design elements of the rail corridor in Palo Alto, particularly in response to potential
improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks.
The vision of the project, developed with a citizen Task Force and stated in the Report, is to
“create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers
that provide walk-able, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and
beyond, and to connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation
network that binds the city together in all directions.” The purpose of the study was to generate a
community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The
Study treats the entire corridor as an interconnected but diverse 1,000 acre sub-area within the
City.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision
Statement and specific policies into the Comprehensive Plan. The project would not result in
any development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance
Page 2 of 5
with regulations
The Study outlines specific policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor
area, including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The
recommendations are focused on two general categories: 1) Circulation and Connectivity and 2)
Land Use and Urban Design. The report discusses the context, issues and vision of both of
these two items. The report identified several important themes:
East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers shall be removed.
A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved.
All residential neighborhoods must be protected.
New development requires timely infrastructure improvement.
The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings.
From these issues, the Study identifies and makes recommendations for several future projects to
help implement the vision. These next steps for implementation consist of recommendations for
priority safety, connectivity/circulation both related to and independent of the rail corridor itself,
future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan Policies. The Study identifies these as
priorities that would be incorporated into future City efforts and projects.
The safety and connectivity/circulation recommendations include improvements to existing rail
crossings, undercrossing and to existing school commute corridors, as identified by the City
Council in the School Commute Corridors Network. The Study designates several areas to be
part of future area studies, including the Downtown, the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed
Use Center, Alma Street, El Camino Real and the Rail Corridor itself.
In order to formalize the approval of the Study and to give added authority to the Study’s
recommendations, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to be
modified as follows:
Program T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended
to add the following underlined language:
Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing
minimum.
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and
neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that
serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city
through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. In
2012, the City approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use
and transportation policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would
encourage the appropriate kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Program T-17 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is
amended to add the following underlined language:
Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
Page 3 of 5
Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a
regional transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain
to speed service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension
of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but
would be significantly more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision
statement in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s
preference for the below grade alignment and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade
alignment. The City is opposed to the above grade aerial rail options.
Program T-21 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is
amended to add the following underlined language:
Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible.
There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad
crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve
northeast-southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned as
a way to increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train
frequencies increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent
area plans and shall be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High Speed Rail
Authority plans.
Policy T-28 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended
to add the following underlined language:
Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network
without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network.
Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to
minimize the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to
balance the free flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds,
especially on residential arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made
within existing rights-of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases
in roadway capacity. The primary exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford
University plans to implement an expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and
construct other new roadways to handle existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the
City, intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below.
Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for
bicyclists and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users.
The 2012 Rail Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general
terms and those improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans.
The vision statement of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections
between the east and west portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and
bicyclist friendly places.
Page 4 of 5
Goal T-2 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to
add Policy T-6.1:
Policy T-6.1: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. All
neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail
crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
Goal T-5 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby
amended to add Policy T-38.1:
Policy T-38.1: All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be
treated with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four
existing at grade rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
The immediate proposal is for the City Council to approve the document and to incorporate the
Vision of this study and specific policies, as described above, into the Comprehensive Plan. The
implementation of the improvements and area studies discussed above all require subsequent
processes which will include an associated environmental clearance. This document identifies
these projects as planned priorities but the approval of this document would not automatically
implement these actions. All projects are required to conform to the City of Palo Alto rules and
regulations, which can include a General Plan amendment, Architectural Review or approval by
City Council by resolution or an ordinance. The City is currently updating the Comprehensive
Plan. The incorporation of the Study’s policy recommendations would be done as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update and be included as part of the Environmental Impact Report that will
be prepared.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the
basis of that study, the City makes the following determination:
X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the
project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
Page 5 of 5
Project Planner Date
Adopted by City Council, Attested by
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Date
Rail Corridor Study Page 1 Initial Study
Rail Corridor Study Report
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
May 21, 2012
Rail Corridor Study Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 9
A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................... 10
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 11
C. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 12
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 13
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 14
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 15
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 17
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 18
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 20
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 21
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 22
L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 23
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 24
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 25
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 25
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 26
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 28
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 29
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 30
IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 31
Rail Corridor Study Page 3 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Rail Corridor Study
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3196
4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
Not Applicable
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The Rail Corridor Study applies to the City of Palo Alto, which is located in the northern part
of Santa Clara County, bounded on the west by the San Francisco Bay, city of Mountain View
to the south, city of Menlo Park to the south, and the Santa Cruz mountains to the west, as
shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The boundaries of the corridor include the area between
Alma Street on the east to El Camino Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the
north to the Mountain View city limits on the south, as shown in Figure 2. The study area also
includes sufficient adjacent land to encompass those areas most directly affected by potential
land use, transportation and urban design changes.
Rail Corridor Study Page 4 Initial Study
Figure 2: Palo Alto
Figure 1: Regional Map
Rail Corridor Study Page 5 Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Rail Corridor Study would apply through a large area of the City of Palo Alto and,
therefore, there is no specific General Plan designation applicable to this project.
8. ZONING
The Rail Corridor Study would apply through a large area of the City of Palo Alto and,
therefore, there is no specific Zoning designation applicable to this project.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
The Rail Corridor Study (Study) was initiated in 2010 by the City Council to evaluate land use,
transportation and urban design elements of the rail corridor in Palo Alto, particularly in
response to potential improvements to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those
improvements may include Caltrain upgrades such as electrification and/or grade separations,
and/or High Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important
context, it was not intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant
physical component of Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point how rail use in the corridor
may change.
The vision of the project, developed with a citizen Task Force and stated in the Report, is to
“create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood
centers that provide walk-able, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community
and beyond, and to connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved
circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.” The purpose of the study was
to generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain
corridor. The Study treats the entire corridor as an interconnected but diverse 1,000 acre sub-
area within the City.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision
Statement and specific policies into the Comprehensive Plan. The project would not result in
any development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for
compliance with regulations
The Study outlines policy recommendations to achieve the vision for the rail corridor area,
including strategies related to circulation, land use and urban design improvements. The
recommendations are focused on two general categories: 1) Circulation and Connectivity and
2) Land Use and Urban Design. The report discusses the context, issues and vision of both of
these two items. The report identified several important themes:
East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers shall be removed.
A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved.
All residential neighborhoods must be protected.
Rail Corridor Study Page 6 Initial Study
New development requires timely infrastructure improvement.
The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings.
From these issues, the Study identifies and makes recommendations for several future projects
to help implement the vision. These next steps for implementation consist of recommendations
for priority safety, connectivity/circulation both related to and independent of the rail corridor
itself, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan Policies. The Study identifies these as
priorities that would be incorporated into future City efforts and projects.
The safety and connectivity/circulation recommendations include improvements to existing rail
crossings, undercrossing and to existing school commute corridors, as identified by the City
Council in the School Commute Corridors Network. The Study designates several areas to be
part of future area studies, including the Downtown, the South Palo Alto Neighborhood Mixed
Use Center, Alma Street, El Camino Real and the Rail Corridor itself.
In order to formalize the approval of the Study and to give added authority to the
recommendations, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to be
modified as follows:
Program T-1 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to
add the following underlined language:
Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing
minimum.
The overall vision is to create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with city and
neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve
the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city through an
improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. In 2012, the City
approved the 2012 Palo Rail Corridor Study Report to provide land use and transportation
policies to guide redevelopment along the rail corridor that would encourage the appropriate
kinds of development, which are consistent with and advocated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Program T-17 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to
add the following underlined language:
Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco.
Palo Alto supports the extension of Caltrain to downtown San Francisco to provide a regional
transit connection for the Peninsula. The City supports electrification of Caltrain to speed
service, allow for more trains, and decrease noise and air pollutions. Extension of Bay Area
Rapid Transit (BART) service is an alternative to upgrading Caltrain but would be significantly
more expensive and would take a long time to build. The Vision statement in the 2012 Palo
Alto Rail Corridor Study Report represents the City’s preference for the below grade alignment
and support of the Caltrain two-track on grade alignment. The City is opposed to the above
grade aerial rail options.
Rail Corridor Study Page 7 Initial Study
Program T-21 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to
add the following underlined language:
Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible.
There are distances of up to 1-1/4 miles between the existing pedestrian/bicycle railroad
crossings. One or more strategically-located new crossings under Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks would reduce detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve northeast-
southwest circulation. New pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings are envisioned as a way to
increase grade crossing safely and reduce delays for users, especially as train frequencies
increase. Additional improvements are discussed in general terms in the 2012 Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study Report and will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans and shall
be coordinated in the future with Caltrain and High Speed Rail Authority plans.
Policy T-28 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to
add the following underlined language:
Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without
compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network.
Palo Alto desires to keep traffic flowing as freely as possible on major streets to minimize the
diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. A challenge is to balance the free
flow of traffic with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds, especially on residential
arterials. Most future roadway improvements will be made within existing rights-of-way at
intersections and will provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. The primary
exception is the Sand Hill Road area, where Stanford University plans to implement an
expansion and extension of Sand Hill Road and construct other new roadways to handle
existing and projected traffic. Elsewhere in the City, intersection improvements are planned
only at the major intersections noted below.
Palo Alto’s Policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists
and pedestrians while ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. The 2012 Rail
Corridor Study Report discusses street network improvements in general terms and those
improvements will be evaluated in more detail in subsequent area plans. The vision statement
of the Rail Corridor Study Report supports enhancing connections between the east and west
portions of the City’s circulation network for a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly places.
Goal T-2 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is amended to add
Policy T-6.1:
Policy T-6.1: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. All
neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated with equal
Rail Corridor Study Page 8 Initial Study
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade rail crossings
in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
Goal T-5 of the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended
to add Policy T-38.1:
Policy T-38.1: All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail improvements should be treated
with equal consideration with respect to vertical alignment impact. All four existing at grade
rail crossings in Palo Alto shall remain open to vehicular traffic.
Implementation Process
The immediate proposal is for the City Council to approve the document and to incorporate the
Vision of this study into the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation of the improvements,
and area studies discussed above all require subsequent processes which will include an
associated environmental clearance. This document identifies these projects as planned
priorities but the approval of this document would not automatically implement these actions.
All projects are required to conform to the City of Palo Alto rules and regulations, which can
include a General Plan amendment, Architectural Review or approval by City Council by
resolution or an ordinance. The City is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan. If this
study is approved by Council, the incorporation of the Study’s policy recommendations would
be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and be included as part of the
Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The City of Palo Alto is surrounded primarily by other urban uses, but has two significant
natural and sensitive areas on the most eastern (San Francisco Bay/Baylands) and western
(Santa Cruz Mountains/Foothills) edges of the city. The map provided above shows these
adjacencies. The Rail Corridor Study area is located within a part of the City that is fully
developed and urbanized.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
California State Clearinghouse
City of Menlo Park
City of Mountain View
Caltrain
California Department of Transportation
Stanford University
Rail Corridor Study Page 9 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier
Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
Rail Corridor Study Page 10 Initial Study
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,2,5 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
1, 2-Map L4,
5
X
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
1, 2-Map L4,
5
X
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
1,2,5 X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,5 X
f) Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The Rail Corridor Study and the vision statement do not propose any specific development. The Study
includes recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements,
future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study
and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Physical development
that would be part of improvements would be subject to the City’s Architectural Review process. The
Architectural Review entitlement is required for all the exterior improvements to ensure the project is
designed with high aesthetic quality and is harmonious with its surroundings. Environmental review
would be included in the project review.
The proposed Study recommendations and vision will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All
improvements are subject to Architectural Review to address aesthetics, and once fully developed, all
individual components of the recommendations that the City will seek to implement will be further
reviewed for impacts and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Rail Corridor Study Page 11 Initial Study
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 2-MapL9 X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)?
1 X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
1 X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and
other public benefits.
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including
Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after
consultation with the district committees and others.
Rail Corridor Study Page 12 Initial Study
The Study and vision statement do not include lands that are located in “Prime Farmland”, “Unique
Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The areas that are
the subject of this Study are not zoned for agricultural use, and are not regulated by the Williamson
Act. The areas affected are within a developed urbanized area and have no impacts on forest or
timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
1,5 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10);
1,5 X
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
1,5 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
1,5 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants? 1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 13 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
1 X
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEI
1 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 1 X
f) Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and vision statement includes recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
Rail Corridor Study area is in a developed urbanized location within the City of Palo Alto. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. In accordance with CEQA, future projects would be reviewed for compliance with
regulations related to Air Quality. The City of Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air
pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality
through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning
and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations. The Rail
Corridor Study will not create any new significant air quality impacts. Construction activities related
to the implementation of the Study’s recommendations and future projects would be evaluated in a
project-specific environmental analysis for potential effects on air quality. Once fully developed, all
individual components of the Study that the City would seek to implement would be required to
mitigate any potential air quality impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that
time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
1, 2-MapN1,
5
X
Rail Corridor Study Page 14 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1,2-MapN1,
5
X
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,8-MapN1,
5
X
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
1,2,3,4,5 X
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would cause a less
than significant to no impact to biological resources within the City. The Study includes
recommendations for future consideration safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. The areas within the rail
corridor study boundaries are all in urbanized areas and are fully disturbed. The subsequent projects
that the City may implement would be further reviewed for potential biological impacts, and additional
CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Rail Corridor Study Page 15 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
1,10 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
1,2-MapL8 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
1,2-MapL8 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1,2-MapL8 X
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
1,2-MapL7,
10
X
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods
of California history or prehistory?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and vision statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive
Plan would not result in any development. The Study area is located within a fully developed and
disturbed portion of the City. The Study recommends the preservation of historic resources. Future
projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further
reviewed for potential cultural and archaeological impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis.
For all those future projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human
remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to
address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide
proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during
construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by
the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and
make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
Rail Corridor Study Page 16 Initial Study
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
11 X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN10 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
2-MapN5 X
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
1 X
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
2-MapN5 X
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
2-MapN5 X
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
1 X
g) Expose people or property to major
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision statement reflects the study’s recommendation for future consideration safety
and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies.
The incorporation of the Vision statement and separate approval of the Rail Corridor Study would not
result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would
seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential geology, soils and seismicity impacts, and
subject to additional CEQA analysis.
Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the
event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward faults. Although hazards exist,
development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed
through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building
Rail Corridor Study Page 17 Initial Study
codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse
short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity. The subsequent projects that the City
may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential
impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1,5,9 X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1,5,9 X
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a
project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would
generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially
to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT
CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that
emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of
Rail Corridor Study Page 18 Initial Study
operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate
change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If
a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size **
Single-family 56 du
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf
**If project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant.
The Study and Vision Statement supports recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
amendment of the vision statement to the Comprehensive Plan and the approval of the Rail Corridor
Study would not result in any development. Future projects that are guided by the Study that the City
would seek to implement would be further reviewed for potential greenhouse gas impacts, and subject
to additional CEQA analysis.
It is not anticipated that the Study’s recommendations would create any new significant operational
GHG emissions. The intent of the study is to coordinate land use and transportation decisions,
including encouraging bicycle and pedestrian modes of transport and to reduce automobile trips where
possible. The subsequent projects guided by the Vision Statement that the City may implement based
on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional
CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Rail Corridor Study Page 19 Initial Study
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
1,5 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1,5 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
1,5 X
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
1,5 X
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
1,2-MapN9
X
f) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
1 X
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
1 X
h) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1,2-MapN7 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
1,2-MapN7 X
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement supports recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive
Plan would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the
City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for hazards and hazardous materials impacts,
and subject to additional CEQA analysis.
Rail Corridor Study Page 20 Initial Study
The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The
recommendations do not involve the use, creation or transportation of hazardous materials and seek to
improve safety. The actual implementation of the Study is anticipated to have little to no impacts with
regard to public safety, hazards and hazardous materials. The subsequent projects that the City may
implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential
impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
1,2,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
2-MapN2 X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
1,5 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
1,5 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1,5 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
2-MapN6
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
2-MapN6 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapN8 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 21 Initial Study
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
2-MapN6 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement supports the recommendations for future consideration of safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies and
the approval of the Rail Corridor Study and adoption of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for hydrology and water quality impacts, and subject to
additional CEQA analysis.
The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. All development
is required to comply with building codes that address flood safety issues. Development projects are
required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by
the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual
of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include
measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the
potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address
procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the construction
process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects must comply
with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water quality. The
subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be
further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1,2,3,4,5 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1,2 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 22 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
1,5 X
f) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
1,5 X
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
1,2,3 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement supports the recommendations for future consideration safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. The policies included in the Study have been analyzed and determined to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. New land uses that would not be allowed in the
Comprehensive Plan are not proposed. The entire study area is located within a fully developed or
previously disturbed area. Future development is required to be consistent with existing land uses
within the City. Future projects supported in the Study that the City would seek to implement would
be further reviewed for land use impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The subsequent
projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further
reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for
Rail Corridor Study Page 23 Initial Study
other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or
regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
1,2,12 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
1,2,12 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1,2,12 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,2,12 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1 X
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
1 X
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
1 X
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
1 X
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
1 X
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1 X
l) Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
1,12 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 24 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration of safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any
development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for noise impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis.
The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. All development,
including construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10),
which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term
temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are
expected to be less than significant. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the
recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA
analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1 X
d) Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
1 X
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement reflects the recommendations for future consideration of safety and
connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The
approval of the Rail Corridor Study and the Vision Statement as amended in the Comprehensive Plan
would not result in any development. Future projects that are recommended in the approved Study
that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for population and housing impacts,
and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or
previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and adoption of the Vision Statement would not
cause housing or population impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on
the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional
CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Rail Corridor Study Page 25 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The approved Study and the Vision Statement amended in the Comprehensive Plan supports the
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any
development. Future projects recommended in the approved Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for public safety impacts, and subject to additional CEQA
analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The
approval of the Study and vision statement recommend projects to improve safety and would not cause
public safety impacts. The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the
recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA
analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
1 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 26 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
The Study and Vision Statement to be amended to the Comprehensive Plan supports the
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement would not result in any development. Future projects that are
recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be further reviewed for
recreation impacts, and subject to additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully
developed and or previously disturbed area. The approval of the Study and vision statement would not
cause a population increase that would create recreation impacts. The subsequent projects that the
City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
1,5 X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1,5 X
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 27 Initial Study
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1,5 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
1,2,5 X
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
1,5 X
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
1,5 X
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
1,5 X
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1,5 X
l) Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
1,5 X
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
1,5 X
n) Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
1,5 X
o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
1,5 X
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 28 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the
Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development. The Study includes recommendations for
future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future area studies and new
Comprehensive Plan policies. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would
seek to implement would be further reviewed for transportation and traffic impacts, and subject to
additional CEQA analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously
disturbed area. The approval of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement to the
Comprehensive Plan would not cause traffic impacts. The Study recommends projects that would
improve safety and reduce traffic congestion, while enhancing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study
would be further reviewed for potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at
that time.
Mitigation: None Required
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
1,5 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1,5 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1,5 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
1,5 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1,5 X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1,5 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1,5 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 29 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan includes
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
adoption of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any development.
Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to implement would be
further reviewed for utility and service system impacts, and would be subject to additional CEQA
analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and/or previously disturbed area. No
development is recommended within undeveloped areas that are not currently served by existing
public services. The approval of the Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the
Comprehensive Plan would not cause utility and service system impacts. The subsequent projects that
the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1,2,3,4,5,10 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1 X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
1,5 X
Rail Corridor Study Page 30 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The Study and amendment of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan includes
recommendations for future consideration of safety and connectivity/circulation improvements, future
area studies and new Comprehensive Plan policies. The approval of the Rail Corridor Study and
incorporation of the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan would not result in any
development. Future projects that are recommended in the Study that the City would seek to
implement would be further reviewed for environmental impacts, and subject to additional CEQA
analysis. The Study area is located within a fully developed and or previously disturbed area. The
project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. The approval of the Study and Vision would not eliminate an important
example of California History.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor
does it have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. The project is located within a fully developed area and will not
result in considerable effects to the environment, and therefore, would create less than significant
impacts on the quality of the environment.
The subsequent projects that the City may implement based on the recommendations of the Study and
amendment of the Vision Statement to the Comprehensive Plan would be further reviewed for
potential impacts, and additional CEQA analysis will be determined at that time.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
5. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, May 2012 (www.paloaltorailcorridor.org)
6. Not used
7. Not used
8. Not used
9. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010
10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory
11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS
A. Executive Summary from the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, May 2012
Rail Corridor Study Page 31 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
___________________________________ _May 24, 2012_____________________
Project Planner Date
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: May 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: Review and Recommendation to the City
Council for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
recommend that the City Council approve a resolution approving the Rail Corridor Study Report
(Report) and incorporating the Vision Statement into the Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Element.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation
and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements
to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those improvements may include any or all of
the following: Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or High
Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not
intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant physical component of
Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point what the future holds for either High Speed Rail or
Caltrain.
