N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
Lower Zone and High-Pressure Zone. The WSMP also identified priorities for pipeline replacement projects based on a risk methodology developed collaboratively with the City (refer to Chapter 7).
The City requested a re-evaluation of the baseline and 2040 demands for the Lower and High-Pressure Zone, an updated storage analysis for existing and 2040 conditions, and a hydraulic evaluation to identify improvements that would be required to reliably meet Lower and High-Pressure Zone demand and fire flows in conjunction with the new storage reservoir.
In addition, the City requested an updated prioritized list of high-risk and medium-high risk pipeline replacement projects, in more discrete project packages, to use for the upcoming five-year CIP for pipeline replacements, as well as an update to specific tables in the WSMP to incorporate further clarifications.
The following sections provide additional details on the WSMP update, storage evaluation (including a demand update, peaking factor update, revised storage analysis and hydraulic evaluation) and the recommended pipeline rehabilitation for use in the Five-Year CIP.
2.0 WSMP UPDATES
The City requested an update to the following tables and figures:
• Figure 2-3. Existing System Schematic Hydraulic Profile • Table 3-7. Summary of Peaking Factors by Pressure Zone • Table 5-1. Summary of Recommended Water System Planning and Design Criteria • Table 5-2. Recommended Fire Flow Requirements
• Table 6-8. Summary of Peaking Factors by Pressure Zone and associated text edits These updates were provided to the City on April 27, 2022, and no further comments were provided. A one-page description was also provided to the City for use in the updated WSMP document and is provided in Attachment A.
3.0 STORAGE EVALUATION
This section describes the updated storage evaluation, which included updating demands and peaking factors, revising the storage analysis and performing a hydraulic evaluation. This storage evaluation is focused on sizing storage in the Lower and High-Pressure Zones, therefore information for the City’s Upper Zone is specifically omitted.
3.1 Existing Demand Update
The WSMP baseline demands were based on average water production data from calendar year 2013, as it was determined 2013 demand best represented the City’s water usage at the time that the WSMP was being prepared. To estimate maximum day and peak hour usage, hourly and daily turnout data were evaluated for 2016, a drought year, since hourly and daily data were not available prior to 2015. For this analysis, the existing baseline conditions were updated to be reflective of more recent demand trends.
West Yost evaluated water usage for 2018 through 2021 to establish the new baseline demands for the Lower and High-Pressure Zone. Daily flow data from SFPUC turnouts was used to determine average day use and maximum day use for each zone, while hourly turnout deliveries on the maximum delivery day Page H-2.9
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
were used to estimate peak hour use. Table 1 summarizes the average day, max day, and peak hour use for the Lower and High-Pressure Zone for 2018 through 2021.
Table 1. Summary of Water Use from 2018 through 2021
Year
Average Day
Use, gpm
Maximum Day
Date
Maximum
Day Use, gpm
Peak Hour
Use, gpm
High-Pressure Zone (a)
2018 290 7/30/2018 499 664
2019 253 6/10/2019 413 686
2020 228 7/17/2020 418 611
2021 226 7/15/2021 379 611
2018-2021 Average 249 -- 427 642
Adopted in Master Plan(b) 188 -- 290 408
Percent Difference from Master Plan 32.6 -- 47.2 57.4
Lower Pressure Zone (c)
2018 1,016 3/10/2018 1,592 4,750
2019 1,034 6/28/2019 1,551 2,182
2020 1,093 8/14/2020 1,564 2,157
2021 931 7/9/2021 1,396 2,182
2018-2021 Average 1,018 -- 1,526 2,173(d)
Adopted in Master Plan(e) 1,442 -- 2,221 3,124
Percent Difference from Master Plan -29.4 -- -31.3 -30.4 (a) Use based on flow recorded from SFPUC’s EyeOnWater website for the Hill Turnout. (b) Use from WSMP Chapter 7 Table 7-1 for High-Pressure Zone. (c) Use based on flow recorded from SFPUC’s EyeOnWater website for the Burgess, Madera, and Chilco Turnouts. (d) Average based on 2019 through 2021 due to peak hour anomaly in 2018. (e) Use from WSMP Chapter 7 Table 7-1 for Lower Pressure Zone.
With respect to the High-Pressure Zone, average day, max day, and peak hour use were generally consistent from 2018 through 2021. Since water use was consistent for all four years, the average of each demand condition was used to establish the baseline demands.
With respect to the Lower Zone, average day and max day use was generally consistent from 2018 through 2020. In 2021 there was a drop in water use compared to 2018 through 2020 use. Based on input provided by City staff, this drop may be due to a commercial or industrial user going offline. The ratio of maximum day use to average day use remained the same as previous years, so all years were used to calculate existing average day and maximum day use. Peak hour use for the Lower Zone was consistent from 2019 through 2021 but was extremely high in 2018. The value in 2018 was determined to be an anomaly.