The intent of the process was to generate a community vision that would provide land use and
transportation policies to guide development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to
be proactive to changes to the rail system. The Report will guide staff and the City as decisions
are made regarding land use and transportation improvements, such as private development and
the Capital Improvement Program.
Following the Rail Corridor Study Task Force (Task Force) recommendation on the Report, and
given the public feedback from the two community workshops, the revised study is presented for
a formal recommendation. The Report includes revisions to reflect comments from the Task
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 9
Force, the PTC, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the City Council Rail Committee,
various City Board/Committee liaisons and the public. Staff has also coordinated with Caltrain
staff on this project. Once the Study is approved by City Council, the next step will be to
incorporate the Study as a whole into the Comprehensive Plan by reference. The five goals and
related policies would be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the on-going
Amendment.
The boundaries of the corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino
Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits
on the south, as shown in the Report (Attachment B and available online at
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org). The study area also includes sufficient adjacent land to
encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation and urban
design changes. The plan and implementation measures is proposed to be ultimately be
incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference and the Comprehensive Plan goals
and policies are proposed to be incorporated directly into the document.
Rail Corridor Study Task Force
The Rail Corridor Study Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the City
Council authorized Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study with City staff and the consultant,
BMS Design Group (BMS). This report represents the consensus of the Task Force as whole, as
an outcome of fifteen meetings. Through the Task Force meetings and community workshops,
staff has also received detailed feedback on the draft report from the public. The Task Force
members also acted as a conduit and a voice for their specific stakeholder groups and for other
interested members of the public. The public process also included the input from liaisons of
various City boards and commissions to represent their respective groups, including the PTC, the
ARB, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Palo
Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). At the final Task Force meeting on May 1, 2012,
the Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report, including the
Implementation Chapter.
Rail Corridor Study Area Tour
A study area tour was held on September 10, 2011. A majority of the Task Force and interested
members of the public participated in the four hour tour. The tour included a bus tour of the
entire length and walk throughs of specific areas within the corridor. The tour provided an
opportunity for the Task Force members to view the study area together and to get familiar with
areas that they were not as familiar with. Some highlights of the tour included the South of
Forest Area, the Homer tunnel, California Avenue, the Churchill Avenue train crossing area, the
intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road and the recently developed residential
projects in South Palo Alto. The tour enabled the Task Force members to better understand the
perspectives from the various areas of the City, especially where crossings are proposed.
Rail Corridor Study Process
The Rail Corridor Study is a three part process that began in late 2010. Following the City
Council decision on the report, the report and any identified changes would be incorporated into
and referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as appropriate. The phases
consist of the following:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 9
1. Phase I, “Context and Vision”. Establish the background and context for the rail corridor
in order to begin developing a preferred vision.
2. Phase II, “Alternatives and Analysis”. Develop and analyze the preferred alternatives.
3. Phase III, “Plan Preparation”. Prepare the Report, obtain feedback and refine
alternatives.
Now completing Phase III, staff and the consultant will continue to obtain feedback and refine
the alternatives given final input from the ARB, Commission, Council and the public.
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and City/School Traffic Safety Committee Joint Meeting
A joint meeting with representatives of PABAC and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee
(CSTSC) was held on February 16, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input the
stakeholders’ input on this report. The participants were generally supportive of the work that
had been done. Barb Mitchell, the Palo Alto Unified School District Task Force member also
was in attendance. Some of the main comments raised at the meeting for follow up include:
Encouraging trenching across the entire City
Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Encouraging grade separated crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Improving safety of school children.
City Council Rail Committee
The Rail Corridor Study was the subject of three meetings before the City Council Rail
Committee. A brief update was provided on January 26th, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the first
draft of the Rail Corridor Study Report was presented for their review and comments. The
March 1st meeting was also attended by four members of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force.
The primary comment received was a request to make the references to the future of the rail line
more general because the future of the High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects is so
unknown and continues to change. The requested change would allow the Report to have greater
flexibility and to be used in a variety of scenarios, similar to the other long range City policy
documents. The item was continued to give the Committee more time to provide comments.
On April 26, 2012, the Committee met and provided final comments. Staff and BMS informed
the Committee that various changes had been made to the document in response to their
feedback and subsequent comments from the Task Force, the Planning and Transportation
Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the public. It was emphasized that the report
was crafted to be consistent with the City’s position on the High Speed Rail project and the City
Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles. The document was also revised so that it would be
as flexible as possible to provide a longer horizon to better respond to the rapidly changing High
Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects. The Committee was appreciative of the work
completed for the project and generally supportive of the document.
Community Workshop
A second Community Workshop was held on March 29, 2012 at the Lucie Stern Community
Center, Community Room. The first Community Workshop was held on May 19, 2011 also at
the Lucie Stern Community Room. In order to encourage a greater attendance of this workshop,
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 9
notice cards were mailed out to all property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the rail
corridor study area for over 7,000 notice cards. A notice was also published in the Palo Alto
Weekly. Staff requested the Task Force members to publicize the meeting and encourage that
their neighbors attend the meeting. Announcements of the workshop were also posted at City
Hall, the libraries, Lucie Stern and on the City’s websites well in advance of the meeting. In
addition, staff sent notices to various merchants and posted announcements on the City’s social
network pages. The public outreach drive was successful. Most of the 50 attendees had not
previously attended the workshop. There was also a representation of the various parts of Palo
Alto, with more than half from residents of South Palo Alto. The community members were
generally appreciative and supportive of the report. A few key issues were raised, including
safety for children, pedestrians and bicyclists, treatment of all neighborhoods fairly, protecting
schools from rail impacts. Some members of the public stated that although additional
pedestrian and bicycle crossings were desired, additional vehicular crossings were not.
PTC and ARB Hearings
The Rail Corridor Study Report was distributed to both the Planning and Transportation
Commission and Architectural Review Board for their comments. A study session before the
Commission was held on March 14th. The Commission expressed support for the document and
provided comments and direction to staff and the consultant. Some of the more important
comments included:
Have clear, bold vision statements.
Provide measurable improvements and implementation steps.
Be careful with language to avoid commitment to impractical goals/actions.
Include language to prevent narrowing of Alma Street.
Discuss open space opportunities.
Discuss land use opportunities above trench and alternate ways of designing trench cover.
Make City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles more prominent, including
incorporating Guiding Principal 3 (equal consideration for all neighborhoods affected by
the rail) into the Study’s Goal 1.
Support for proposal of future area plans, similar to Concept Plans.
Need stronger urban design component, especially for Alma Street and rail right of way.
An Architectural Review Board Study Session was held the next day on March 15. The ARB
was also supportive of the document and expressed a desire to confirm that this effort would be
incorporated and not ignored. The ARB had similar comments to the PTC. The comments
included:
Appreciated key stone discussion.
Need to consider impact on high school.
Concerned about trenching roadways rather than train, but should be studied.
Great opportunity to improve pedestrian and bike friendly, especially along tracks.
Should study potential crossings for pedestrians and bikes, not just for vehicles.
Move new Comprehensive Plan policies to front.
Clarify what City’s position and reasons regarding rail improvements
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 9
Would like more studies of various scenarios.
Would like vision statement for Alma Street.
Report should be clear what benefits the City.
Implementation plan is very important component.
A formal hearing requesting the ARB’s recommendation is scheduled to be held on May 24th.
Staff will provide a summary of the outcome of the hearing at the Commission hearing.
DISCUSSION:
Draft Rail Corridor Study Report
The vision of the project, developed with the Task Force and stated in the Report, is to “create a
vibrant, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers that provide walkable,
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and beyond, and to connect the
east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation network that binds the city
together in all directions.” The purpose of this document is to generate a community vision for
land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. The areas that make up the
Rail Corridor have been historically viewed as separate disconnected areas. The Report attempts
to look at the entire corridor as an interconnected sub-area within the City. This represents
challenges because of the diversity of the various components that make up the corridor and the
sheer size of the 1,000 acres that comprise it. The intent is also not to analyze in detail the
various impacts of the various rail alternatives, such as noise and air quality. The study was also
not intended to provide detailed traffic impact analysis. This type of analysis is beyond the
scope and resources of this study. BMS will provide a detailed presentation of the Report at the
hearing.
The Report is divided into seven detailed sections:
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Issues and Vision
Circulation and Connectivity
Land Use and Urban Design
Implementation and Next Steps
Five overall themes developed that became particularly important to the Task Force and the
success of this report as a guiding document. Those themes are:
1. East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers should be removed.
2. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved (although this
was not unanimous)
3. All residential neighborhoods must be protected and treated equally.
4. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement.
5. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 9
Revisions to Report
The most recent City Council position on the High Speed Rail (HSR) project was to oppose it in
any form, although there is some support for the blended two-track Caltrain/HSR project.
Because this is not a technical study or a feasibility study, the decision was made to focus on two
rail configurations that would capture the range of issues that could occur under any of the
various alternatives being discussed by the State in order to allow this study to be flexible and
able to address multiple scenarios. Those two options are:
Trench
Below-grade two-track on-grade
These two options encompass the conditions that would occur with all the other variations of the
rail projects that have been discussed. Following the various hearings, public meetings and the
second community workshop, the Report was revised to clarify that the City’s preference is for
the trench option only.
Various revisions have been made to the report subsequent to the March PTC hearing to address
the comments and concerns raised during the public process. The major changes include:
Circulation and Connectivity Chapter:
Expanded the Alma Street discussion to address more issues and opportunities.
Emphasized the importance of maintaining traffic capacity of Alma, which would be
impossible if Alma Street was narrowed.
Created a concept diagram for Alma Street, similar to the one created for El Camino
Real.
Incorporated a Corridor-wide design principles and specific improvement
recommendations throughout.
Discussed connection opportunities along the rail corridor. Opportunities include
incorporation of green spaces and other treatments to benefit the City and its occupants
either above a covered trench or along the rail corridor.
Implementation Chapter:
Revised goals and policies in the Implementation Chapter to be more consistent with the
format of the Comprehensive Plan
Added ball park cost estimates for the Tier 1 Priority Improvements
Recommended detailed area studies, similar to the California Avenue Concept Plan for
the Downtown/University Mixed Use City Center and the South Palo Alto Neighborhood
Mixed Use Center.
Recommended a Transportation and Public Improvements Plan for Alma Street.
Although the rail projects are still pending, it was discussed that improvements along the
right of way could be started and implemented.
Recommended a Rail Corridor/Alma Street Crossings Improvements Study and
Engineering Studies. All efforts should be coordinated with any rail improvement
projects.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 9
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
One of the important components of the implementation of this report is the recommendation of
new policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Much of the elements of the study are consistent with
goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Five new goals were identified
in the Study to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the overall Amendment
process to further the goals of the Study. As discussed above, the goals have been modified to
respond to comments and to make them more consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan
policies. The goals have been endorsed by the Task Force. However, there were some task force
members, as well as some members of the public, who supported an at-grade rail system and
voted to rewrite Goal 1 to allow it.
Goal 1: Rail improvements should be constructed in a below-grade trench.
Policy 1.1: The City’s preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is below
grade. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
Goal 2: Ensure the highest possible safety at all rail crossings and mitigate rail impacts on
neighborhoods, public facilities, schools and mixed-use centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossing. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain
corridor should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and
convenience. This may be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the
preferred choice generally being grade separation.
Policy 2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of
the tracks, and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections
from neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and services.
Policy 2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of
operations in the Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of High Speed
Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize
future noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts and neighborhood.
Goal 3: Connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation network
that binds the City together in all directions.
Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings
along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon expressway.
Goal 4: Provide improved access to parks and recreation facilities and schools and assess future
needs for these facilities.
Policy 4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and schools
within the corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities. Opportunities to
increase school capacity and facility development and use should be evaluated and
coordinated between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 9
Goal 5: Infrastructure should keep pace with development.
Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required for
parks, recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded schools in
order to keep pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm drainage and
wastewater management should be evaluated and implemented in conjunction with
development.
Next Steps
The next step will be to bring the PTC’s recommendation and the Report to the City Council for
their formal decision whether to adopt a Resolution to approve the Rail Corridor Study. The
draft resolution will be provided via email prior to the May 30th hearing and at places. Should
the resolution be approved, the Report would be immediately incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan by reference and the five Comprehensive Plan goals/policies would be
included as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, as well as the associated
Environmental Impact Report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Report will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use transportation policies
to guide the effort for the corridor. The Report is consistent with the current Comprehensive
Plan, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment Table on page 6.14
for the Study. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan update, would be considered in conjunction with the Rail Corridor Study. The
Vision Statement of the Report would be immediately be amended to Program T1 in the
Transportation Element. The new Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and other program
recommendations would be part of the Comprehensive Plan Update and/or subsequent studies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
CEQA review for the clearance for Rail Corridor Study is in progress and will be completed
prior to the City Council hearing in June. A Negative Declaration (ND) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is anticipated. Additional environmental review
for individual projects may also be required as those projects are more fully developed for
implementation. In addition, CEQA review for the Next Steps and Implementation section will
be conducted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff expects Council review
of the Draft Comprehensive Plan in the fall of 2012 and review of the EIR and Final
Comprehensive Plan in the spring of 2013.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
To solicit public feedback, a website and email address has been established for the project.
Notices for all meetings are posted on the City’s website in the Know zone
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp) and the City
Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff
has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to
send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org,
has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website,
____________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto Page 9 of 9
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as
possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media
Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project
website, City Hall, the Development Center and all four public libraries during the process.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report (PTC only. Also available online at
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org.)
B. City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles
C. March 14, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report and Excerpt Minutes
D. Public Correspondence
COURTESY COPIES:
BMS Design Group
Rail Corridor Study Task Force
Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Department/Division Head Approval:
Amy French, Acting Assistant Director
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
May 30, 2012 3
4
Rail Corridor Study Report: Review and Recommendation to the City Council for the Palo 5
Alto Rail Corridor Study Report. 6
7
Chair Martinez: Item 2 is a public hearing on the Rail Corridor Study Report or consideration of 8
a resolution and recommendation of this resolution to the Council for approval. We will start 9
with the Staff Report. 10
11
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. We are returning to 12
you today to request a formal Commission recommendation on the Report. Staff recommends 13
the Commission recommend the Council to approve the negative declaration and resolution 14
approving the Rail Corridor Study Report and to incorporate the Vision Statement and the 15
recommendations for future area improvement studies in greater connectivity into the 16
transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent to the distribution of this report, 17
the Commission was given via e-mail and at places copy of the resolution and the draft negative 18
declaration that was prepared and circulated for this project in conformance with the California 19
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 20
21
Also at places is an e-mail from Beth Bunnenberg, the liaison for the Historic Resources Board 22
expressing her support for the project. Your packet also includes an e-mail from Martin 23
Summer, a Task Force Member with a request for minor revisions including the order and 24
changing Goal 1 to state “the future vertical rail improvements should be constructed in a below 25
grade trench.” Goal 1 currently states that “rail improvements should be constructed in a below 26
grade trench” and was the subject of debate with the Task Force. 27
28
The purpose of tonight’s resolution is for the Commission to make a decision on the Study itself. 29
As a policy document their report identifies recommendations for priorities and the Vision 30
Statement. The Report recommends future actions. It lays down the groundwork or framework 31
to help the City make future decisions regarding implementing the recommended policies and 32
goals identified in the Study. The Commission is being requested to confirm support for the 33
Study. 34
35
The accompanying resolution includes specific policy and programs that would formalize the 36
City’s position on the Report, which enables the City to site the Report as a binding document. 37
The resolution would state the Report was approved to provide policies, that the Vision 38
Statement represents the City’s polices and support for the electrification of Caltrain and that the 39
City would evaluate recommendations in future area improvement studies. The 40
recommendations identify priority improvement projects for safety and connectivity as well as 41
new Comprehensive Plan polices. These are recommendations. The purpose of the document is 42
to identify these as future efforts. The new policies if the study is approved would be 43
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update similar to other work that has already begun on 44
the update process that the Commission has been involved with. Other future projects would be 45
the part of future area studies, development projects, and the Capital Improvement Program 46
Page 2
(CIP). All these future projects would be subject to future CEQA process including the 1
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is being prepared for the Comprehensive Plan update. 2
That document is anticipated to start work this summer and would be brought back to the 3
Commission for hearing in summer of 2013 along with the Comprehensive Plan Update. 4
5
This Report is the outcome of a nearly two year effort by Staff, BMS Design Group and the 6
Citizen Task Force to study and develop land use and transportation policies for areas along the 7
Rail Corridor. The intent as defined by Council is to generate a community vision for land use, 8
transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Corridor in conjunction with and apart 9
from the various projects. 10
11
Subsequent to the Commission hearing in March, a second community workshop was held to 12
solicit feedback from the public. Staff implemented significant public outreach. We requested 13
the Task Force Members to encourage their fellow stakeholders to attend, sent multiple e-mail 14
announcements, posted flyers at City Hall and all four libraries, sent postcards to residents and 15
occupants within 600 feet of the Corridor for over 7,000 postcards. We’ve also posted meeting 16
notices on the City’s website including social network pages. We also provided the poster for 17
the meeting to local business owners to post in their businesses. As a result the workshop was 18
well attended with approximately over 50 new people along with Task Force Members and some 19
other interested people. BMS would provide a summary of the workshop following Staff’s 20
presentation. The attendees represented various stakeholders of the City including both North 21
and South Palo Alto. 22
23
A final Task Force Meeting was held on May 2nd for their final recommendation. The Report 24
was updated following various meetings and hearings to respond to comments from the public, 25
the Commission, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), as well as City, the City Council Rail 26
Committee. BMS will provide a summary of the changes. 27
28
One of the key outcomes of the process has been an acknowledgement that concerns of both 29
North and South Palo Alto have to be equally addressed throughout this project as we move 30
forward. The changes in the Report include more discussions on urban design, treatment of the 31
corridor, and clarification on the City’s position on the various rail projects. Following an in 32
depth discussion the Task Force voted to recommend approval of the document. However, 33
during the discussion the modifications to Goal 1 regarding the alignment of the high speed rail, 34
not all members supported saying that trench was the only preferred alternative. This was a 35
subject of multiple debates. 36
37
On May 24th an ARB meeting was held on the project. The ARB voted to recommend approval 38
of the document and adoption of the Vision Statement. Judith Wasserman, Chair of the ARB is 39
here tonight to speak about the meeting. BMS will also provide a short summary on the meeting. 40
The ARB did recommend one change, and that was to include the word “safety” into the Vision 41
Statement. Once the Commission makes a recommendation the next step is a Council hearing 42
which has been scheduled for June 25th for their final decision. 43
44
There are also several Task Force Members and Liaisons in the audience. Staff invites them to 45
speak on the process. We’d like to express our appreciation for their hard work throughout this 46
Page 3
process and the large amount of time they have devoted to this. Following this BMS will make 1
their presentation. Both Staff and the consultants are available to answer questions. 2
3
Michael Smiley, BMS Design Group Consultant: Chair Martinez and members of the 4
Commission thank you for having us back again. My name is Michael Smiley, I’m a partner 5
with the firm of BMS Design Group. We are urban designers. With me here this evening also is 6
Paige Martin. So we’ll be jointly, I’ll be handling a short presentation and then jointly we’ll be 7
answering any questions you may have. 8
9
What I am going to do is, this is of course a rather lengthy document and hopefully maybe you 10
had a chance to read it twice now. But I’m going to run through essentially where we’ve been 11
since the last time we saw you and essentially what some of the changes are rather than the full 12
content of the report. 13
14
Since we were here the last time which was on March 14th, you see on this list of meetings, 15
we’ve been through a whole series of additional meetings. We’ve met with the ARB twice now. 16
The first time was the day following our meeting with you. We’ve also held Community 17
Workshop Two. There have been meetings with the Rail Committee and then as Elena 18
mentioned we had a final Task Force meeting #15. 19
20
And on that particular item I’d like to just say that, express our appreciation to the Task Force. 21
Fifteen meetings they did yeoman’s effort. That’s a lot of meetings. That’s a lot of work. We 22
also went out and walked the site on a Saturday one day. This long Corridor we walked large 23
portions of it and we bused other portions. They’ve been a great committee to work with, it’s 24
made our work as consultants and pulling this all together it’s made our work, probably one of 25
the better professional experiences I’ve had working with a committee because they really did 26
coalesce into a group where we had a lot of different opinions but we were able to kind of 27
through a process come together with a lot of recommendations that there was general 28
unanimity. 29
30
Next slide, please. Now just a few words on the Community Workshop, there was a very good 31
attendance at the Community Workshop. I mean 50 people we, we would’ve needed a bigger 32
room to handle any more. It was completely at capacity in the room and those were community 33
attendees and did not include Staff or consultants. Generally speaking, while the meeting was 34
handled a presentation of the findings of the Task Force and then there were boards and panels 35
and so on around the wall for people to review and make comments. The, generally speaking the 36
sense of the meeting, the tone of the meeting there was broad general support for the 37
recommendations of the Task Force. In fact there were few additional comments that really 38
differed from what the Task Force had to say, they tended to be more refinements and so on and 39
added input of things that were already in the Task Force recommendations. 40
41
I think the key thing we came away from this with that was really most important is that we were 42
able to prioritize a set of recommendations through the community process. And that middle 43
slide, I know it’s very difficult to read but in the corner there is a panel and if you squint your 44
eyes you can see a set of dots. We used a dot exercise. Next slide. And essentially each 45
participant was given eight dots and there were 27 subjects that they could place their dots 46
Page 4
against. They ranged everything from rail crossings to El Camino crossings and a variety of 1
other types of improvements. Here you see the top three vote getters in some of these categories 2
related say to the Rail/Alma Street Crossing Improvements, the El Camino Real Intersection 3
Improvements, some of the top vote getters. 4
5
Now this is not a scientific survey obviously, people could put down three dots. They weren’t 6
limited to say you could only put one dot. So they could stack the deck if they so chose. We 7
don’t know if that happened. But for instance what you see in the rail crossings, I think this is 8
not new news. You’ve heard it for years and we heard it all 15 meetings with the Task Force and 9
lengthy conversations. Concern over those three crossings in particular out of 50 people there’s 10
50 votes. And again that doesn’t necessarily mean every person, but a very high vote getter. 11
12
Next slide. Also other intersection improvements that also received high number of dots in the 13
voting exercise and then a few other additional pedestrian/bicycle crossings, the California 14
Avenue refers to improving the existing crossing that’s there today. The additional southern 15
undercrossing relates to the need and the desire, particularly in the South to provide an additional 16
crossing at the tracks, but of course we know there’s a land use constraint there that’s caused by 17
the fact that we have a lot of single family homes all along the tracks. It’s not so much a rail 18
issue; it’s a land use issue. And so the Report as you know recommends that further study be 19
taken to help define some additional locations where that might happen. Next. 20
21
The final Report revisions there’s basically six categories if you like as a result of all those 22
meetings. It includes the input received from you and the input we’ve received from the other 23
meetings and the community meeting. And those include expanded Alma Street 24
recommendations, and that includes recommendations related to setting some design principles 25
for Alma Street. The preferred vertical alignment of the rail was clarified as Elena mentioned, 26
although it wasn’t 100% unanimous it was the majority of the Task Force agreed with that 27
clarification. The Comprehensive Plan policy recommendation that you saw before have been 28
modified slightly. Priority projects were revised slightly from what you saw before. Next Steps, 29
a whole new chapter was added or a whole subsection was added on Next Steps to the 30
Implementation Chapter. There were slight revisions to the appendices. 31
32
So let’s touch on each of these. The Alma Street recommendations included as I mentioned, 33
expanded text which really clarifies the issues and opportunities related to Alma. And then in 34
addition to a concept diagram there are some specific recommendations or broad principles 35
related to functional aesthetic improvements. Some of that is a response directly to some of the 36
things you said here in wanting to set some more clear principles related to what Alma could and 37
might be. And also identifying the key quarter segments, and related to Alma then a specific 38
recommendation for a type of study that should be done for transportation and public 39
improvements along the Alma Corridor. Next. 40
41
Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policy Statements, what you saw before had four 42
Goals and their subtext Policy Statements. Goal 1, which essentially combined the statement 43
about the rail vertical alignment, was combined with the Goal 2, of insuring highest safety. And 44
those two were split into two separate goals at this point. And part of the reason for that was that 45
there was a feeling, there was a split as Elena mentioned among the Task Force Members about 46
Page 5
whether the Goal 1 even really needed to be said. That the Report itself stands in terms of the 1
various recommendations and so on and because we don’t really know what rail configuration is 2
coming the goals and recommendations of the Report would apply regardless of what the trench 3
configuration would be. However, there were some that felt that it was important to make the 4
statement about the preference for below grade trench because that’s consistent with existing 5
City, at least City Council statements. The Goal 2 is really the most important in some ways. 6
It’s certainly a very important one and the Task Force felt very strongly about this safety at the 7
rail crossings issue. Next slide. 8
9
I mentioned that there was a whole new subsection added to the Implementation Chapter, these 10
are the topics that are in that. It touches on the Comprehensive Plan, policy modifications, it 11
mentions specific, these are some early action things that will happen right now. The input to the 12
California Avenue concept plan process that’s going on now, which this plan can provide. It also 13
discusses the need to, or the next step, to actually prepare some detailed area plan studies. 14
Similar to the California Avenue area study that’s going on now, in the North, in the mixed use 15
area that’s been defined, and in the South, Palo Alto area around the triangle which these other 16
two mixed use centers and the need to move into some more detailed studies in those locations. 17
18
As you know, there are some specific, what we call keystone block areas that are, that in this 19
study recommend those as prime opportunity areas for looking into. The Alma Street 20
Transportation and Public Improvements Plan I mentioned to you already now, and then I also 21
mentioned the third from the bottom Rail Corridor Alma Street Crossing opportunities. This 22
would be looking for locations, particularly in the South where some additional opportunities 23
could be created. And then finally, input to the Engineering Studies this would be input to 24
Engineering Studies that actually others are doing, Caltrain, High Speed Rail Joint Powers 25
Authority and so on. And then finally to continue the work that’s been done with the Stanford 26
intersection, Stanford Avenue intersection and consider, continue with the El Camino Real 27
intersection and improvements. Next. 28
29
The priority projects were confirmed by the Task Force with one modification and that was to 30
move the, what was a tier 3 priority of investigating these southern crossings, moving it up to a 31
tier 2 priority. Next slide. 32
33
And then finally there were some minor modifications to the Appendices, essentially 34
clarifications of the four rail alternatives that are already being evaluated and some additional 35
explanation related to the Guiding Principles of the Rail Committee. Next. 36
37
The ARB at their hearing on the 24th last week formally recommended approval of the, of this 38
document. Similar to the kind of approval you’re being asked to give tonight with one 39
amendment that would actually in the Vision Statement add the word “safe” to the Vision 40
Statement. There were some other comments; I would call those minor comments that can be 41
incorporated into the Report. Generally there was unanimous support for the Report and 42
findings. But the third bullet you see there a few miscellaneous specific comments. And one of 43
the, I would say that there was a broad feeling and this being the design review board I think was 44
very appropriate to consider the attractiveness of the design of infrastructure. We’re talking 45
about some big infrastructure projects here and their aesthetic character is as important as there 46
Page 6
vertical alignment. And maybe there can be some language about that in this Report, and related 1
to that, the incorporation of public art, particularly in the public infrastructure, and public spaces, 2
and public projects. There was also a very important word “follow through” that means there’s 3
an intense desire to see this not sit on a shelf. It was expressed many times not just like any other 4
report, we’d like to see this, some of this get done. And that’s where the Next Steps and some of 5
these policy documents become very important. Next. 6
7
So here you see it’s the Vision Statement that’s in the Report, it’s always been in the Report. 8
Here is the change with the word “safe” added, “to create a vibrant, safe, attractive transit rich 9
area within the City,” and I won’t read through the whole thing. But, it’s the Vision Statement 10
for the entire corridor. Next. 11
12
So this is my last slide. Just to repeat the Staff recommendation to you is seeking that you 13
review and recommend to the City Council that the Council approve a resolution approving the 14
Light Rail Corridor Study and incorporating the Vision Statement and the Report. Essentially it 15
becomes a component of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, so 16
we will be available for questions and any of your comments. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Thank you Michael. I’d like to before we open up to the public to give the Chair 19
of the ARB a chance to comment because she said that she isn’t going to be able to stay long. 20
For her? 21
22
Judith Wasserman, Chair of the ARB: Thank you Chair Martinez. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Excuse me Judith, and anyone else that cares to speak you still have an 25
opportunity to submit a speaker card. Thank you, dear Judith. 26
27
Ms. Wasserman: Thank you Chair Martinez, I’m Judith Wasserman Chair of the ARB. And 28
thank you for inviting me to your meeting. Greetings Commissioners. We welcome this Rail 29
Corridor Study for a number of reasons. It’s not the first time that the Corridor has been looked 30
at but this is the first time it’s been looked at I think in such a broad way and I mean that 31
geographically. That it did not simply look at the train tracks, but it looked at the City from 32
Alma Street to El Camino on both sides. And by doing so it gave the City an opportunity to 33
examine what has been sort of put together haphazardly over the years. 34
35
If High Speed Rail has done any good, and so far in is process it has that it, it has been that it’s 36
called attention to this major asset in the community, which is also a major obstacle. And when 37
we had our design workshop three years ago we called it “Together Again for the First Time,” 38
because this is a chance for us to knit our community together across the east and west direction. 39
I mean we can go north and south, you know, rather easily on any number of large streets, but 40
getting across the train tracks on Alma Street and El Camino is kind of a hard job. So, one of the 41
things that we really liked about the Rail Corridor Study was that it gave us an excellent 42
framework for urban design examination of this area, you know, from boarder to boarder in the 43
City. We liked the way it structured the divisions. The El Camino design guidelines do that a 44
little bit but they don’t do it as well as this Study does it and in fact I thought it was interesting 45
that Commissioner Fineberg brought up the El Camino design guidelines because we have 46
Page 7
intention to reexamine them. They are not working as well as they should. They work in some 1
ways; they don’t work in other ways. There are different land uses, works well for some land 2
uses and not for others, and so by using this structure of the divisions of the areas we can 3
examine the guidelines in a better way. 4
5
The other thing that I felt was very important about the Study was the instruction from the 6
Council to look at the Rail Corridor with or without the rail. Because it’s gonna be here with or 7
without the rail. And we’re gonna have to deal with the grade crossings with the Caltrain 8
upgrades whether we have high speed trains or not. And this Study gives us a framework in 9
which to do that as well. And I think that’s probably the most important single item in the Rail 10
Corridor Study is to, is dealing with the grade crossings because that’s become a real, you know, 11
life safety issue in town. If we can’t deal with our life safety issues what can we deal with? So I 12
enjoin you all to examine it carefully and join us in supporting this Study and recommending it 13
to the Council. Thank you. If you have any questions I’ll be happy to answer them, but I can’t 14
stay for long. 15
16
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much Judith. Just before we open the public hearing, I’d like to 17
hear from our City Attorney on the resolution and sort of what is it meant to achieve? 18
19
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Chair Martinez. Cara Silver, Senior 20
Assistant City Attorney. The resolution that was prepared attempts to incorporate some of the 21
comments that we received back from the Planning & Transportation Commission last time, 22
which was that the Commission wanted the document to have some sort of regulatory teeth. And 23
so, the way we accomplished that is to incorporate some of the major principles of this Study 24
particularly the vision statement and some of the overriding principles into particular aspects of 25
the Comprehensive Plan. And there are also some pieces of the Study that we do anticipate will 26
be flushed out later on down the road and those will be analyzed separately and will be 27
incorporated, some of them will be incorporated as polices, new polices in the Comprehensive 28
Plan, but we are not able to incorporate all of them at this stage because we anticipate there will 29
be some additional environmental analysis that will need to be conducted and it would be more 30
appropriate to analyze some of those new policies in connection with the Transportation Element 31
update that is ongoing. But, this resolution adopts some of the policies that can be adopted at 32
this stage with nominal environmental review. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Let’s go to our, hear from the public. We have two speakers so 35
far. Vice Chair. 36
37
Vice Chair Fineberg: Irvin Dawid to be followed by Bill Cutler. 38
39
Mr. Irvin Dawid: Thank you Chairman Martinez, Vice Chairperson Fineberg. You’ve got my 40
comments that are in the packet that I made to the ARB. I wanted, Irvin Dawid, one the two 41
Environmental Members of the Task Force. I wanted to change them a little bit, especially as I 42
listened to Michael and Elena speak on the project and I think it is really important that this just 43
not be another study that goes into the bin and maybe they use a resolution or not. I mean, I 44
can’t help but think if something really big came out of this that would be good. 45
46
Page 8
And, when I’m thinking of something big I can’t help but think of what we just saw this past 1
Sunday, the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge opening. You know, and whether you 2
like the project or not Governor Brown used the opportunity to reference High Speed Rail. Now, 3
I think we can understand his analogy to it, but here in Palo Alto what can we reference as sort of 4
a big project that relates to our priorities and what this Study covered? It comes down to what 5
ARB Chair Wasserman I think said. And that’s the intersections. I’d like you to think back, 6
where do we have great intersections on this line in the Palo Alto? When were they constructed 7
and how did they get done? 8
9
Now recently we saw another grade separation done. It was a new one, it’s right by my house, 10
it’s the Homer Avenue tunnel. And now there’s a possibility we can get one in South Palo Alto, 11
but let’s face it, we need something much bigger than that that appeals to all of Palo Alto. And 12
you saw it from those dots, there are two grade crossings now that are hazardous that really stand 13
out in people’s minds. And wouldn’t it be great if something like this Study was used to actually 14
put forward a project, a Capital Improvement Project that did something about them, much like 15
the way the City of Bart their residents went to the ballot box and supported a bond measure to 16
put all of Bart underground. Now, I’m not saying to depress the whole trench the right of way. I 17
am saying address one or address two of those grade separations. I think that would be huge and 18
I’d urge you to think big. Thank you. 19
20
Vice Chair Fineberg: Bill Cutler. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Ok, well I want to thank Irvin for speaking again. And it appears that Bill 23
Cutler isn’t present so we are going to close the public hearing and sort of take a round of 24
questions to Staff or the consultant. Commissioners. Commissioner Tuma do you want to? 25
You’re ready to go, you want to wait? Commissioner Michael. 26
27
Commissioner Michael: So having spent some time with Commissioner Tanaka in the 28
Infrastructure Commission, I find the report of the Rail Corridor Commission profoundly 29
impressive. I’m sort of envious and jealous of the quality of analysis and presentation and the 30
clarity and when I read it in March and read through it again, I had very few if any questions. I 31
think it’s excellent, excellent work and we should move this forward to the Council for approval. 32
33
I think that the other experience in the Infrastructure Commission is the notion that there, it’s one 34
thing to identify the importance of a project, or even to identify how it might be funded or what 35
the issues might be in terms of its impact on the community or the approval. It’s another thing to 36
get it actually done. So I think that, you know, the potential for this to be of great benefit to the 37
community when and if it’s done is pretty exciting. I think it’s very thoughtful and I’m trying in 38
my mind to imagine what the construction process would be like, when you have to operate the 39
north/south commute while you’re digging the open trench. But having lived in San Francisco 40
when they trenched under Market Street it can be done, and after it’s finished it will be lovely. 41
So thanks for all the hard work and I’m intending to vote in favor. 42
43
Chair Martinez: Can I ask the kind of Staff to clarify something? We have a recommendation 44
that we recommend approval of the report and its adoption incorporation into the current 45
Comprehensive Plan, and we have along with the Vision Statement and recommended polices 46
Page 9
and goals, and then we have a resolution which also has recommended policies and goals and 1
they’re not the same. Is that intentional or? 2
3
Ms. Lee: Thank you Chair, yes that was intentional. The purpose of this resolution as Cara 4
mentioned is to give some weight to this document, so we are basically in the resolution we are 5
saying that the Study Report has been approved by the City, that the Report is consistent with 6
various existing policies as well as the entire Comprehensive Plan and that we’re adopting the 7
Vision Statement and that we are identifying future studies that we’re undertaking to help 8
implement this study, which contains all these recommendations. So some of the 9
recommendations included in the Study would be future Comprehensive Plan goals and policies 10
that would be potentially included into the Transportation Element, but those policies are part of 11
the future actions that this Report is recommending. So, as Cara mentioned that would also 12
require a substantial CEQA analysis, which is why we’re not proposing that and the intention is 13
for those future studies to be incorporated into future processes that would go through the 14
additional Staff work as well as returning to the Commission and the Commission subcommittee 15
as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan update. 16
17
Chair Martinez: Very good, thank you. Commissioner Keller. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So, I noticed that the grade separation was a policy in terms 20
of the Rail Corridor Study document. However, the idea of not building aerial railroad structures 21
is listed under a program in the notes. So in some sense in the commentary in page 2 of the not 22
yet approved resolution amending the Comp Plan. And I’m wondering the extent to which a 23
note that is perhaps slightly ambiguously worded saying “represents the City’s current support, 24
the City’s opposition to the above grade aerial high speed rail options.” I’m wondering if that is 25
sufficient weight to such a statement as opposed to the wording that’s in Policy 1.1 and whether 26
it should be elevated to the policy level as opposed to a program level. And have the wording of 27
1.1 that’s in here and in the Attachment A. And perhaps that’s a question for our City Attorney 28
to address. 29
30
Ms. Silver: I think that’s a policy call and either proposal would be fine from a legal standpoint. 31
32
Commissioner Keller: So it wouldn’t, it wouldn’t harm the CEQA analysis in order to essentially 33
insert a policy in the Comp Plan with the wording of Policy 1.1 in this document. That would be 34
acceptable for the process? 35
36
Ms. Silver: I’m sorry. I thought that you were referencing language that was already in the 37
resolution. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: No, I’m not referencing, I was first referencing language in the resolution 40
which is kind of ambiguous saying as well as the City’s opposition to the, to above grade aerial 41
high speed rail options, but that is a statement of a program that indicates our opposition as 42
opposed to necessarily a policy statement that says we’re opposed to it. And so my question is, 43
can we explicitly state that policy by saying Policy 1.1 and this, and incorporate that at the policy 44
level as opposed to the program level. 45
46
Page
10
Ms. Silver: I think the concern is that the first sentence of that policy is something that has not 1
yet been fully analyzed in an EIR document and we would anticipate that that would be more 2
fully analyzed through a CEQA process. The second sentence is not problematic. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: So we could have a policy added to the Comp Plan with a new number or 5
maybe an A after it indicating it’s inserted into the sequence or perhaps somewhere else in the 6
policy level that is the wording of the second sentence of Policy 1.1 and that would be 7
acceptable? 8
9
Ms. Silver: Yes, I don’t think that would raise CEQA concerns. 10
11
Commissioner Keller: And would that have stronger weight in terms of expressing the policies of 12
the City of Palo Alto than putting it as a comment in the program? 13
14
Ms. Silver: Probably. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg had a question. 19
20
Vice Chair Fineberg: Same question but can you apply it generally to all the four sections of 21
specific language in the resolution where the text has been added as the kind of flowery 22
descriptive text under a specific program, would it be stronger, not allowed, or no difference if 23
all of that language was inserted as a new policy or a new program? Look at the fourth one, the 24
same kind of thing, where we’re saying the vision, we’re talking about the Vision Statement, 25
would that be stronger, weaker, or no difference if it wasn’t an amendment to Policy T28, but if 26
it was T x+5? Could you answer that for all four? 27
28
Ms. Silver: You know, I think that a court would give sufficient weight to the concepts that are 29
here as codified as notes to policies or as stand-alone policies. What the court will do is look at 30
the City’s overall record in terms of its intent. The reason why we had structured it this way is 31
that we don’t want to at this stage completely overhaul the numbering system, etcetera, that 32
people have been accustomed to with the Transportation Element. We thought it would be more 33
appropriate to do that at the, you know, more formal Comp Plan update stage. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 36
37
Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, so I guess I also share Commissioner Michael’s feeling about the 38