Therefore, the average of 2019 through 2021 was used as the baseline for peak hour use.
Page H-2.10
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
3.2 Peaking Factors Updates
Water system facilities are generally sized to meet peak demands. The peaking conditions of most concern for water facility sizing are maximum day demand plus fire flow and peak hour demand. Peak water use is typically expressed as a ratio, or peaking factor, dividing the peak water use by the average daily or maximum day water use. These peaking factors are then used to calculate maximum day and peak hour water use for future conditions.
Table 2 summarizes the maximum day and peak hour peaking factors by pressure zone, based on water use from 2018 through 2021 as described in the section above.
Table 2. Summary of Maximum Day and Peak Hour Peaking Factors Average Day to Maximum Day
Peaking Factor
Average Day to Peak Hour
Peaking Factor
High-Pressure Zone
2018-2021 Average 1.71 2.59
Adopted in Master Plan (a) 1.54 2.20
Percent Difference from Master Plan 11.3 17.8
Lower Pressure Zone
2018-2021 Average 1.50 2.14(b)
Adopted in Master Plan 1.54 2.20
Percent Difference from Master Plan -2.6 -2.6
(a) Peaking factors assumed to be identical to Lower Zone in Master Plan, due to similar land use types and data anomalies that indicated unreasonably high peaking factors for the High-Pressure Zone. (b) Peaking factor based on average demands for 2019 through 2021 due to peak hour anomaly in 2018.
3.3 Summary of Baseline and 2040 Demands
Table 3 summarizes the City’s updated existing water demands by pressure zone reflecting recent water use summarized in Table 1. Maximum day and peak hour demands were calculated using average daily demands multiplied by the adopted peaking factors shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, updated existing average day, maximum day, and peak hour demands are generally 19 to 22 percent lower than estimates established in the 2018 WSMP.
Table 3. Summary of Existing Water Demands(a)
Pressure Zone
Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand
gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd
Lower Zone 1,018 1.5 1,527 2.2 2,182 3.1
High-Pressure Zone 249 0.4 427 0.6 646 0.9
Total 1,268 1.8 1,955 2.8 2,828 4.1
Master Plan 1,630 2.3 2,511 3.6 3,532 5.1
Change from Master Plan -22.2% -22.2% -19.9%
(a) Refer to Table 1 and 2. Maximum and peak hour demands calculated based on updated peaking factor information.
Page H-2.11
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
Table 4 summarizes the City’s future (2040) water demands by pressure zone. Future demands were estimated using the same anticipated growth as identified in the WSMP added to the revised existing demand, which is summarized in Table 3. The increase in average day demand attributed to growth specifically for the Lower and High-Pressure Zones is 0.14 mgd and 0.64 mgd, respectively.
Table 4. Summary of Future (2040) Water Demands(a)
Pressure Zone
Average Day Demand(a) Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand gpm mgd gpm mgd gpm mgd
Lower Zone 1,114 1.6 1,671 2.4 2,388 3.4
High-Pressure Zone 693 1.0 1,189 1.7 1,797 2.6
Total 1,808 2.6 2,860 4.1 4,185 6.0
Master Plan 2,170 3.1 3,343 4.8 4,703 6.8
Change from Master Plan -16.7% -14.5% -11.0%
(a) Based on updated baseline demand summarized in Table 1 plus the same growth estimated in the City's Water System Master Plan.
Average day growth for the Lower, High-Pressure and Upper Zones was calculated to be 0.14, 0.64 and 0.03 mgd, respectively.
As summarized in Table 4, there is a net decrease in future demand of 11 to 17 percent when compared to estimates prepared in the 2018 WSMP. The decrease in both the existing and future demand estimates is attributed to the updated existing demand, which now reflects changes in water use within the City following 2014 through 2016 drought years and is now based on water use data from 2018 through 2021.
These updated water demand estimates were subsequently used to re-evaluate the storage needs in the Lower and High-Pressure Zones, as described in the next section.
3.4 Revised Storage Analysis
As described in the 2018 WSMP, the principal advantages that storage provides for the water system are:
(1) operational storage to balance differences in demands and supplies; (2) emergency storage in case of supply outage (e.g., loss of SFPUC Supply); and, (3) water to fight fires. The City’s water storage capacity requirements are detailed in WSMP Table 5-1, and are as follows:
• Operational storage component equal to 25 percent of maximum day demand. • Emergency component equal to 50 percent of maximum day demand. • Fire storage component equal to the highest fire flow multiplied by the recommended duration.
If groundwater wells are available to supply a pressure zone, the emergency storage volume required can be reduced since groundwater wells access the aquifer as a form of storage. The recently completed groundwater well in the Lower Zone (at the City’s Corporation Yard), is currently permitted to be used during emergencies, when SFPUC supply is disrupted or unavailable. The City received an amended permit for an “active” well, meaning it can be accessed at any given time. The City is currently investigating if an active well is feasible or if the well should be classified as “standby”, which would limit use to five consecutive days and fifteen total days per year. Additionally, the City is also exploring the possibility of a second well in the Lower Zone at Willow Oaks Park, adjacent to where storage is currently planned, as discussed below. This would further contribute to lowering the emergency storage requirements.