Rail Corridor Study. It looks very well done. It’s also my second time looking at it and it looks 39
even better, so good work. I didn’t have a lot of questions on this; I’m inclined to also support it 40
as well. Thank you. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Ok, Vice Chair I think it’s your turn. Are you ready? 43
44
Vice Chair Fineberg: I’d like to start by thanking the members of the public who’ve served on 45
the Rail Corridor Task Force and members of the public who have attended the community 46
Page
11
meetings. It’s huge to have so many people coming and sharing what their hopes and dreams are 1
for the City and giving feedback and helping shape that future rather than having the future 2
happen without input of the people who live and work here. So, many, many thanks from all of 3
us. 4
5
I appreciate the changes that have happened with the texts and the resolution since our last 6
review. I think the document is getting better and better. I too will be in support of moving it 7
forward to Council. There are a few areas where I just want to bring up some questions and I’m 8
not sure if there are some easy fixes or just maybe a little more consideration. One sort of global 9
question I have is we have our at places tonight, so I guess that means people can, if they are 10
playing that weekly drinking game they get a beer because I just said “at places.” There was a 11
notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration. Are we supposed to be, reviewed that or 12
comment on it, or is that just courtesy to inform us that it’s there? 13
14
Ms. Lee: We actually are requesting the Commission to review it and comment on it. We 15
understand that it was brought to you late but it’s a general negative declaration which 16
demonstrates that the policies that are being recommended to be adopted will not have an impact 17
on the environment. 18
19
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok, I’m not sure I’m in a position to comment on it because I haven’t had a 20
chance to review it. So, I don’t know if we need to take later a quiet 5 minutes and I’ll leaf 21
through it or we can do it during the rest of the communications but I think that should be 22
addressed and how we’ll handle it. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Yeah, I’m inclined to take a 5 or 10 minute break so that we can say that we’ve 25
looked at it. We can do that after additional comments, questions. Just take a break for that. 26
27
Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. A lot of us have talked about, you know, on that last item the 28
east/west crossings and our north/south capacity. I appreciate that this plan addresses that. 29
There are a couple small points. Let me run through this quickly. One, we need to have a name 30
change for what they call this “South Palo Alto Neighborhood Center.” That’s sort of a mixed 31
use district at El Camino Way. Just calling it a South Palo Alto Neighborhood Center just 32
doesn’t feel like it’s talking about what that area is. So, I don’t know what it should be. I don’t 33
know if the Rail Corridor Task Force talked about that, but that isn’t a South Palo Alto 34
Neighborhood Center. It just doesn’t work for anybody I’ve talked to just in terms of the 35
nomenclature. 36
37
On Page 5.12 there’s a specific policy that talks about encouraging the relocation of auto 38
oriented and auto serving businesses, specifically the auto repair and sales to other less 39
pedestrian oriented locations in the City. I agree with that in principle, but specifically what 40
they’re talking about is the Mclaren-Fisker Dealership and the Volvo Dealership and we have 41
conflicting policies from Council to maintain auto dealerships because they’re sales tax revenue 42
producing. I don’t know what other neighborhoods we would have that would have auto 43
dealerships, so I think we’ve sort of created a conflict. How it should be resolved, I don’t have 44
the answers tonight, but I think we need to look at that. 45
46
Page
12
And then there’s also I’m seeing in multiple places within the documents where they’re talking 1
about the depth on the west of El Camino or on the east of Alma. In some places I’m seeing 2
references for one block. In other places I’m seeing one parcel. In some places that’s the same, 3
but in other places it’s not. The parcel doesn’t go the whole block, so I think we need to get a 4
little more consistency there. And otherwise, thank you. I’m looking forward to it moving 5
forward. 6
7
Chair Martinez: We’re tired I think. Commissioner Tuma did you want to pick it up? 8
9
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I had a question for Staff and I don’t know that there’s a particular 10
answer to, but I just wanted to get more of the thoughts on it. Which is, not to compare this 11
Study with the IBRC Study directly, but coming out of the IBRC Study I felt like there was an 12
assessment of where we were, what was going on, and while there was nothing definitive there 13
were a series of suggestions that seemed to be a little bit more concrete in terms of where do we 14
go from here? The sort of the “so what” coming out of the Study. When I read this Study, a lot 15
of what the next steps are, are more studies. More plans, more things to look at. And I’m 16
mindful of what some of the previous speakers said in terms of don’t just put this on the shelf, 17
don’t just have it be a study that has all this information in it but where’s the “so what?” Where 18
do we go from here? And I know, like I said I don’t think there was any definitive specific 19
answer, but is there some way to make some of the output here a little bit more concrete? Or is it 20
just really that a lot of this feeds into these various different plans and studies and other things 21
that we’re gonna do? Just your thoughts on that? 22
23
Mr. Williams: I’ll take a shot at that. I think this is really much more of a policy oriented 24
document than IBRC which was very, not project specific but, you know, very concrete so to 25
speak. The, so we have a policy framework that’s essentially been developed with this Study to 26
set out some overarching policies that we hope we can use in number one responding to any rail 27
suggestions. Number two, developing then subsequent work programs to implement some of 28
these polices. And Number three establishing priorities as we move through CIP reviews in the 29
future. 30
31
So as Michael indicated we have a few additional studies to come down. One of those, I mean 32
three of those relate to the three sort of sub areas and land uses. Cal Avenue is under way 33
already. I think this helps them sort of bolster that. The downtown one, I think a lot of what’s 34
been discussed here will come out of the 27 University Avenue analysis that’s under way that ex-35
Commissioner Garber is working very diligently on because that is really turning into I think 36
more of a community, you know, how does it benefit the community type of exercise than a 37
private development proposal would be. So we have that. So I think what’s left then is the south 38
or the El Camino Way neighborhood area, and, you know, that was already identified to some 39
extent in the existing Comp Plan. But I do think that will then target that as we move into 40
subsequent phases of where should we do area studies? I think that’s the next one. It has to be 41
or maybe even expanded South El Camino Real type study that we’ve talked about before. So I 42
think it lends credence to that. 43
44
The implementation program specifies these different tiers of improvements and so I think that 45
feeds into directly the Capital Improvements Program and which projects should we be looking 46
Page
13
at first? Now, there still are too many of those to deal with in terms of any reasonable budget at 1
this point. But, I think what we probably will do is we’ll probably put some kind of, you know, 2
in the short term, put some kind of feasibility money in there or money to look at feasibility 3
studies of some of these key crossing locations. And that and then go from there as far as 4
identifying which ones are most appropriate to go. So I think there’s a game plan here, but 5
you’re right it’s not maybe as specifically laid out at this point as we’d like but I think that’s sort 6
of the nature of getting these policy framework in place initially. 7
8
Chair Martinez: Well, good segue-way for me because my question to the consultant first is, I 9
can see where you’re very happy with having survived working in Palo Alto. But on the other 10
hand, does the Report really achieve what it set out to do? Does it give us some buffer to the 11
High Speed Rail project? Does it speak to the environmental sensitive areas of the community? 12
Does it protect neighborhoods? Does it give us a defense when we sit down at the table with 13
High Speed Rail? 14
15
Mr. Smiley: I think it does. And, I think that the conversation that we’re having here and that we 16
had also with the ARB and the general concern about whether there’s enough, I mean it relates 17
back to that question of whether there’s enough that makes this useful and not something that 18
will just sit on the shelf. I think that one of the things that we did, it was certainly an effort that 19
we felt was part of our brief and it was something that the Task Force came to get on board with, 20
there’s that pun again. Was that this project isn’t about the high speed train. It’s, the train is one 21
piece of a very complex urban environment. And it’s a very rich environment; it’s got many, 22
many things going on. And it happens that that train is probably the biggest single piece of 23
infrastructure coming down potential in the future if it comes. And so it’s a very important part. 24
And dealing with that whether it’s the high speed train itself, or whether its Caltrain 25
improvements dealing with that question, I think, is very important. And it has emerged that a 26
tremendous amount of that has to do with east/west connectivity, tying the City back together. 27
28
But it also deals with where are the opportunities for us to build upon the existing rail 29
infrastructure, the stations and so on that we have available now at California Avenue for 30
example, and at the downtown station. And are there opportunities to go forward in those areas 31
beyond perhaps thinking about those areas beyond perhaps what’s been done today, and provide 32
some input to future thinking. 33
34
I would have to say from my perspective if I were, well, I’ll start by saying that one of the 35
thoughts that we had as the, if you like, the interpreters of what the Task Force was saying and 36
then advancing that and bringing our value added, if you like, to the process, is that a simple 37
policy document goes so far. And I think that it covers a variety of policies that will help work 38
with the update of the Comprehensive Plan and so on. 39
40
But I think it goes beyond that because if I were to then be asked to prepare a Transportation and 41
Public Improvements Plan for the Alma Street Corridor, what I might be asked if I was the 42
consultant brought into that project, it might be a blank slate. And say, ok we got this grant, 43
we’re going to, we’re now going to do a Transportation Plan for the Alma Street Corridor and 44
it’s going to have component pedestrianization all the various modes of transportation. We also 45
Page
14
want to do some beautification and a variety of things, we don’t know if the train’s gonna come, 1
but we know there’s certain things we can do today. 2
3
I could start from scratch and I could say, well it breaks it down and we see that it breaks down 4
into certain components and there are certain values that we bring to it. This Study sets some of 5
those values already. It gives instruction to the next consultant, so it goes beyond a policy 6
document. It starts giving instructions to what future plans might think about and those who will 7
come after us who may get asked to do those plans. In that respect I think it goes beyond a 8
policy document. And I think it does provide, in some areas more specifically than others, but I 9
believe it does provide some guidance in a variety of specific areas on how, for those who will 10
come, who will follow us and for you to be able to evaluate and set the brief for those, as you 11
evaluate those projects. 12
13
Chair Martinez: I think you’re right. I think it does set the values, which is the most important 14
part of a planning process, but is it enough when there’s another set of values coming down the 15
tracks? To our Senior Assistant City Attorney, is the resolution enough? Does it do what we 16
need to do in establishing those values and in establishing the precedent for what would work in 17
this community? 18
19
Ms. Silver: You know I think I think it’s a very good first step and there is certainly a process in 20
place and from what I’m hearing some momentum to move it forward to the next step of the 21
Comprehensive update process. And actually adds some new policies into the Comprehensive 22
Plan and analyze those, yeah, in connection with all of the other transportation policies that 23
you’ll be considering. 24
25
Chair Martinez: Can we really say that we are opposed to above, whatever, raised structures for 26
High Speed Rail, and for that to mean anything in terms of it going to court or it being the 27
precedent of this City, or in any other manner carrying the weight that we want it carry? Or is it 28
simply after the fact in defense of what we would like to see? 29
30
Ms. Silver: Well it’s rather an open ended question; I’m not sure exactly how to respond. But 31
certainly when, if you’re just looking to defend this City against a, you know, above grade High 32
Speed Rail project, what the court would do is look at the whole range of policy documents that 33
the City has in place and will look at whether that particular project is consistent with those 34
policy documents and whether the High Speed Rail project, excuse me, had taken or can take 35
additional steps to mitigate in a way to make the project compatible with the existing policy 36
documents. 37
38
Mr. Williams: If I could just add that we also did visit with the Council’s Rail Committee, the 39
four Council Members, and I think this is very consistent with where they saw this effort going, 40
which was to set some sort of general policies on the trench versus at grade versus aerial type of 41
approach. But in a kind of generic way because the rail project is always in such a state of flux, 42
so they steered us towards, you know, more of this kind of approach but felt like it was important 43
and that it was useful to have this kind of language there to refer to as we respond to proposals 44
from whether it’s Caltrain or from High Speed Rail for improvements along the tracks. 45
46
Page
15
Chair Martinez: Well, I don’t know. I can see that we do want to establish this policy, I would 1
like to see in the policy or in the plan that there’s really something that says for the sake of the 2
City that is above grade structures is the worst possible alternative. And nothing in the plan or in 3
the resolution even leans that way. We count on reasonableness and good planning and 4
5
Mr. Williams: Well we can certainly add some, but I thought we already have some, I mean we 6
do have something in the resolutions that says that references the Vision Statement represents the 7
City’s opposition to the above grade aerial High Speed Rail options and also in the plan there’s 8
language as well. 9
10
Mr. Smiley: Yes, Goal 1, Policy 1.1. And I think that gets to the second sentence that 11
Commissioner Keller was referring to. It specifically says the City is opposed to an elevated 12
alignment of the High Speed Rail Caltrain. So it’s a very, and if I understood correctly, 13
Commissioner Keller was raising the possibility that that one sentence become a policy rather 14
than a program statement. So that is in the plan, or in the Report, and I think that’s where the 15
conversation earlier was about making that a part of the resolution as well as a policy. 16
17
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair with a follow up. 18
19
Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m wondering what different it makes, or if it makes the difference that 20
there is or is not a Vision Statement or whether the Vision Statement matters. When we as a City 21
Planning Commission do a project level review, we’ve been instructed repeatedly that the Vision 22
Statement of our Comprehensive Plan is irrelevant, it’s nice, it sets the tone, but it’s not what we 23
look to when we evaluate a project. So the Vision Statement says, you know, the things about 24
the vibrant, attractive, safe, transit rich things. I think those are the things that Chair Martinez is 25
wanting to see with teeth in detail. So does referring to the Vision Statement in a policy 26
somehow give that a force in law and make it be something that has to be considered at a project 27
level review, or is the Vision Statement still just flowery prose that has no standing even if we 28
refer to it in a policy? I don’t know if that’s getting at your question. I think that gets it at Chair 29
Martinez’s question. 30
31
Chair Martinez: Yes, it does, thank you. 32
33
Mr. Williams: And I’ll let the City Attorney respond as far as the legal force of something, but, 34
you know, I think, I don’t think this resolution can create the specifics of where you want to go 35
with this. And I think its step one, got plan, got the policies. Step two, you’ve got a resolution 36
that references that plan and Vision Statements at this point. Step three, we incorporate those 37
more specifically into Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Transportation Element. And step 38
four, we then take the steps we need to implement through additional area plans, Capitol 39
Improvement Programs, etcetera. 40
41
So, I understand it’s frustrating not to get, you know, to a certain level with this, but I think you 42
have to establish this initially as that overall framework and I think the Vision Statement is very 43
pertinent. I think it was very important to the Task Force and I think it’s important to have it 44
here even though you’re right, I mean it’s a general statement but everything else kind of feeds 45
off it so you have to go back to it and say this is overall vision and then ultimately the thing 46
Page
16
that’s most enforceable is when we get specific Comprehensive Plan policies and then specific 1
land use changes or projects through the CIP that are implemented to do this. 2
3
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael. 4
5
Commissioner Michael: Yes, my question is maybe just a request to clarify something which I’m 6
a little bit confused. Looking at the language of the proposed resolution there were, when you 7
get to the “now therefore” there are four sections. And Section 3 talks about modifying Program 8
T21 to study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under the Alma Street and 9
Caltrain tracks and implement a feasible. And then looking at the Report, and I’m just looking 10
right now in the sort of the Vision and the executive summary it talks about the preferred 11
alternative for any rail improvements or expansions to below grade open trench. And then 12
thinking about sort of what’s gonna go on in the practicalities of the CIP process, if you’re gonna 13
create the open trench and put the rail line down then you will not have wanted to put all the 14
pedestrian and bike transportations down because then you obsolete those and so it’s not a good 15
use of public funds. So if we’re strongly supporting the report, which I for one am. I’m looking 16
at the resolution in Section three about the undergrounding the bikeways and walkways. I’m just 17
confused why you have that. 18
19
Mr. Williams: I think that’s a very good point. I think we should change that. We need to make 20
it emphasize that what we’re really looking for is separating the traffic level, whether that 21
happens with a train below and a crossing above or vice versa. That’s what we’re looking for is 22
that grade separation of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the train crossing. So that’s a 23
very good point. Also, in the one above that, that Section two that we talked about before with 24
the Vision Statement represents the City’s current, I think that is incomplete and that we ought to 25
really be saying represents the City’s current preference for the below grade alignment. I’m not 26
sure about, I guess we could say and support of the Caltrain two track on grade electrification as 27
well as the City’s opposition to the above grade. So I think we’ve left out the preference for the 28
below grade alignment in there and we should add that to that item. 29
30
Chair Martinez: If I can just sort of finish my comments. I support the report so I’m just kind of 31
moody, ok? You know words are important, but to have a goal that says we oppose above grade 32
isn’t as powerful as something that said this is an environmentally sensitive area that this, that 33
could only support something that doesn’t, you know, tower above houses as I picture them at 34
Churchill and along Alma. It just seems that capturing really what is that outcome is much more 35
important and much more powerful than just saying we oppose this. I know everyone we know 36
knows we oppose it. So I was looking for something out of the study that really nailed why this 37
is not a good idea. And I would still urge you to go back and just look at that, you know, the 38
hours of work that you did to find that, you know, that really one item that nails it for us. I don’t 39
know what it is, I would think there would be a lot of things, but just stating we oppose it I think 40
doesn’t even get us to the table in terms of trying to get this to go in the direction we want it to 41
go. And I know High Speed Rail is sort of, we don’t, it’s uncertain, but what’s uncertain is 42
probably the worst that we can imagine so we should be looking at that, not just the uncertainty. 43
But I’m prepared to support this if this is what Council, our City Attorney, and consultants are 44
expressing is the best way we should go. 45
46
Page
17
Did you? Commissioner Keller you had something else to say first and then 1
2
Commissioner Keller: Yeah there’s been a lot of discussion on that end of the table and very 3
little on this end of the table. Yeah, for once. But a couple of things. 4
5
So let’s talk about the distinction between “no this” versus “preference for that.” I happen to be 6
allergic to chocolate. So if somebody says to me “would you like vanilla or chocolate?” I’m not 7
gonna say I prefer vanilla, because if they give me chocolate I’m gonna get allergic reaction. 8
I’m gonna say, “no chocolate. I’m allergic to it. Don’t give it to me, it’ll cause me to get ill.” 9
Ok? There’s a big difference between saying, you know, if you say, “I prefer vanilla,” well, you 10
know somebody hands me chocolate anyway I’m not gonna eat it. So there’s a big difference 11
between stating a preference and stating a prohibition. And a preference is, just doesn’t have the 12
weight. That’s the first comment. 13
14
The second comment about this is when I read the rail, the High Speed Rail Alternatives Report 15
two years ago or so when it first came out, three years, I’m not sure how long. A while ago 16
when it first came out I remember there being a point in there saying that something was rejected 17
because it was not compatible with local land use plans. Well, if you want to make sure that it’s 18
compatible, what we do here is compatible with local land use plans then be explicit. Don’t beat 19
around the bush. Ok? Be explicit. If we really mean no aerial railroad structures we should say 20
so. In particular when the City of Palo Alto created Planning Commission, Council, when the 21
Council created the Guiding Principles which are attachment B to our Staff Report, Principle #1 22
is the City is opposed to an elevated alignment of High Speed Rail Caltrain in Palo Alto. Ok? 23
We should say that. Explicitly, no beating around the bush, make it clear, that’s their language. 24
Use it. 25
26
The second thing is that somehow missing from all the goals and policies that are in the High 27
Speed Rail document the City’s Guiding Principle #3 seems to be missing. It says “all 28
neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by High Speed Rail Caltrain shall be treated with equal 29
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.” Now that’s written in the positive 30
language that I think that our Chair prefers, but it somehow is lost in terms of the goals and 31
policies that are in the High Speed Rail document. 32
33
In addition, one that seems to be a corollary of a bunch of stuff but hasn’t been stated, is that all 34
four at grade vehicular crossings should be remain open to vehicular traffic. We have a crossing 35
at Palo Alto Avenue, we have a crossing at Churchill, we have a crossing at Charleston, and a 36
crossing at Meadow. There’s no statement that these should remain open and I think that’s a 37
critical thing. If you’re gonna be changing alignments or things like that we should certainly 38
keep those four open and I’d like to see a statement to that effect, certainly in as one of the 39
policies or goals in the High Speed Rail and in terms of this overall Rail Corridor Study. And 40
that seems to be missing. 41
42
It’s been mentioned a couple of times the idea of a lattice cover, and that you don’t have to have 43
gaps, you can cover part of High Speed, of the Rail Corridor. You don’t, you know, while you 44
have to have 1,400 feet of distance that’s not covered, that 1,400 feet doesn’t have to be the full 45
width of the trench. You could have like a zippering effect going, a lattice going back and forth 46
Page
18
where part of it is covered on one side, part of it is covered on the other side. And I don’t see 1
particular mention of that idea as one of the possibilities which would enable a north to south 2
class one bike facility, which you do talk about, but you talk about primarily when in the Alma 3
Street right of way where there’s no, not much room. But if it’s over a lattice that lines back and 4
forth there is room for it on top of this cover. And so that idea isn’t mentioned. 5
6
In Figure 4.5 there’s impact on Alma not only at Palo Alto Avenue but there’s impact on Alma at 7
Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston. Somehow the impacts on Alma, those ears that go either 8
direction, those wings if you will to one side or the other, those need to continue on Alma on 9
those three current grade crossings. They can’t, just as it is on Alma and Palo Alto Avenue they 10
would continue on those three intersections. 11
12
If you look at the alternative, either alternative 2 or 2b, the two alternatives that are not aerial 13
structures through Palo Alto by High Speed Rail, when you go under Embarcadero Road it 14
involves bringing, when High Speed Rail or Caltrain goes under Embarcadero Road it involves 15
brining Embarcadero road to an at grade traffic light intersection with Alma. Ok? And the 16
descriptions of the, the descriptions of what happens to the intersection basically doesn’t take 17
into account that design reality of High Speed Rail. And the opportunities that that presents in 18
terms of better, better connectivity between Alma Street and, for example, Stanford or El 19
Camino. And the idea right now the main way you go is on Churchill or you go around this kind 20
of crazy loop on Lincoln, which doesn’t make much sense. You know, that, this would be a 21
considerable improvement. 22
23
The other issue is that rail under Oregon/Page Mill Road means no change to the Oregon/Page 24
Mill Road intersection because you have to go underneath that. You’re not gonna completely, 25
you’re not gonna make that an at grade intersection, that’s not feasible. That’s, the traffic would 26
not handle that. But also in terms of the mat that goes on there there’s no need to go as far 27
underneath when you get past meter level, meter #1890. When you’re going past there, you 28
don’t have to go far down you could go somewhat shallower in terms of building that. 29
30
It’s very important to there to be engineering analysis of the rail grade separations to the extent 31
that anything were to be built that would involve grade separations of one kind or another. There 32
are dollar figures in here, but I don’t think that those dollar figures, I’m not sure where they came 33
from. I don’t believe that they are that accurate because an undercrossing under Charleston and 34
Meadows and Churchill that does not connect with Alma does involve property losses. In 35
particular if it goes under Alma then it’s gonna have to go, it’s gonna have to come to grade, 36
come to surface past Alma and at Churchill, at East Meadow, at Charleston, there are properties 37
on either side, on one or both sides of the crossing that would lose their access to their driveways 38
and that’s a problem. So there would, you can’t say well you can keep your house but you can’t 39
get out of it. Sorry, you have no access to your driveway. So, there would necessarily have to be 40
a some sort of condemnation of those properties because you essentially made those properties 41
inaccessible. And the same thing is true to some extent with the side that is west of the train 42
tracks. Some of those properties would also be inaccessible with a depressed configuration. 43
44
Chair Martinez: Are you almost done? 45
46
Page
19
Commissioner Keller: I’m almost done, thank you. In terms of RC-T-1, on page 6.06 1b and the 1
other ones of those, you know, that has to be, those have to be changed page 6.06 because those 2
essentially indicate that there is no loss of property and condemnation and that can’t possibly be 3
the case because of the analysis I’ve just described. 4
5
And the last thing is that in terms of the Comp Plan process here, in terms of the Comp Plan 6
process in terms of the revision, there’s a description here in terms of goals and policies. Well, 7
the Comp Plan has a hierarchy of vision, goal, policy, program. It’s highly unlikely that you 8
would have for High Speed Rail or the Rail Corridor have five policy level, sorry five goal level 9
entries in the Comp Plan. You might have one goal level entry in the Comp Plan, a number of 10
policy level things in the Comp Plan and below that a number of program level things in a 11
hierarchy. But the way this is written, will have to require a translation by the Transportation 12
Comp Plan subcommittee to handle that. I don’t know if you want to take a stab at trying to 13
convert that, if you want to leave that for the Comp Plan subcommittee to take a stab at that, but 14
in some sense some translation is needed because it doesn’t directly apply. 15
16
I would actually like to make a Motion if I may? 17
18
Chair Martinez: Sure, are we making Motions tonight Planning Director? 19
20
Mr. Williams: Yes. 21
22
Chair Martinez: Ok. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: You want to say something first? 25
26
Vice Chair Fineberg: We need to take a five minute break, unless your Motion is not gonna 27
include the neg. dec.? 28
29
Commissioner Keller: I’m happy to take a 5 minute break and then come back to my Motion if 30
that’s ok. 31
32
Chair Martinez: I’m just looking at it. Let’s make it a 10 minute break. Thank you. 33
34
BREAK 35
36
Chair Martinez: Ok, we’re back. We’re ready to go. What were we talking about again? 37
Actually before your Motion, Commissioner Tuma you had wanted to say something earlier? 38
39
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, it was just dovetailing on what several others had said about 40
whether this is strong enough or, you know, above grade is a no no, blah, blah, blah. I was 41
looking at the Staff Report on page 6 at the top, under “Revisions to Report” and it says “the 42
most recent City Council position on High Speed Rail was to oppose it in any form,” and then it 43
goes on to say “but the decision was made to focus on two rail configurations.” So, this City 44
Council position, is that a position that they’ve taken formally? That they are opposed to High 45
Speed Rail in any form? Is that something that was voted on? Is that, how much weight does 46
Page
20
that position, cause it also says “although there is some support for blended two track Caltrain.” 1
So, how much weight should we and will they give to that current position? And if the answer is 2
significant then instead of saying that we oppose the above grade aerial configuration, should 3
there be something about opposing High Speed Rail? 4
5
Mr. Williams: Well, a couple answers to that. One is that we’ve tried not to necessarily say High 6
Speed Rail on here so the configurations aren’t specific necessarily to High Speed Rail versus 7
Caltrain electrification as well, which could be in a trench or in a at grade configuration. The 8
other thing is that, you know, the Council I believe that is an official position of the Council to 9
oppose High Speed Rail. It’s primarily based, or a lot of it is based on the business plan and 10
some of the other assumptions and costs that go around that. And we’re aware of that and 11
presented this to them and to the committee, the Council Rail Committee, and they felt 12
comfortable with leaving it like this. I think they wanted to just leave themselves the flexibility 13
to, you know, say what they want to say on High Speed Rail as opposed to formalizing 14
something in this document about High Speed Rail. 15
Commissioner Tuma: I guess what’s inconsistent with that is that in Section two we’re adding 16
this specific thing that says “City’s opposition to above grade aerial High Speed Rail options.” 17
So that seems to, we’re saying something specific about that, but that’s much more narrow. 18
19
Mr. Williams: We should delete High Speed Rail from that comment entirely. I mean we should 20
just say “alignment,” “opposition to above grade aerial alignment,” or something like that. 21
22
Commissioner Tuma: Ok. I mean if Council’s comfortable with that, it just seems like that’s 23
they’ve taken this very public position on being against High Speed Rail period, and here we’re 24
sort of dancing around that. But if you, if, I think it’s worth at least at the meeting brining that 25
up again and saying this is your policy, this is what we’re doing here, are you guys putting that 26
together and saying yeah, that’s the right way to go. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller, you got the Motion? 29
30
MOTION 31
32
Commissioner Keller: Thank you and I’ve actually thanks to Commissioner Tuma’s comments 33
slightly modified my Motion. Perhaps not in ways that he expects. So, my Motion is three parts. 34
The first part is to approve, sorry to recommend approval of the negative declaration with 35
addendum. And I’ll talk about the addendum later. 36
37
The second is, the second part of the Motion is to recommend approval of the resolution of the 38
City Council for the Rail Corridor Study Report with the change that an additional 39
Comprehensive Plan policy is to be added which has these three parts. The first part is the City 40
is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. The second part is that all 41
neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by rail should be treated with equal consideration with 42
respect to vertical alignment impacts. And the third part is that all four existing at grade rail 43
crossings shall remain open to vehicular traffic. 44
45
Page
21
And the third part of the Motion is that the Planning Commission, I’m not sure if this has to be a 1
third part of the Motion, but essentially that we want to recommend approval of the Rail Corridor 2
Study with textual amendments as to accommodate the comments we’ve made. 3
4
Chair Martinez: And your addendum? 5
6
Commissioner Keller: The addendum is to the negative declaration is that the negative 7
declaration texturally addresses the, textually addresses the resolution. And because I’m 8
recommending a change to the resolution, the addendum to the negative declaration has to reflect 9
the change to the resolution, so that’s the, that’s the… 10
11
Chair Martinez: Ok. Is there a second to the Motion? 12
13
SECOND 14
15
Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Michael seconds the Motion. You care to speak to your 16
Motion briefly? 17
18
Commissioner Keller: Yes, so I think that, first of all I’d like to thank all the people who have 19
been participating in the Study for their work on it. I’ve certainly seen improvements to the 20
Study in the six or so months that I’ve participated and working on it. Actually it’s been longer 21
than six months the work that I’ve done with the as a Liaison to the Rail Corridor Study. 22
23
And even though the City has expressed its policy that it is opposed to High Speed Rail if you 24
say, if somebody says to you do you want A or B and you say neither, you may get A or you may 25
get B anyway. It is not, I don’t think it’s the place of the Comp Plan to put a statement that says 26
we’re opposed to High Speed Rail. But on the other hand, in the Comp Plan is the place to say 27
well, we are opposed to B and we will, and, you can, at further City documents say you don’t 28
want A either but the issue is that, in terms of how this is worded A may be desirable for Caltrain 29
improvements independent of High Speed Rail. So, that’s why I’ve described this this way and I 30
also will entertain other amendments that people wish to consider. 31
32
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael? 33
34
Commissioner Michael: So I support the Motion by Commissioner Keller who has skillfully 35
identified the procedural aspects of what we should do to get this correct. And I would hope that 36
at a policy level this is excellent work. I hope that it translates into action with the community 37
supporting the benefits that are visualized in this project that clearly are gonna require further 38
study and I guess not the least of which is a study of the funding for the CIP’s that would be 39
involved. But I can imagine that if the community understands and gets behind all this that it 40
will be potentially transformational, so I support the Motion. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Right. Vice Chair Fineberg. 43
44
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 45
46
Page
22
Vice Chair Fineberg: I support the Motion. I’d like to make a Friendly Amendment. In the 1
Section 1 where you recommending approval of the neg. dec. with addendums, I would like to 2
add an additional addendum that the language in Sections 2 and 3, so Programs T17 and T21 be 3
amended to reflect the language that will match what’s in the resolution itself regarding the 4
below grade preference for the, on T17, Mr. Williams had talked about the language being 5
incomplete and that the language being changed to say that the preference is for below grade so 6
that the language that goes into the amended resolution will be mirrored in the resolution 7
language of the neg. dec. and the same thing on T21 where we’re deleting the word 8
“undercrossing” and making it just be a separated grade crossing. Again, the language in the 9
neg. dec. match what will be in the amended resolution and those changes be incorporated into 10
the second part of the Motion, which was the recommendation for approval of the resolution. So 11
that we’re picking up those changes in the resolution and the neg. dec. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: Does Staff have that change? 14
15
Mr. Williams: Yes we do. I did have. Oh, I’m sorry go ahead. So I just wanted to be sure we’re 16
understanding your Motion. The last part of it said something about making changes in the text 17
per Commission comments. Are these the changes you were talking about? Or are you talking 18
about the text of the Report. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: I was talking about the text of the Report itself. We had made comments 21
about the Report. 22
23
Mr. Williams: Ok, well I don’t, I mean I think we would need to know what, I mean if they were 24
specifically corrections or something that’s one thing, but like the, so, I mean, but you had a lot 25
of comments about we should have more study of the grade crossings or engineering 26
information. So if it’s some of the corrections that were mentioned we’ll pull those out and get 27
those. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Yeah, I was only, I was referring to the corrections like to Figure 4.5 and 30
to how Embarcadero Road was handled and the, our, the Page 6.06 and things like that. Those 31
are the kinds of things I’m talking about correcting. 32
33
Mr. Williams: Ok. We’ll look at those. Thank you. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Cara, does this strengthen the resolution? Are you, are you good with it? 36
37
Ms. Silver: Yes, I think it does. And it’s consistent with the report and prior comments. 38
39
Chair Martinez: Commissioner, yes. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: I will accept Commissioner, Vice Chair Fineberg’s Amendment, Friendly 42
Amendment. 43
44
Commissioner Michael: Likewise. 45
46
Page
23
Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Keller the, can you reread the policy about the equal impacts 1
on of the alignments? I wasn’t clear about that. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Yes, it’s actually, it’s actually read word for word in the Guiding 4
Principles #3 in this document. The only change I’ve made is I’ve replaced High Speed Rail 5
HSR/Caltrain with rail. That’s the only textual change I made to that. And similarly to policy, 6
to Guiding Principle #1 the only change I made was the same change to that one. Thank you. 7
8
VOTE 9
10
Chair Martinez: Ok. Thank you. Commissioner? We ready for a vote? Last chance? All those 11
in favor of the Motion say Aye. Aye. Those opposed? The Motion Passes unanimously. Thank 12
you very much. Thanks to our crack consultants, appreciate it. Elena, as usual. Thank you all. 13
Goodnight. 14
15
10PLN-00198 Page 1 of 9
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date: May 24, 2012
To: Architectural Review Board
From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: Review and Recommendation to the City
Council and Planning and Transportation Commission for the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommend that the
Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Rail
Corridor Study Report.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
The City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation
and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements
to fixed rail services along the Caltrain tracks. Those improvements may include any or all of
the following: Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or High
Speed Rail service. Although the High Speed Rail project provides important context, it was not
intended to be the focus of this study. The rail corridor is a significant physical component of
Palo Alto. It is still unknown at this point what the future holds for either High Speed Rail or
Caltrain. The intent is to generate a community vision that would provide land use and
transportation policies to guide development under a variety of scenarios, allowing Palo Alto to
be proactive to changes to the rail system. This document will guide staff and the City as
decisions are made regarding land use and transportation improvements, such as private
development and the Capital Improvement Program.
Following a recommendation made by the Rail Corridor Study Task Force and public feedback
from the two community workshops, the revised Rail Corridor Study Report is being proposed
for a formal recommendation. The Rail Corridor Study Report includes revisions to reflect
comments from the Task Force, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural
Review Board, the City Council Rail Committee, various City Board/Committee liaisons and the
public. Staff has also coordinated with Caltrain staff on this project. Once the Study is approved
by City Council, the next step will be to incorporate the Study as a whole into the
10PLN-00198 Page 2 of 9
Comprehensive Plan by reference. The five goals and related policies would be integrated into
the Comprehensive Plan as part of the on-going Amendment.
The boundaries of the corridor include the area between Alma Street on the east to El Camino
Real on the west, from the Menlo Park city limits on the north to the Mountain View city limits
on the south, as shown in the Report (Attachment B and available online at
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org). The study area also includes sufficient adjacent land to
encompass those areas most directly affected by potential land use, transportation and urban
design changes. The plan and implementation measures is proposed to be ultimately be
incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference as a whole and the Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies are proposed to be incorporated directly into the document.
Rail Corridor Study Task Force
The Rail Corridor Study Report is a direct outcome of the discussions and work of the City
Council authorized Task Force for the Rail Corridor Study with City staff and the consultant,
BMS Design Group (BMS). This report represents the consensus of the Task Force as whole, a
result of fifteen meetings. Through the Task Force meetings and community workshops, staff
has also received detailed feedback on the draft report from the public. The public process also
included the input from liaisons of various City boards and commissions to represent their
respective groups, including the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Architectural
Review Board, Utilities Advisory Commission, the Historic Resources Board and the Palo Alto
Bicycle Advisory Committee. At the final Task Force meeting on May 1, 2012, the Task Force
voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Report, including the Implementation
Chapter.
Rail Corridor Study Area Tour
A study area tour was held on September 10, 2011. A majority of the Task Force, as well as
interested members of the public participated. The approximately four hour tour comprised of a
bus tour of the entire length and walk throughs of specific areas within the corridor. It provided
an opportunity for the Task Force members to view the study area together and to get familiar
with areas that they were not as familiar with. Some highlights of the tour included the South of
Forest Area, the Homer tunnel, California Avenue, the Churchill Avenue train crossing area, the
intersection of El Camino Real and Charleston Road and the recently developed residential
projects in South Palo Alto. The tour enabled the Task Force members to better understand the
perspectives from the various areas of the City, especially where crossings are proposed.
Rail Corridor Study Process
The Rail Corridor Study is a three part process that began in late 2010. Following the City
Council decision on the report, the report and any identified changes would be incorporated into
and referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as appropriate. The phases
consist of the following:
1. Phase I, “Context and Vision”. Establishment of the background and context for the rail
corridor in order to begin developing a preferred vision.
2. Phase II, “Alternatives and Analysis”. Development and analysis of preferred
10PLN-00198 Page 3 of 9
alternatives.
3. Phase III, “Plan Preparation”. Preparation of the Report. Staff and the consultant will
continue to refine the alternatives and obtain feedback from the Task Force, Commission,
Council and the public.
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and City/School Traffic Safety Committee Joint Meeting
A joint meeting with representatives of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) was held on February 16, 2012. The
purpose of the meeting was to solicit input from those stakeholders on this report. The attendees
were generally supportive of the work that had been done. Barb Mitchell, the Palo Alto Unified
School District Task Force member also was in attendance. Some of the main comments raised
at the meeting for follow up include:
Encouraging trenching across the entire City
Improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Encouraging grade separated crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Improving safety of school children.
City Council Rail Committee
The Rail Corridor Study was the subject of three meetings before the City Council Rail
Committee. A brief update was provided on January 26th, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the first
draft of the Rail Corridor Study Report was presented for their review and comments. The
March 1st meeting was also attended by four members of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force.
The primary comment received was a request to make the references to the future of the rail line
more general because the future of the High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects is so
unknown and continues to change. The change would allow the Rail Study Report to have
greater flexibility and to be used in a variety of scenarios, similar to the other long range City
policy documents. The item was continued to give the Committee more time to provide
comments.
The item returned to the April 26, 2012 Rail Committee for final comments. Staff and BMS
informed the Committee that various changes had been made to the document in response to
their feedback and subsequent comments from the Task Force, the Planning and Transportation
Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the public. It was emphasized that the report
was crafted to be consistent with the City’s position on the High Speed Rail project and the City
Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles. The document was also revised so that it would be
as flexible as possible to provide a longer horizon to better respond to the rapidly changing High
Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification projects. The Committee was appreciative of the work
completed for the project and generally supportive of the document.
Community Workshop
A second Community Workshop was held on March 29, 2012 at the Lucie Stern Community
Center. The first Community Workshop was held on May 19, 2011 at the Lucie Stern
Community Room. In order to encourage a greater attendance of this workshop, notice cards
were mailed out to all property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the rail corridor study
area for over 7,000 notice cards. A notice was also published in the Palo Alto Weekly. Staff
10PLN-00198 Page 4 of 9
requested the Task Force members to publicize the meeting and encourage that their neighbors
attend the meeting. Announcements of the workshop were also posted at City Hall, the libraries,
Lucie Stern and on the City’s websites well in advance of the meeting. In addition, staff sent
notices to various merchants and posted announcements on the City’s social network pages. The
public outreach drive was successful. Over fifty members of the public, most of whom had not
been previously involved, attended the workshop. There was also a representation of the various
parts of Palo Alto, with more than half from residents of South Palo Alto. The community
members were generally appreciative and supportive of the report. There were a few key issues
that were raised. Those issues included safety for children, pedestrians and bicyclists, treatment
of all neighborhoods fairly, protecting schools from rail impacts. Some members of the public
stated that although additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings were desired, additional
vehicular crossings were not.
PTC and ARB Hearings
The Rail Corridor Study Report was distributed to both the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board for their comments. A study session before
the PTC was held on March 14. The PTC expressed support for the document and provided
comments and direction to staff and the consultant. Some of the more important comments
included:
Have clear, bold vision statements.
Provide measurable improvements and implementation steps.
Be careful with language to avoid commitment to impractical goals/actions.
Include language to prevent narrowing of Alma Street.
Discuss open space opportunities.
Discuss land use opportunities above trench and alternate ways of designing trench
cover.
Make City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles more prominent, including
incorporating Guiding Principal 3 (equal consideration for all neighborhoods affected by
the rail) into the Study’s Goal 1.
Support for proposal of future area plans, similar to Concept Plans.
Need stronger urban design component, especially for Alma Street and rail right of way.
An Architectural Review Board Study Session was held the next day on March 15. The ARB
was also supportive of the document and expressed a desire to confirm that this effort would be
incorporated and not ignored. The ARB had similar comments to the PTC. The comments
included:
Appreciated key stone discussion.
Need to consider impact on high school.
Concerned about trenching roadways rather than train, but should be studied.
Great opportunity to improve pedestrian and bike friendly, especially along tracks.
Should study potential crossings for pedestrians and bikes, not just for vehicles.
Move new Comprehensive Plan policies to front.
10PLN-00198 Page 5 of 9
Clarify what City’s position and reasons regarding rail improvements
Would like more studies of various scenarios.
Would like vision statement for Alma Street.
Report should be clear what benefits the City.
Implementation plan is very important component.
DISCUSSION:
Draft Rail Corridor Study Report
The vision of the project, developed with the Task Force and stated in the Rail Corridor Study
Report, is to “create a vibrant, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood centers
that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and
beyond, and to connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation
network that binds the city together in all directions.” The purpose of this document is to
generate a community vision for land use, transportation and urban design along the Caltrain
corridor. The areas that make up the Rail Corridor have been historically viewed as separate
disconnected areas. This report attempts to look at the entire corridor as an interconnected
subarea within the City. This represents challenges because of the diversity of the various
components that make up the corridor and the sheer size of the 1,000 acres that comprise it. The
intent is also not to analyze in detail the various impacts of the various rail alternatives, such as
noise and air quality. The study was also not intended to provide detailed traffic impact analysis.
This type of analysis is beyond the scope and resources of this study. BMS will provide a
detailed presentation on the report at the hearing.
The report is divided into seven detailed sections:
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Issues and Vision
Circulation and Connectivity
Land Use and Urban Design
Implementation and Next Steps
Five overall themes developed that became particularly important to the Task Force and the
success of this report as a guiding document. Those themes are:
1. East-west connectivity must be improved and barriers should be removed.
2. A trench system is the preferred alternative if High Speed Rail is approved (although this
was not unanimous)
3. All residential neighborhoods must be protected and treated equally.
4. New development requires timely infrastructure improvement.
5. The highest possible level of safety must be ensured at all rail crossings.
10PLN-00198 Page 6 of 9
Revisions to Report
The most recent City Council position on the High Speed Rail (HSR) project was to oppose it in
any form, although there is some support for the blended two-track Caltrain/HSR project.
Because this is not a technical study or a feasibility study, the decision was made to focus on two
rail configurations that would capture the range of issues that could occur under any of the
various alternatives being discussed by the State in order to allow this study to be flexible and
able to address multiple scenarios. Those two options are:
Trench
Below-grade two-track on-grade
These two options encompass the conditions that would occur with all the other variations of the
rail projects that have been discussed. Following the various hearings, public meetings and the
second community workshop, the report was revised to clarify that the City’s preference is for
the trench option only.
Various revisions have been made to the report subsequent to the Planning and Transportation
PTC hearing in March to address the comments and concerns raised during the public process.
The major changes include:
Circulation and Connectivity Chapter:
The Alma Street discussion has been expanded to address more issues and opportunities.
The importance of maintaining traffic capacity of Alma was emphasized, which would be
impossible if Alma Street was narrowed.
A concept diagram for Alma Street was created, similar to the one created for El Camino
Real.
Corridor-wide design principles and specific improvement recommendations were
incorporated throughout.
Connection opportunities along the rail corridor are discussed. Opportunities include
incorporation of green spaces and other treatments to benefit the City and its occupants
either above a covered trench or along the rail corridor.
Implementation Chapter:
The goals and policies in the Implementation Chapter were revised to be more consistent
with the format of the Comprehensive Plan
Ball park cost estimates were added for the Tier 1 Priority Improvements
Detailed area studies, similar to the California Avenue Concept Plan, were recommended
for the Downtown/University Mixed Use City Center and the South Palo Alto
Neighborhood Mixed Use Center.
A Transportation and Public Improvements Plan for Alma Street was recommended.
Although the rail projects are still pending, it was discussed that improvements along the
right of way could be started and implemented.
A Rail Corridor/Alma Street Crossings Improvements Study and Engineering Studies are
also recommended. All efforts should be coordinated with any rail improvement
projects.
10PLN-00198 Page 7 of 9
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
One of the important components of the implementation of this report is the recommendation of
new policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Much of the elements of the study are consistent with
goals, policies and programs in the existing Comprehensive Plan. Five new goals were
identified in the Study to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the overall
Amendment process to further the goals of the Study. As discussed above, the goals have been
modified to respond to comments and to make them more consistent with existing
Comprehensive Plan policies. The goals have been endorsed by the Task Force. However, there
were some task force members, as well as some members of the public, who supported Goal 1 to
allow an at-grade rail system.
Goal 1: Rail improvements should be constructed in a below-grade trench.
Policy 1.1: The City’s preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is
below grade. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo
Alto.
Goal 2: Ensure the highest possible safety at all rail crossings and mitigate rail impacts on
neighborhoods, public facilities, schools and mixed-use centers.
Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossing. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain
corridor should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and
convenience. This may be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the
preferred choice generally being grade separation.
Policy 2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of
the tracks, and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections
from neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and services.
Policy 2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of
operations in the Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of High Speed
Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize
future noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts and neighborhood.
Goal 3: Connect the east and west portions of the City through an improved circulation network
that binds the City together in all directions.
Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings
along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon expressway.
Goal 4: Provide improved access to parks and recreation facilities and schools and assess future
needs for these facilities.
10PLN-00198 Page 8 of 9
Policy 4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and schools
within the corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities. Opportunities to
increase school capacity and facility development and use should be evaluated and
coordinated between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City.
Goal 5: Infrastructure should keep pace with development.
Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required for
parks, recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded schools in
order to keep pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm drainage and
wastewater management should be evaluated and implemented in conjunction with
development.
Next Steps
The next step will be to bring the ARB’s recommendation and the report to the PTC on May 30,
2012 for their formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the Rail Corridor Study.
Should the Study be approved, it would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan by
reference and the five Comprehensive Plan goals/policies would be included as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, as well as the associated Environmental Impact
Report.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Study will rely on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other land use transportation policies
to guide the effort for the corridor. Current Comprehensive Plan and area plan efforts, including
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, will be considered in conjunction with the Rail Corridor
Study. The Study is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Program Assessment Table on page 6.14 for the Study.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
To solicit public feedback, a website and email address has been established for the project.
Notices for all meetings are posted on the City’s website in the Know zone
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp) and the City
Hall Notice Board. Additional background information is also provided on the webpage. Staff
has been maintaining an email distribution list of interested individuals and has used the list to
send out meeting notices and updates. An email address, railcorridorstudy@cityofpaloalto.org,
has been established for public outreach purposes. A separate detailed website,
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org, has been made available to provide as much information as
possible for the public, similar to the one developed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Task Force meetings are also recorded and available for viewing at the Community Media
Center website. The Draft report has been made available for public review on the project
website, City Hall, the Development Center and all four public libraries during the process.
10PLN-00198 Page 9 of 9
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report (ARB only. Also available online at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/rail_corridor_task_force.asp and
www.paloaltorailcorridor.org.)
B. City Council Rail Committee Guiding Principles
C. March 14, 2011 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
D. Public Correspondence
COURTESY COPIES:
BMS Design Group
Rail Corridor Study Task Force
Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, Current Planning Manager/Acting Assistant Planning Director
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: Review and Recommendation to the City Council and Planning 1
and Transportation Commission for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study Report. 2
3
Chair Wasserman: We are up to Item #3. We, Russ? You want, would you like, are you going 4
away? Oh, Ok. We’ll miss you. Yeah. Are you coming back for the other ones? Ok, ok. 5
You’re gonna leave us on our own? You trust us? Ok. This is item #3, it’s a major review of 6
the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, in which we are asked to review and recommend to the City 7
Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) this Rail Corridor 8
Study Report. We also have with us Eduardo Martinez from the Planning and Transportation 9
Commission should he have words of wisdom for us as any time. And do we have a Staff 10
report? 11
12
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Wasserman and Board Members. We are returning 13
to you today to request formal Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation on the Rail 14
Corridor Study Report. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend to the Commission and 15
Council to prove a resolution approving the Study and to incorporate the Vision Statement into 16
the Comprehensive Plan. 17
18
This Report is the outcome of a nearly two year process by Staff, BMS Design Group, and the 19
Citizen Task Force to study and develop land use and transportation policies for the Corridor. 20
The intent as defined by Council is to generate a community vision for land use, transportation, 21
and urban design opportunities along the Corridor in conjunction with and apart from the various 22
rail projects. 23
24
Subsequent to the ARB hearing in March, a second Community Workshop was held on March 25
29th to help solicit feedback from the public. To encourage attendance Staff implemented 26
significant public outreach process. We requested the Task Force reach out to their stakeholders 27
to encourage them to attend, we mailed out multiple e-mail announcements, we sent out 28
postcards to residents and occupants within 600 feet for a total of over 7,000 postcards. We 29
posted the meeting on the website, the social network pages; we printed an ad in the paper. We 30
also worked with business owners to give them copies of the posters for them to post. And as a 31
result we did have a much better attended Workshop. We had over, probably a little over 50 new 32
people attending the workshop as well as Task Force Members so it was a full room. And BMS 33
will provide a summary of the results of the Workshop. But the attendees represented various 34
stakeholders and they represented both South and North Palo Alto, and they generally expressed 35
support for the project and really focused on safety improvements especially for kids on the 36
school corridors. 37
38
A final Task Force Meeting was held on May 2nd for their final recommendation. The Report 39
was updated following those meetings, the workshops, and to respond to comments from the 40
public, Commission, and the ARB. BMS will provide a summary of the changes and it’s also 41
listed in the Staff report. 42
43
The changes include a discussion on urban design, treatment of the corridor, and clarification of 44
the City’s position on the various rail projects. The intent of this Study is to be a higher level 45
City of Palo Alto Page 2
study and because of limited time and resources issues were identified and also identified were 1
future actions to help address those issues that cannot be resolved within this time frame. 2
3
And at the final Task Force meeting the Task Force Members did vote in favor of recommending 4
approval of the project. However, during the discussion of the project, especially modifications 5
to Goal 1 regarding the alignment of the high speed rail project, not all members supported 6
saying that trench was the only preferred alternative, which is consistent with past discussions. 7
And however, they did vote in favor of Goal 1 as written in your current report. 8
9
Staff would also like to draw attention to a subsequent e-mail sent by Beth Bunnenberg, Liaison 10
from Nature, recommending her support for the project. Also in your packet was an e-mail from 11
Martin Summer, a Task Force Member who was unable to attend today. Specifically requesting 12
that everyone consider changing Goal 1 and Goal 2 so Goal 2 would become Goal 1 and vice 13
versa. Not changing the content, but just changing the order of it to prioritize safety over the 14
alignment of the rail. 15
16
The Report’s recommendations identify priority improvement projects for safety and 17
connectivity. The Report also recommends new Comprehensive Plan polices. The purpose of 18
this document as discussed before is to identify these as future efforts. The new policies if 19
approved will be incorporated into the upcoming Comprehensive Plan, or ongoing 20
Comprehensive Plan update process. Other future projects would become part of future area 21
studies, development projects as appropriate, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 22
However these future projects would be subject to separate California Environmental Quality 23
Act (CEQA) process including the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the 24
Comp Plan update. 25
26
There are several Task Force, well there is at least one Task Force Member in the audience, Staff 27
invites them to speak on the process. We would also like to express our appreciation for their 28
hard work throughout the process and the enormous amount of time they devoted to this. The 29
next steps would be a Planning and Transportation Commission hearing on May 30th and Chair 30
Martinez is here in the audience. Following this BMS will make their presentation. And 31
Council is scheduled for June 25th. Both Staff and consultant are available to answer questions. 32
Thank you. 33
34
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. If there is anyone in the audience who is going to 35
want to speak to this later could you put a card in please? And can we have the presentation? 36
My understanding is that you asked for 15 minutes and I cleared you for 15 minutes. 37
38
Michael Smiley, BMS Consultant: Ok, well thank you. I’ll try to do it in less because 39
40
Chair Wasserman: That’d be good. 41
42
Mr. Smiley: I have 11 slides. My name is Michael Smiley I’m a partner with BMS Design 43
Group. With me here today is also is Paige Martin, with the firm and between the two of us we 44
will present essentially what we’re going to present here to you, or what I’m going to present to 45
you now is the mostly an overview of some of the modifications in response to the comments we 46
City of Palo Alto Page 3
received both from you and from the community, Commission, and other comments that were 1
received. So we, it’s not my intent to go through the details of all those, but just a broad 2
overview of the kinds of modifications that were made and then we can answer your questions. 3
4
Before I start I would also like to reiterate what Elena said about the work of the Task Force. 5
Fifteen meetings, about a year and a half, and it was really yeoman’s effort. It made our work 6
certainly a lot easier to again a lot of people, but interpreting and bringing something together 7
with a lot of input and very good regular attendance. So I think the Task Force really needs to be 8
commended because we haven’t had that kind of working group. I think mostly my entire 9
political career we haven’t had that so, not political career, excuse me, professional career. So it 10
was great. 11
12
Elena briefly went through the review process. This was a third review draft review that of the 13
document you saw before in the various meetings we’ve held and the dates up until the last Task 14
Force meeting on May 1st when the Task Force approved or endorsed the recommendations 15
represented in this report, which was then republished, if you like, on May 16th and that’s the 16
document you have now. Next slide. 17
18
Now the last, just a comment about the Community Workshop, which Elena also mentioned. We 19
had quite good attendance and one of the things that was also very nice about that is that we 20
asked for a show of hands of the proportion of the crowd that was from South Palo Alto, from 21
the southern area of the Corridor because there was some concern that there may not be adequate 22
representation there. And it was something in the order of two thirds of the crowd came from the 23
southern, California Avenue South and that was really terrific that we had that kind of 24
attendance. Generally speaking what we did was we presented of course the overall findings and 25
we also had as you can see from the photos we had had various in the various categories land 26
use, urban design, implementation strategies and then some response panels related to the Rail 27
Corridor itself. We asked people to review those and place comments, written comments and so 28
on. And generally speaking, I’d say that there was broad support for the findings and the 29
recommendations of the Task Force. In fact there was very little dissent of any kind that we can 30
think of that related, of the findings of the Task Force. So the, the attendees were quite pleased 31
with the work the Task Force had done and really probably the most important thing to come out 32
of that was that we did, went through the dot exercise and that allowed us to prioritize some of 33
the recommendations that became the priority projects in the report. Next. 34
35
Here you see the summary of this; it was not a scientific survey of course. We gave each 36
attendee eight dots and there were 27 subjects that they could put dots on. We did not restrict 37
them to one dot per subject, so if you wanted to load an area with three dots you could. We 38
don’t know how many people did that, but generally speaking we think people kind of spread 39
their dots around. But there were a few of the recommendations of the priority projects that 40
clearly emerged. They were covered with dots. And here you see those, there are some that are 41
not surprising at all, for instance this has long been a topic the three rail crossings of concern to 42
the neighbors and particularly those in the south. And so you see out of 27 subjects, 50 43
attendees, you have eight dots there’s 50 votes just for the Charleston rail crossing. So it, not a 44
surprise. Again and you see here some of the others related to the intersections that were felt to 45
be most important for improvement on El Camino Real. Next slide. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
And then various other locations for intersection improvements, again University at El Camino 2
Real and those crossings at Embarcadero crossing right directly adjacent to the High School. 3
And then a couple of other votes about improvements to the California Avenue tunnel and a 4
desire for an additional southern undercrossing. The, as you’ll recall the recommendation the 5
Task Force show one made in the vicinity of Materdero Creek but there’s also a very strong 6
recommendation that additional investigations be made for further crossings assuming we can 7
solve the land use constraints of adjacent neighborhoods. Next. 8
9
Some of the final Report revisions I’m gonna just touch on these briefly, this is a little bit of a 10
table of contents if you like, that we received a lot of comments before about Alma in the various 11
meetings both from here and from the Commission. And so I wanted to expand a little bit about 12
the recommendations about Alma itself and various other things related to the Rail 13
Comprehensive Plan policy recommendations, priority policies. And one of the things we did 14
add is a whole new chapter on next steps, or a subchapter, and that’s in there. And I’ll touch on 15
these so we can, let’s go to the next slide. 16
17
The Alma Street recommendations basically there was a desire in a lot of the comments we see 18
from the various meetings and so on that there be more information and more guidance related to 19
Alma itself. And so there is an expanded text related to the issues and opportunities there. There 20
is concept diagram now that’s very similar to the kind of a concept drawing that was done for El 21
Camino Real showing the priority crossings for Alma and as they might relate to the rail. And 22
then a few additional specific recommendations that are in those sub-bullets you see here. One 23
was the idea of providing continuous Class 1 bicycle facility along the entire Alma corridor and 24
part of this would be, would be the way it it’s structured here is it needs to be considered as part 25
of the rail improvements and has the total right of way of both facilities. So it’s associated with 26
Alma, but it’s something that would be, is going to require a look at the right of way in both 27
facilities. 28
29
The other thing there’s conversation about preparing a Transportation and Public Improvements 30
Plan. Now that plan is not here, but there’s strong recommendations that as a next step an actual 31
Transportation and Public Improvements Plan be prepared for Alma as a next step. That would 32
include measures of beautification and there is also clear identification of the two corridor 33
segments of Alma. Now the sort of the downtown segment and what we’re calling the more high 34
traffic volume primary quarter segment and there’s better definition of that in the current Report 35
as well today. And then, as I mentioned, a recommendation that future studies be conducted. 36
Particularly a Transportation and Public Improvements Plan. Next. 37
38
The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policy statements were modified really, this ended up being 39
a rather significant conversation topic among the Task Force but the modification that was made 40
is where Goal 1 and 2 you see here today is now broken out as two separate goals. They were, in 41
the prior document, one. And the emphasis was to one, to make a statement more clearly about 42
what the, the rail facility itself, the preferred option for the rail facility might be. Now this 43
caused some discussion and it’s in your packets that not all Task Force Members were 44
completely concerned that the actual rail configuration be necessarily in a trench. It could 45
possibly be a surface improvement. But generally speaking it actually went to a consensus vote 46
City of Palo Alto Page 5
and it generally was favored to say something that was consistent with current City policy, a 1
preference for the trench. 2
3
Having said that Goal 2 was something that people were very strongly in favor of, and that’s a 4
very strong goal that talks about safety, and making sure we’re very clear about we want the 5
highest possible level of safety regardless of what the vertical alignment of that rail is. And that 6
gets back to things we saw in the community meeting where 50 people said we’ve got some 7
crossings we’re very concerned about and we need to fix those and it’s more important we get 8
those fixed then we talk about all day right now about the vertical alignment because there’s too 9
much we don’t know about the vertical alignment yet. Otherwise the goals remain the same as 10
they were in your prior document. Next slide. 11
12
Now I mentioned that we added, this is a subchapter, Next Steps, to the Implementation Chapter 13
and these are the basic headings that are in that. It goes into a series of, it of course has the 14
Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements are part of that chapter and it just mentions that yes that’s 15
a very important first step is let’s roll this into the Comp Plan update process as well as input to 16
the California Avenue Concept Plan which is in process now. The, you’ll see, the preparing 17
detail area concept studies the idea that particularly in the California, I’m sorry in the northern 18
mixed use center that we’ve described around University Avenue and El Camino Park and Way. 19
And in the south, that some detail concept area plan work be done in those two places similar to 20
what’s being done in California Avenue today that’s more detailed look. Palo, the Alma Street 21
Transportation and Public Improvements Plan, I mentioned that. 22
23
Now the second, the, I guess they’d be the fifth and sixth relate to the Alma and Rail Corridor 24
crossings themselves and their two different things. One is something the City can begin a 25
process now is to identify where some additional crossing opportunities might be particularly in 26
the south, and begin a process maybe working with neighborhoods and property owners. The 27
sixth bullet there, input to the engineering studies this is something that the City needs to be an 28
active part in working with the engineers, the High Speed Rail Authority, Caltrain and so on 29
playing an active role in those engineering studies, which really aren’t going to be conducted by 30
the City likely, that work is going to be done by the engineers for the rail, the rail engineers, but 31
to actively participate in that beginning now. And to the extent that you already are, that’s good, 32
but keep that going. And then continue the El Camino Real intersection improvements 33
particularly the priority intersections that came out of the community process. Next. 34
35
The priority projects were, are generally the same as you saw in the prior document they have 36
not changed except that the, there was in the third tier it was mentioned in the prior document in 37
the third tier of projects was this idea of finding a additional southern crossings. That was 38
moved to a second tier priority. And that’s what that second point mentions. And then finally 39
next line. I believe there were a few minor edits in the Appendices, mostly they related to 40
clarifications of the four rail alternatives of High Speed Rail and the surface alternative and add a 41
bit of additional explanation relating to the role and Guiding Principles of the Rail Committee 42
itself. 43
44
Finally I’ll just mention here, this is the last slide, that we will be going to the Planning and 45
Transportation Commission on May 30th and on June 25th is the City Council. So we are 46
City of Palo Alto Page 6
available for questions. I believe there are some others that you’d like to have speak first but 1
then we can answer questions however. 2
3
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much, and thank you for doing this enormous job. Eduardo, 4
did you want to speak at this point about what the Planning and Transportation Commission said 5
and then we’ll hear from Irvin Dawid who put in a card to speak. Anybody else want to speak 6
on this get your cards in now. Going, going, gone. 7
8
Eduardo Martinez, Chair of Planning and Transportation Commission: Ok, thank you Chair 9
Wasserman and Board Members. I’m Eduardo Martinez, Chair of Planning and Transportation 10
Commission. The most important think that will come out of this is the adoption of the plan, not 11
just the policies and goals, but the adoption of the plan itself, of this Study into the 12
Comprehensive Plan update. And that’s huge; I mean that’s like a big thing for the next 10 years 13
of our City. Because every year we will go back to the Comprehensive Plan and say, well what 14
does the Rail Corridor Study say about what we’re going to do? And, so the goals, the policies 15
that have been stated in the plan are really the most critical elements and we want to make sure 16
we get them right. We want to make sure that we really want to emphasize public safety at the 17
crossings and how that’s important for when, in some future day another authority comes and say 18
we want to do rail this way. That we’re fortified with the argument to say it has to address this. 19
And that includes urban design, the historic element of the Corridor, public safety of the 20
crossings, and things of that nature. 21
22
So your weigh in at this point and hopefully in a future meeting is really, really important to us 23
on the Planning Commission to help us strengthen how we’re going to look at this. We, we 24
don’t want to have a policy that says the Corridor must be safe. I mean that’s our intention but 25
that’s not good enough. We really want to say, these, we want to create a strong connectivity 26
east and west to our City and this is potentially how we want to do it and things of that nature. 27
So I really encourage you to weigh in on what is being proposed and how we could make that 28
stronger. 29
30
The Commission did weigh in and greatly supported the work of the consultant, Task Force, and 31
Staff on this. We think it was, as you’ve stated an overwhelming job of pulling this all together. 32
But now it’s our work, the Board and our Commission, to really step back and say, well how can 33
we really put this to work? Because they’re going to be in front of us great challenges. I want to 34
say to what the future of this Rail Corridor is gonna be so we might need to make this Comp Plan 35
recommendations as strong as possible. And I agree with what your consultant just said that 36
really we need to look at these next steps of really creating a plan. A plan based on these 37
policies and programs and goals, and be prepared to support and defend that plan going forward 38
in the next five to ten years. Thank you. 39
40
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your coming and sitting through 41
this with us. Irvin Dawid. 42
43
Irvin Dawid: Thank you Chair Wasserman and Commission Members. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma. 44
I was one of two Task Force Members assigned from the environmental community. It was a 45
real positive experience participating on this Task Force, which we always generally got between 46
City of Palo Alto Page 7
10 and 15 members, very diverse opinions. You know I remember when one of the first Council 1
meetings where there was a report, some members of the public accused us of being 2
representative of the development community. You know nothing could be further from the 3
truth. We, if there were representatives from all sectors but one thing that was very clear was 4
that everybody drew upon their own experience as a Palo Alto resident and their images of the 5
Corridor. 6
7
I think Martin, Elena mentioned I think that Martin suggested that polices one and two be 8
reversed. Martin was clearly one of the more outspoken members of the Task Force, and 9
unfortunately I did not get to attend the final meeting on May 1st. I was out of town, but I think 10
when you look at these policies, if you look at policy 1.1, 2.1, and 2.1 the one thing that really 11
hits you, certainly it hits me is that they’re contradictory. If you’ve ever been on the Belmont to 12
San Carlos elevated, the berm, and there, it’s the ultimate in safety in all existing rail crossings. 13
Plus if you biked along that on the east side, or even on the El Camino side, but mostly on the 14
east side, I think it’s called County Road, what you’ll see is that there are ped. bike tunnels. You 15
know, in both Belmont and San Carlos that went in there simply because it was elevated. 16
17
So, if, the way I, I mean, I, we also took a tour of, we took a bus tour of it. And the one thing 18
that I really got out of it is that our existing grade crossings really are not safe, they are not safe 19
from, I mean most recently there was a fatality of somebody who was from out of town on one of 20
the two, I forget whether it was Charleston or Meadow. I was just on a train just last month, 21
although we, the train swiped a motorist, this was at Ravenswood in Menlo Park, but I ended up 22
sitting in the train for an hour opposite El Camino Park because they couldn’t, they wouldn’t let 23
us out while they investigated. If Palo Alto insists that above all our highest thing is we will 24
have to have under grade, then they really have to commit to paying for it. Thank you. 25
26
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else from the public who would like 27
to speak to this subject? Ok. Oops, sorry. The thing you’ve asked us to vote on is accepting the 28
Vision Statement into the Comp Plan, plus the Report. But that was a specific request? So I’m 29
gonna, is that correct? 30
31
Ms. Lee: Yes. That was. 32
33
Chair Wasserman: Ok, I’m gonna read that one so that we know what the vision is and then 34
everybody can talk about anything they want and we’ll get back to voting on the Vision 35
Statement. This is on Page 3.03. “The overall vision is to create a vibrant, attractive, transit rich 36
area with City and neighborhood centers that provide walkable, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly 37
places that serve the community and beyond and to connect the east and west portions of the City 38
through an improved circulation network that binds the City together in all directions.” Doesn’t 39
seem to mention safety? But that’s what it is here and that’s, so I will just now open it up to the 40
Board for their comments. Lee. 41
42
Board Member Lippert: First of all Mr. Smiley I want to thank you and your consultancy for the 43
work that you’ve done with the corridor in terms of facilitating the meetings and everything. 44
I’ve attended several of the meetings and for a group that was rather, how should we say? Going 45
City of Palo Alto Page 8
in many different directions you managed to get everybody pretty much moving in one direction, 1
which I think is a task by itself. It’s remarkable. 2
3
When the City Council started this project they put together their Guiding Principles so to speak, 4
and probably what’s the most significant thing out of this is to have a group of citizens now able 5
to come up with their thoughts and be able to run it through a variety of boards, commissions, 6
etcetera. And then bring it back to the City Council for ultimately their final blessing, you know, 7
on what’s being proposed here. And that’s really what’s pretty important here. You know, in 8
some ways this community was blindsided by High Speed Rail. And when I say blindsided the 9
voters voted for it, we thought it was a great idea in terms of being able to travel from San 10
Francisco to L.A. in two hours and 40 minutes. What wasn’t understood at the time was that it 11
was going to be bisecting our community at the time and ultimately making land use decisions 12
for us on the adjacent properties and how the City functions. 13
14
And with this Report what it does is it adds legs to the CEQA process that was initially started 15
when we were first introduced to what High Speed Rail meant to this community. And taking 16
out of the equation High Speed Rail allowed us to look at what the community wanted in terms 17
of being able to knit the community back together again, how we wanted our community to 18
function and ultimately then give direction back to the High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain as 19
how we want the train to come through Palo Alto. And so with regard to what’s being presented 20
in this report, they are important. I look at this as being the beginning. It is our vision, it can be 21
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, it has gone through a process which has engaged the 22
citizens and the leadership and Staff in this community. And ultimately what I would hope is 23
that it would be served back to the High Speed Rail Authority and the, and Caltrain in terms of 24
us saying this is the way we view this Rail Corridor in Palo Alto. 25
26
And finally one last step is that ultimately in the CEQA process probably it is the State 27
Legislature that will have the final word as to what’s going to happen, but these are elected 28
officials. And they need to know how Palo Alto feels about High Speed Rail and this Corridor 29
as well. And because they have to prepare, if they’re not in agreement, their statement of 30
overriding considerations. And so this document in some ways is our Bible. It is our, it is our 31
plan and if people are in variance to it they have to give good reason. 32
33
So I’m in support of what you have here. I think the Vision Statement is just fine. I don’t have 34
any need to tinker with it although I have things that I see here that could be improved. As far as 35
the document’s concerned it’s very complete. I’m glad that not everybody was in complete 36
agreement with regard to a trench solution. I think that it’s a process, it’s an evolution as they 37
say, so ultimately, you know, it’s gonna be on the surface for now and at some point portions of 38
it may wind up going in a trench and some portions of it may in fact wind up going underground. 39
We don’t know, but at least the plan addresses that. 40
41
And I think lastly, I think that Eduardo Martinez has hit the nail on the head with regard to his 42
comment with regard to, Chair Martinez has hit the nail on the head with regard to, this is a plan 43
and what needs to happen is that it needs to be reviewed on a periodic basis and now we need to 44
begin to flush out the specifics of how the mechanics are gonna work. The physical mechanics. 45
46
City of Palo Alto Page 9
And I’m just gonna give you one example, just quickly, is at Oregon Expressway. Right now we 1
have Oregon Expressway goes down underneath, you know, and with the train going above. It’s 2
a really great opportunity to sort of flip things around if they do take us up on our word and say, 3
gee, you know we can trench everything, we’re gonna find that road has to go somewhere. It can 4
either go deep or it can be elevated. That’s a real important note as far as I’m concerned in the 5
entire City, because first of all it basically represents the midpoint of Palo Alto if you were to 6
take, drive from University Avenue where the City North boundary south, Cal Ave. is about 7
midpoint of the City. Everybody goes to midtown whether you’re coming from the north or the 8
south. It’s an exit off of the freeway, it leads out to the Research Park. So in some ways it’s a 9
crossroad at that point. It bridges residential neighborhood with a commercial business district. 10
It has far more opportunity than the downtown ever has in the way of future because downtown 11
was already pretty much built out. We have in place the opportunity for pedestrian transit 12
overlay district which allows for higher density as well as people being able to hop on Caltrain as 13
well as grab the bus, the express bus if we have a future high speed bus there. So, I think that 14
that might be one area that we actually begin to target or flush out in terms of the mechanics or 15
the details that I think would be a really great starting point as far as the City’s concerned. And 16
so if anything, because of a lot of things happening in that area I would just say that that’s where 17
the mechanics should begin. Thank you. 18
19
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. 20
21
Ms. Lee: Chair Wasserman? 22
23
Chair Wasserman: Oh, yes Elena. 24
25
Ms. Lee: I’m sorry. I’m sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to clarify for the members of the 26
public the Vision Statement is on Page 5 of the Staff Report. So directly under the first section 27
under “Discussion.” So just so the public can also read the statement. 28
29
Chair Wasserman: Page 5 of the Staff Report says that… oh, it’s in quotes. Yes. Yes, it’s the 30
same, it’s the same wording but it is in quotes at the, yeah, at the under “Discussion” on Page 5. 31
Thank you. Alex. 32
33
Board Member Lew: So I just want to thank BMS and also the Task Force. I mean the document 34
is really, really just is great, I mean, this is amazing that you went through all of Palo Alto’s 35
many, many plans and looked at it all comprehensively together. I realize that was a huge, huge 36
undertaking. The improvements that you’ve made since the last draft that we reviewed are 37
substantial. I mean, I think that the last draft that you gave us had a lot of information, but it was 38
sort of missing some of the implementation and, you know, and just, you know, just general 39
attitude and I think you have that in this document. And I think is all very good. 40
41
In reading the document this time around I can’t help but thinking of, you know, going even, you 42
know, further like next steps, and some of the things that came to my mind, just as a were like 43
some of the neighborhood groups wanted like neighborhood markets. And then I look at like the 44
size of the population of some of these neighborhoods, maybe like 2,000 people and, you know, 45
they’re not really big enough to support a market in terms of, you know, market area and 46
City of Palo Alto Page 10
catchment area. And then they’re also opposed to say like additional auto crossings across Alma 1
so that’s gonna limits the market for say like a grocery store. So I think that there are some 2
things in here in the document that are very interesting to me that I think should, wouldn’t 3
warrant further studies and I think that that you have sort of put that in there as like specific, you 4
know, specific area plans and stuff. And I think that that would be the right way of pursuing it. 5
But it seems like that there’s really in the Corridor area that they’re really, it is ripe for more 6
improvements and I’m not sure that, you know, in the scope of this Study that you could’ve 7
really, you know, you couldn’t really address them but, I mean my take on it is like, you know, 8
like a, like a like if like transit stops. Like more so trolleys than Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), but I 9
mean they’re usually like in Portland and stuff they actually attract development in mixed use 10
developments around there and we don’t really have any we’ve haven’t really touched on that. 11
You know, what happens when you know BRT comes in. You know, like does that give us 12
more opportunity to do some of the things that the communities want. 13
14
And then also just have some detail questions for you. The, so I think the Task Force was 15
recommending like 15 foot wide sidewalks and I was wondering where that came, magic number 16
came from because we, I mean the City and elsewhere like in downtown and El Camino we’ve 17
been doing 12 feet. And I also looked on the, you know, the Grand Boulevard Initiative they 18
have a boilerplate design guidelines and I think if I can recall correctly I think they were 19
recommending 19 feet. Just as a magic number, to you know, just as a generic number to use. 20
And I was wondering where the 15 foot recommendation came from? 21
22
Mr. Smiley: Fifteen, is this on? Yes. Fifteen feet, we happen to do as another part of what we 23
do we do a lot of street design work and fifteen feet is a number that is true there isn’t real 100% 24
consensus on what an ideal number is, but fifteen feet tends to be a number that you can settle in 25
on. We know ten is typically too narrow, particularly if you have got, if you break a sidewalk 26
say into the three zones, either a curbside zone and a main pedestrian zone, and then some 27
building zone. Twelve becomes a number that’s often used and it’s right on the minimum 28
threshold really. Nineteen is very generous actually, I mean you can that starts to get to a scale 29
that’s very comfortable. So fifteen is kind of a middle zone in there, it’s a middle, let’s call it a 30
middle generous zone. In a sidewalk that doesn’t need or is not intended to carry a great deal of 31
traffic you can get away with ten or twelve. You can get away with it, but if you’re trying to 32
create activities you need to meet a threshold of, we’ve found that you need to meet a threshold 33
of somewhere around fifteen feet. 34
35
Now that doesn’t, having said that in relation to this particular document it isn’t that the Task 36
Force said that’s what they want. We suggested that as we did a variety of other things in our 37
role as the professional consultants here and that became a part of the document that the Task 38
Force endorsed. 39
40
Board Member Lew: Ok. Would it make sense to, I mean in the recommendation the 15 feet to 41
include a range of what you said just now, like 12 foot minimum, just so that we have an idea of 42
what are acceptable standards? I mean cause it’s, we have, I mean as we come, as projects come 43
to us we usually have to fight for every, to get the 12 feet as is today. And I don’t disagree with 44
you though wider would be nicer but, or just if you could, if it’s, I mean it seems to me that it’s a, 45
if it’s a recommendation that’s fine because I mean it just means that we have to do further 46
City of Palo Alto Page 11
study. But it seems like it would be, I don’t know, it would be useful to understand where that 1
came from in the document, but that’s a minor point I think. 2
3
Mr. Smiley: well we can certainly discuss that with Staff and how they want to handle it because 4
it may be something that you also want to, it might apply to other documents so that you would 5
have a way to, maybe more clear guidance. Particularly in some of the detailed area plans that 6
might be done in the future there might be certain specific areas that would be handled one way 7
and others would be handled another way. That would often be the way that it would be done in 8
any case. 9
10
Board Member Lew: Ok, and think should move on to the next one which is, I’ll give you a page 11
number, Page Number 5.09. This is in the California Avenue Area. I was actually looking at the 12
Fry’s area. And, so you’re showing like a new connection at Fry’s to El Camino, or an 13
enhanced, some you know, connection there. And right next to there, there’s the, you know, old 14
railroad spur that cross, that used to cross El Camino to the Bol Park path. And I did see that in 15
like, in our old Bike Plan, like I think maybe in the 2003 Bike Plan there was some mention of 16
connecting the Bol Park Bike Path through the Stanford Research Park. And I could see and 17
they could continue all the way to maybe the Cal Avenue Train Station and I’m not sure that that 18
actually continued on into the current Bike Plan, you know, document. I didn’t see it the last 19
time I looked. But I was wondering if there was any, if that had come up in any of your planning 20
discussions? 21
22
Ms Lee: Raphael Ruis from Transportation Division is here and he confirms that it is included in 23
the new Bike Plan as well. 24
25
Board Member Lew: Ok. Great. Thank you. So did that come up in any of the discussions? It’s 26
been 27
28
Mr. Smiley: No, not with the Task Force that specific connection did not. 29
30
Board Member Lew: Ok. I would, you know I don’t know, you know, the, you know how 31
feasible that thing is but I would say like in the in Berkley at like the North Berkley Bay Area 32
Rapid Transit (BART) Station there is a whole green way system to get to the BART Station and 33
it’s really fabulous. I mean it’s just like sort of the nicest way you could, you know, take to get 34
to the, you know, to get to the BART Station. And if we have something like that, this would 35
connect potentially connect Los Altos Hills and Barron Park and everything into the Cal Avenue 36
area without having to go on like Page Mill Road or, you know. And so, it seems like to me to 37
be a huge opportunity. 38
39
I think, I mean diagrammatically you’re showing a new connection through Fry’s and what is it, 40
Hansen Way or something? So I mean I think in terms of the document I think it’s probably ok. 41
I mean it’s like a block, you’re showing something a block away so that’s it seems like you could 42
be covering the bike path. But the idea of like a green way and stuff is really compelling to me. 43
44
Mr. Smiley: I’ll make a comment on that we could we can go back and look at the Bike Plan 45
also and make sure there’s good coordination there with those two. 46
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. And then on the Comp Plan polices the Comp Plan goals 2
6.03, something popped into my head when Eduardo Martinez was speaking and that was just 3
about like the attractiveness of infrastructure projects. I was wondering if it made sense to add 4
something about, you know, attractive design with regard to infrastructure if it’s not already 5
covered elsewhere in the Comp Plan or say like the 1% for art for public projects. 6
7
What’s coming, what comes to my mind is things like I think in Phoenix, you know they have 8
overpasses that are attractively designed. They’re not just the standard cookie cutter overpasses. 9
Or say like there’s the sound wall that was built along Highway 85 in Mountain View. You 10
know it’s just like, you know, typical concrete sound wall but actually has art pieces embedded 11
into it. It seems to me that a lot of the infrastructure things that I see, like I’m thinking of 12
Millbrae BART Station has an art piece but also, you know, there are a lot of outlying buildings 13
for BART. I don’t know what they are if they’re air, you know, like say if it’s in a covered 14
trench then they need air intake or something. Usually though they’ll have all the little things 15
that pop up. And most of the time they’re designed by engineering firms and they’re really ugly. 16
I don’t know that we would actually, you know, if we would actually have any, if the City here if 17
any of our processes would have oversight over the design of that and if they don’t I would like 18
to have, you know, something to fall back on somewhere maybe in the Comp Plan or elsewhere. 19
20
But infrastructure can be really beautiful it doesn’t have to be ugly. If you look at like the 21
Golden Gate Bridge and you know the anniversary of that the original design of that was not 22
nearly so attractive. And so, I don’t know that was just food for thought. And I’d like to maybe 23
hear what the other Board Members have to say about that. Thank you. 24
25
Chair Wasserman: Thank you Alex. Clare. 26
27
Vice Chair Malone Prichard: Well I have far less to say than my colleagues. I’m very much in 28
support of what you have done here and I’m particularly appreciative of the expansion you did in 29
the Alma section regarding the whole Alma Study and putting together a plan for the street. And 30
as far as what Alex had to say, yes I would definitely be in support of having some kind of 31
language in here regarding infrastructure because I suspect we do not get to review that and it’ll 32
just get put in however the Authority chooses to put it in. But I think that generally this is ready 33
to go ahead and get moved on to and get it all put into the Comp Plan. 34
35
Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much Clare. I, I think this is a wonderful document. I, I just 36
want to say I also think that it is graphically really elegant and I actually could read it. Somehow 37
the graphic elements did not fight with the text, which seems to be a popular problem nowadays. 38
So I think it’s good looking, easy to read, and the content is very significant and I think you guys 39
did a really excellent job. I did a little proofreading there’s some really small errors like 40
Castilleja is a High School not an Elementary School. There’s something on Page 5.01 that calls 41
it a landscape perspective, I think it’s supposed to mean land use perspective. 42
43
And then there were a couple of things that were missing, that I thought needed to be just 44
mentioned somehow. One is that the present pedestrian bicycle undercrossing at California 45
Avenue is not Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. It’s a mess. It’s a danger and 46
City of Palo Alto Page 13
a hazard and it’s a pain in the neck for a bicycle to go through there. And it was just sort of 1
listed as existing and I think existing is putting it a little too nicely. Also Alma Street, the best 2
thing about Alma Street is that row of trees on the train right of way and that, there should be 3
something mentioned about trying to protect that as much as possible. 4
5
I would like to second Alex’s call for public art. In the Comp Plan itself there’s a lot of talk 6
about gateways and public art at gateways and public art in almost anything and I know that 7
because I threw it in there when the Comp Plan was being written. So, I would just pick it up 8
please and put the public art in. You know, you talk about the identity of the mixed use centers. 9
Public art has been traditionally used to do that. Whether it’s the guy on the horse, or a fountain, 10
or you know, elegant paving or whatever. It’s a good way to do it. 11
12
On Page 5.09 there’s a, there’s a bike path that’s shown that runs, runs more or less parallel to 13
the train tracks and it needs to make the connection across California Avenue. I didn’t know 14
whether that was just a printing mistake or something but it would be 15
16
Board Member Lew: You’re saying Ash and not Park, or both? 17
18
Chair Wasserman: Well, no there’s one, what are all those little dots? Existing and planned 19
bicycle facility boulevard route, the little round blue dots that runs along Park and it runs along 20
Park on both sides of Cal Avenue and it’s not, it needs to be shown connected, that’s all. And 21
the square one that runs on Ash doesn’t seem to go anywhere, it sort of dies at California 22
Avenue. I think that’s a problem with the bike paths in general. The one, I mean, there’s there, I 23
just want to stay in this project area. 24
25
And also while we’re talking about bikes in this Corridor, the Fairmeadow Circles is a little bit of 26
a nightmare. I have never been able to pick the right turn to pick up the bike trail through the 27
Circles. It needs a sign, at least two or three, because once you get on the Circles you don’t 28
know how to get off and it’s just, it’s really it’s silly. 29
30
I’m gonna come back to the land use in a minute. Yeah, there are a couple of crossings that, that 31
were not mentioned. There’s one in this Cal Avenue section from if you go up Matadero and 32
cross the tracks there’s a parking lot. You can pick that up pretty easily with an easement. I 33
think you may lose one parking space to go through there with a bicycle, so that, you might just 34
look at that again. And public art. And also I thought that your study of the Comp Plan was 35
really excellent. I mean that, that’s a hell of a document and you really went through it with a 36
fine toothed comb and did a great job on that. 37
38
So here’s the part of this whole thing that disturbs me. And it was the slide that you showed 39
about the, the implementation. I think it’s a slide, that one. It’s all about studies and plans. 40
There’s actually, except for the last one that says, “Continue these intersection improvements.” 41
It’s yet another tier of studies and plans. And concept area plans and concept area plans in this 42
town have a special place at the bottom of the drawer in the back. And I, I can’t tell you how 43
many charrettes I have been to that have come out with wonderful plans full of trees and café’s 44
and plazas and God knows what and none of them have been implemented. The only one that 45
got anywhere was the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Plan and that was because there was an 46
City of Palo Alto Page 14
imminent development. There were, you know, thousands, you know, tens of thousands of 1
square feet coming down and people ready to build right on top of them and then needed a plan 2
and they used it. But we’ve done this, the Fabian, the East Meadow Circle plan we’ve done 3
twice. Both of them are completely different. One had housing one had none. The Cal Ave. 4
plan I think has been done before. I don’t know, I don’t know where that’s gonna get us and that 5
really concerns me. 6
7
And the other thing that I wanted to ask about was there are recommendations for land use from 8
mixed use areas that I think is great, but I have no idea how to achieve it. The plan says, you 9
know, we need this and we need that and we need housing and retail, and I have no, and in some 10
place it says, offer incentives for some of these things. And if you could just give me an 11
example of one location and one kind of incentive that could, cause we talk, we have these 12
community meetings and everyone wants a grocery store, right? And how do you get a grocery 13
store? How does the City get a grocery store? So, help. You’ve got, can you, can you tell me 14
how that’s done? 15
16
Mr. Smiley: Well I can, let me one that’s a little easier than a grocery store because of course 17
there has to be enough as they say rooftops to support a grocery store in the first place. And it 18
isn’t necessarily the case that there’s enough of those in any given catchment area where it’s kind 19
of the Trader Joe’s problem that lots of communities have. Lots of people want Trader Joe’s but 20
Trader Joe’s doesn’t want to go to all communities, right? 21
22
Chair Wasserman: Exactly. 23
24
Mr. Smiley: But an example that I think is rather striking is in the California Avenue area 25
between Oregon Expressway and California Avenue you’ve got large numbers of parking lots in 26
there. Now these are, where I’m gonna go with this I of course don’t have the history that you 27
all have and much of this has presumably been discussed before, but I’m going to restate some of 28
it and bring something maybe new. There is of course a fair amount of publicly owned land in 29
there with parking lots. And that seems with the value of land, not just from a dollar perspective 30
but from a use perspective, the immense value to a community of land in this Corridor it seems 31
that parking one layer of cars seems like a rather underutilized way to be using land. So the City 32
does control that land and can initiate some things themselves with that land. 33
34
The other thing is there are some County agencies in there. And one of those is I believe it’s the 35
Mental Health Services or something of that type building. It’s a one story building and sitting 36
in a great grassy lawn. And, I was trained as a landscape architect and so I have nothing against 37
landscape but again, I’m not sure that lawn doesn’t really get used by anybody. It’s just strictly 38
decorative. And then there’s a very large building that’s about three or four stories tall and it sits 39
at an angle in a parcel also with surface parking. 40
41
And so if you take the entire area what you’ve got is you’ve got immense amount of publicly 42
owned land and yes, it’s gonna take a considerable amount of community discussion to 43
determine how to best use that land but there’s opportunities for what this Report refers to as 44
both public/public and public/private partnerships to reuse some of that land. That does not 45
mean removing those public services that are necessary. It doesn’t necessarily even mean 46
City of Palo Alto Page 15
removing a rather tall building that’s there. That’s an important investment but the land certainly 1
could be used in a much more efficient way and that could be through public, through joint 2
development opportunities engaging both the County and the City and the private sector in 3
supporting the goals of both this Plan and some of the other goals that you have that relate to, as 4
I can’t remember now who said it, but the importance of the California Avenue as being the 5
midtown area. Yeah. Commissioner, I mean Board Member Lippert as you said. So that is an 6
opportunity area that this touches on but there needs to be some additional work done to start a 7
dialogue about how we’re gonna go about that. And I think there’s tremendous opportunity there 8
to get going on some real activities that will start to make and you control so much of that land. 9
10
Chair Wasserman: Well, we… 11
12
Mr. Smiley: I mean the City. 13
14
Chair Wasserman: Yes. Yeah, well that does help me because this kind of thing has been going 15
on forever and nothing ever happens. Elena. 16
17
Ms. Lee: Chair Wasserman the Study does identify future studies and part of that is because we 18
have limited resources and time. But what this does is it, it identifies priorities. It gives us 19
background document to return to the various boards and Commission and to Council to help us 20
identify what they want us to tackle next. We have a document with public input to show that 21
there is at least some public support to move forward on these items so, it gives us a list to start 22
working from and our goal would be to start working on implementing these in appropriate time 23
frames. But the intention is to follow up and we are continuing with a Cal Ave. Concept Plan. A 24
lot of what’s been discussed here will be folded into that process. And we’ll be bringing that 25
back to the public and back to the Commission and the Council so we have full intention of 26
following up on these items, which is why they’re being incorporated into a resolution to give it 27
teeth so that we know that we do have to follow up on these items. 28
29
Chair Wasserman: Oh, good. And the Cal Ave. Plan, it sort of is pressed by the Fry’s lease or 30
the some, something that expires in the Fry’s zoning problem. And that may actually make 31
something happen. 32
33
Ms. Lee: Yes, you’re referring to the limit of the retail uses on the Fry’s side. That limitation 34
was actually removed, but what the new property owners . Sobrato, waiting for is that Fry’s has a 35
lease, an option to extend that lease and they haven’t expressed a desire either way and we may 36
not know for about a year or so, but we fully anticipate that once they make a decision that we 37
will get some sort of response back from the property owner about what they want to do. But, 38
both Fry’s as well as the property owners are involved in the concept plan and they have been, 39
they will continue to be involved whether they want to respond to us or not. 40
41
Chair Wasserman: So when they, when their deadline comes up something will happen? 42
43
Ms. Lee: That is our hope. 44
45
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Chair Wasserman: Ok. That’s nice. Alright. Well I think that was pretty much my take on this. 1
I, I’m really impressed with the quality of the document both content and the appearance. And 2
so we actually there were a couple of things that you asked us to specifically comment on. One 3
was the Vision Statement and except for the missing word “safety,” you know, where it lists the 4
qualities of the, it was like I can’t find it anymore. The qualities of the Corridor that it should be 5
transit rich and all that, I think that the word “safe” should just be inserted there because I 6
personally would reverse Goals 1 and 2. And that, say safety first because regardless of what the 7
train does we need to address those crossings. Because even if the High Speed Rail never comes 8
through here Caltrain is always gonna come through here, I hope, and if it increases its service to 9
more trains per hour, not only will the safety factor get worse but nobody will ever be able to 10
cross the train tracks again because there will always be trains there. So something has to be 11
done at the crossings. And so I personally have to take a poll of my colleagues think that that 12
should be the first item. 13
14
So anybody else want to comment on the Vision Statement and the order of the Goals? 15
16
Mr. Martinez: Can I say something? 17
18
Chair Wasserman: Yes. Yes, please say something. 19
20
Mr. Martinez: Ok, again Chair Eduardo Martinez, Planning Transportation Commission. I’ve 21
served on the subcommittee for the Comp Plan Update for two years. And in reordering the 22
Comp Plan one of the things we’ve done is compacted a lot of things. So, this Rail Corridor 23
Study will likely be incorporated into the Transportation Element. The Transportation Element 24
has a Vision Statement, or will have a Vision Statement. And while this Vision Statement is 25
very inspiring, very nice, it probably won’t be the over umbrella Vision Statement, or it will be a 26
part of the Vision Statement. So, that’s one item. 27
28
The other is that they’ll probably be one goal for it’s like a chapter. One goal for the Rail 29
Corridor Study, not two, three, or four goals. And so the remaining goals will probably be 30
adopted as policies or programs or suggested programs. So I don’t know where the idea of 31
having, it’s as if they were a separate element for the Rail Corridor Study and that isn’t gonna 32
happen. It’s gonna be part of something else. So I would recommend, you know, supporting 33
this because those are good ideas and intentions but they’re gonna be in all likelihood rewritten 34
and have a different form as they are incorporated into the Comp Plan Update. That’s all. Thank 35
you. 36
37
Chair Wasserman: So what you’re suggesting is that our detailed editing is probably premature. 38
39
Mr. Martinez: Yeah and you won’t appreciate it when you see it come back to you because it 40
will have a different form. 41
42
Chair Wasserman: Ok. 43
44
Board Member Lippert: I have a different take on that which is that this is a distinct document by 45
itself. If you look at the SOFA two coordinated area plan, the SOFA coordinated area plan, it 46
City of Palo Alto Page 17
exists in its own little document. It, you know, when people say well the zoning ordinance, this 1
is the zoning ordinance and you go to SOFA, well no. SOFA has its own zoning. And in this 2
case here this is a Rail Corridor Study with its own outcomes and Vision Statement. To dilute it, 3
I think, begins to take the work that’s been done here and in some ways dismiss, you know, a lot 4
of the work and comments that have gone into it. It is a document by itself and whether we 5
comment on it and massage it a little bit and the Planning and Transportation Commission takes 6
it up and the City Council takes it up is their business. For us, we’re, our basis of what we’re 7
doing here is reviewing it and commenting and if we think that what they’ve done in terms of 8
flipping the guide, the Guiding Principles, you know, that’s our business. 9
10
Chair Wasserman: Ok. 11
12
Mr. Martinez: I think you’re right. And that’s not what I was saying because I fully support the 13
Report and the work that’s been done. I’m saying as it goes forth to be adopted as part of the 14
Comp Plan it’s going to change in form and hopefully it’ll all be included there but it will be 15
rewritten and adopted in a different manner than, as a part of the Comp Plan then what you’re 16
seeing here today. But you’re right, that’s totally separate than our support of the plan. 17
18
Chair Wasserman: I also think that, that the two things are not mutually exclusive. That, I think 19
you’re correct. I think we should make our comments and recommendations as we see fit and 20
then what this will have, what I’m getting from Eduardo is that this will have, in addition to be a 21
the stand alone document it will have Comp Plan teeth. Whatever that gets us. Ok. So and so 22
what is your view on the Vision Statement and the order of the Goals? 23
24
Board Member Lippert: I think what you’ve suggested here is perfectly fine. I would adopt that, 25
I would in fact if you want to include something about safety I think that that’s, you know, 26
important too in the Vision Statement. You had something very specific in mind. 27
28
One thing that it doesn’t say in here which I think is equally important is the number of young 29
citizens here and troubled individuals have committed suicide on the railroad tracks and while 30
safety is not implicit in that because if you choose to jump on the rail line it’s not gonna stop 31
you. What is gonna stop you is physical barriers, and it’s hard to implement those physical 32
barriers without doing something about the grade separation. And so 33
Chair Wasserman: Bingo. 34
35
Board Member Lippert: Right. And so that’s not in here but it’s a, but it is a significant issue in 36
our community. 37
38
Chair Wasserman: And you are the first one who’s actually said it out loud in public. I have 39
been to zillions of meetings and everybody’s walked around this. So I think it’s important that it 40
be said and I believe that safety has been the euphemism for suicide prevention and that’s ok 41
with me at this point. 42
43
Board Member Lippert: Yeah, let me just say that, you know, what the inconsistency is here is 44
that when you say, when you talk about suicide on the rail road tracks the easy solution is we just 45
elevate the railroad or we put it underground. And that’s in some ways, you know the 46
City of Palo Alto Page 18
community has really pushed back in terms of elevating the railroad; it’s not a good solution. 1
And in some ways, that’s the direction that people are forced to go in and I think that’s a false 2
choice. And so, I think just by talking about it and getting it into the report doesn’t necessarily 3
say that that’s what we want is elevated railroads. Or elevated, you know, what do they call it, 4
Great Wall of Palo Alto. 5
6
Chair Wasserman: Ok, Alex do you want to chime in on the two items in question, the Vision 7
Statement and the order of the two Goals? 8
9
Board Member Lew: I think the Vision Statement is fine as, and would support your proposed 10
addition of safety. And I think that the Goals, in my mind, are fine as enumerated. It seems like 11
Goal #1 is, to me, when I look at that it includes a whole bunch of things in addition to safety. 12
Say like, visual impacts, noise impacts and stuff like that. So I’m fine with, and those are 13
substantial and so it seems to me that that, I’m actually fine with having that as Goal #1 instead 14
of Goal #2. 15
16
Chair Wasserman: And so what happens if there is no High Speed Rail? And the whole question 17
of changing the rail the rail alignment goes away, then what do you do with your primary Goal? 18
You still have other issues. 19
20
Board Member Lew: Right, but it’s not like any of the other Goals go away, right? 21
22
Chair Wasserman: Ok. 23
24
Board Member Lew: Right? I mean they’re still… 25
26
Chair Wasserman: Yeah, Clare. 27
28
Vice Chair Malone Prichard: I don’t see anything here that says this is a prioritized list. It’s just 29
a list of five things. I don’t think that one has priority over two, three, or four. So I don’t think it 30
matters what order they’re in. 31
32
Chair Wasserman: Ok. We are asked for a recommendation. That means you want us to vote on 33
something, yes? Ok. Can we have a Motion on this please? Don’t all jump at once, c’mon 34
guys. 35
36
Board Member Lippert: You had something very specific in terms of how you wanted to 37
incorporate safety into the Vision Statement. So why don’t you 38
39
Chair Wasserman: Ok let me find the Vision Statement again. 40
41
Board Member Lew: I think it’s 303. 42
43
Chair Wasserman: Ok. I found, yeah. So where it says, “to create a vibrant, transit rich area 44
with mixed use centers,” I would say, “create a vibrant, safe, and transit rich area.” Just to get it 45
City of Palo Alto Page 19
up front. That was, that was my, and then I’m not very strongly, I don’t have strong feelings 1
about the Goal segment. I’ll go with the Board. 2
3
MOTION 4
5
Vice Chair Malone Prichard: So I move that we recommend approval of this document with the 6
addition of “safe” as Judith just stated. 7
8
SECOND 9
10
Board Member Lippert: I’ll second that. 11
12
VOTE 13
14
Chair Wasserman: Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? No. You’re good to go. 15
16
MOTION PASSED (4-0-0) 17
18
Ms. Lee: I’m sorry, one clarifying question. Are you, do you want to remove the word 19
“attractive” or is it, “vibrant, safe, attractive, transit rich area?” 20
21
Chair Wasserman: I, well there were some, there were some other recommendations about 22
including public art and attractiveness. I don’t think that we need to actually vote on that. I 23
think that’s just sort of a standard. Oh attractive, attractive is in the document? But not in the 24
Staff Report. 25
26
Ms. Lee: Right, that was a mistake. 27
28
Chair Wasserman: Oooh. Ok. So it is attractive. Good. I read the other one it was my mistake. 29
Pretend I read that one. Yeah. I don’t think we have to, you know, say that you as a condition 30
that public art has to be included but I would highly recommend that, I mean there are enough of 31
us to believe in it. That we should really do it. Yeah, so that was, that was four to nothing. 32
Thank you all and I really hope that this has more fruit than most of our trees that we plant 33
around here. 34
35
Mr. Smiley: We certainly do too. 36
37
Chair Wasserman: Thank you. And thank you very much Chair Martinez, you are always 38
welcome at our meeting, early morning meetings and we don’t serve coffee. 39
40
41
1
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Role and Authority of the Rail Committee
The Committee shall advise the City Council on high speed rail (HSR), Caltrain and related rail
transit matters and provide the community with appropriate forums for the discussion of such
issues.
The Committee shall keep the full Council informed on a regular basis.
The Committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City on HSR, Caltrain and related
rail transit matters when there is not sufficient time to refer a particular issue to the full City
Council before action is needed. However, the Committee shall forward their recommendations
to the Council for final action if the Committee determines that it is feasible to do within the
time available. Such actions by the Committee shall include, but not be limited to, advocacy to
the state legislature, the HSR Authority, Caltrain Joint Powers Board, Congress and other
pertinent governmental agencies. Such actions by the Committee shall be consistent with the
following policies of the City:
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved Prop 1A, a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure,
the primary purpose of which is to develop HSR service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The
High Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) has decided that the route HSR will take from San Jose
to San Francisco is along the Caltrain right of way (ROW), including the portion of the ROW that
runs through Palo Alto. However, the Environmental Impact Report used by the Authority in
making this decision has been de‐certified per court order. Many issues, such as the vertical
alignment of the HSR, remain undecided. Recognizing that HSR could have significant impacts
on Palo Alto, the City Council on May 18, 2009 created an ad hoc High Speed Rail Subcommittee
of four Council Members, (since changed to a standing committee and renamed the Rail
Committee). The Council also adopted a set of Guiding Principles which allowed the Committee
to take a variety of actions in the name of the City without action of the full Council.
Subsequently, the Committee‐‐‐ indeed the entire community‐‐‐ has learned a great deal about
HSR and many HSR related actions have taken place.
The Authority has selected the central valley as their first construction segment which allows
for more a more deliberative and collaborative consideration of alternatives on the peninsula.
Additionally, an alternative for a limited “blended” rail system along the Caltrain corridor has
2
been proposed along with a corresponding limited EIR. This proposal limits the scale of rail on
the peninsula. The Authority in November 2011 issued its revised Business Plan showing that
the cost of HSR would be $98 billion dollars. In the revised Business Plan the Authority used the
same ridership forecast model as it had in the past and did not address numerous flaws
identified by many experts who found the Authority’s projections to be unfounded and
unreliable.
Guiding Principles
The City Council therefore, adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making
framework and the actions of the Committee:
The City of Palo Alto believes that the High Speed Rail (HSR) Project should be terminated for
the following reasons:
1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under
Prop. 1A in 2008.
2. The Business Plan is fatally flawed and not credible.
In November 2008, the voters passed a bond measure for a HSR project based on:
• Grossly understated construction costs,
• Understated fares and overstated ridership,
• Operating without a government subsidy, and
• A Funding Plan legally required to identify funding sources and achieve environmental
review prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment (IOS).
Since the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job
creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given
accurate information during the 2008 election to make an informed decision on a HSR project
for the State of California.
If the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding Principles shall
apply to the City’s positions on HSR:
1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR/Caltrain should be treated with equal
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
3
4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco
portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and
reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor and the
HSR Peer Review Committee which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority’s
Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, identification of sufficient
and reliable funding sources, project management, and operations of HSR.
6. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the HSR Peer
Review Committee authorized by AB 3034.
7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of the transit
corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and
strategies of our Comprehensive Plan.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and Caltrain
that is effectively funded and implemented by the Authority.
9. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected Cities to
allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach
to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions.
10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the Authority or Caltrain should
provide realistic renderings of the various alternatives and also provide simulations that
would help to provide an understanding of the sound and vibrations.
11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
12. Palo Alto also supports the modernization of Caltrain, and/or as the lead agent for a
phased alignment with but independent of HSR.
13. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
14. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain active. In the event that the
modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train service from current 2011 levels,
Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow,
4
and East Charleston crossings that are effectively funded and implemented by the lead
agency
15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted
written comments to the Authority, the Caltrain Joint Powers Board, and other relevant
agencies. In case of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.
Updated: December 19, 2011 (previously updated October 12, 2011 and May 17, 2010)
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for
High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco
segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now
proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right-of-way and
track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains,
partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended
system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated.
The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at
approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost
estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition
1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also
continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not
address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business
plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and
environmental review of the HSR system.
Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In
July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal
money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California
commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as
part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains
necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important
funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to
final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex,
blended San Jose to San Francisco segment.
Guiding Principles
The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the
actions of the Committee:
The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following
reasons:
1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters
under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly
ATTACHMENT F
underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated
fares. The voters also required that HSR operate without a subsidy and that funding
sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior to
construction of an Initial Operating Segment.
2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected
ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that
the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary
to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California.
The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make
HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR,
however, that have not yet been studied or decided.
Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding
Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR:
1. The City supports a non-elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. 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.
4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central
Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should
reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the
HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s
Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of
sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR.
6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review
Committee authorized by AB 3034.
7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision.
HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and
Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA.
9. The CHSRA should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire
experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to
capture their concerns and suggestions.
10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide
both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help
provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts.
11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. However, whether the City supports
electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied
and suitable mitigation measures are implemented.
13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all Caltrain Corridor environmental
documents and system improvements.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and
pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train
service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for
the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements
must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding source.
16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must
be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that affects
the HSR or Caltrain Corridor environmental review process as currently required by law.
17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental
Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The
second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for
HSR operation in the corridor.
18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain
ridership. Additionally, the PCJPB should consider making such revisions consistent with
a ballot measure seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one
occur.
19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted
written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case of any
conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.
Updated: January 22, 2013 (previously updated December 19, 2011 October 12, 2011 and May
17, 2010)
7025.txt
Note only.
Page 1