Page H-2.12
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
To account for the availability of groundwater during an emergency, a reduction of required storage volume, defined as an emergency storage credit, was considered as part of the storage sizing calculations.
The emergency groundwater storage credit, detailed in WSMP Table 5-1, is calculated as the minimum of:
1) the emergency storage requirement; or, 2) the volume produced by the wells, assuming an emergency with a 24-hour duration occurring on the maximum day demand.
Table 5 compares the City’s available water storage capacity with the required storage capacity for the Lower and High-Pressure Zones under existing conditions. The existing Corporation Yard well in the Lower Zone was assumed to be offline, at the request of the City. One fire volume for both the Lower and High-Pressure Zone was assumed. The existing storage capacity requirement/deficit is 3.1 MG.
Table 6 compares the City’s available water storage capacity with the required storage capacity for future conditions with different supply and fire flow scenarios. The following scenarios were explored:
• Future demand conditions, with no groundwater credit and only one fire volume in storage • Future demand conditions, with emergency storage credit only assigned to the Lower Zone and one fire volume in storage
• Future demand conditions, with emergency storage credit to both the Lower and High-Pressure Zones, and one fire volume in storage
• Future demand conditions, with emergency storage credit to both the Lower and High-Pressure Zones, and two fire volumes in storage
The intent of these scenarios was to provide the City with a menu of options to optimize the amount of storage that should be constructed. As shown on Table 6, whether the emergency storage credit is included or not significantly impacts the storage volume needed. The number of fire volumes also impact total amount of storage needed. The comparison between available and required storage capacities indicates there is a future water storage capacity deficit between 2.0 and 4.1 MG, depending on the scenario, across the Lower and High-Pressure Zones.
It is worth noting, as shown on Table 6, that the current capacity of the existing well is sufficient to maximize the emergency storage credit and a second well would not further reduce storage requirements.
However, a second well would further bolster the City’s water supply reliability, particularly during an SFPUC outage.
Based on the revised evaluation, it is not recommended that the City size storage without the emergency groundwater credit, as this would yield the largest tank (4.1 MG), which would be costly and would be difficult to maintain water quality during lower demand conditions. A storage tank between 2.0 to 3.0 MG is recommended, depending on whether the City would like to conservatively assume concurrent fires in the Lower and High-Pressure Zones. The likelihood of two simultaneous industrial type of fires in the Lower and High-Pressure Zones is low.
Page H-2.13
Table 5. Comparison of Available and Existing Required Storage Capacity [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] = [D]+[E] [G] [H] [I] [J] = [G]+[H]+[I] [K] = [F]-[J] Available Storage Capacity, MG Required Storage Capacity, MG Facility
Existing Storage
Capacity
Emergency
Groundwater
Storage Credit
Total Existing
Storage Capacity Operational(a) Emergency(b) Fire Flow(c) Total Required
Storage Capacity
Lower Zone 2.2 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.10
High Pressure Zone 0.6 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.31
(a) Operational storage is 25 percent of the maximum day demand (See WSMP, Chapter 5, Table 5-1) (b) Emergency storage is 50 percent of the maximum day demand (See WSMP, Chapter 5, Table 5-1) (c) Fire flow is zones with commercial, Industrial, or Institutional/governmental customers is 4,000 gpm for 4 hours. Assumed to be sprinklered for planning purposes (See Chapter 5, Table 5-2) Table 6. Comparison of Available and Future Required Storage Capacity [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] = [D]+[E] [G] [H] [I] [J] = [G]+[H]+[I] [K] = [F]-[J] Available Storage Capacity, MG Required Storage Capacity, MG Facility Storage Capacity
Emergency
Groundwater
Storage Credit
Total Available
Storage Capacity Operational(a) Emergency(b) Fire Flow(c) Total Required
Storage Capacity
Future Demand Conditions, no groundwater well and one fire volume stored Lower Zone 2.41 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 1.20
High Pressure Zone 1.71 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.86
Future Demand Conditions, with one groundwater well providing emergency supply to Lower Pressure Zone and one fire volume stored(d) Lower Zone 2.41 -- 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.60 1.20
High Pressure Zone 1.71 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.86
Future Demand Conditions with one groundwater well providing emergency supply to both Lower and High Pressure Zones and one fire volume stored(d) Lower Zone 2.41 -- 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.60 1.20
High Pressure Zone 1.71 -- 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.43 0.86
Future Demand Conditions with one emergency groundwater well providing emergency supply to both Lower and High Pressure Zones and two fire volumes stored(d) Lower Zone 2.41 -- 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.60 1.20 0.96
High Pressure Zone 1.71 -- 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.43 0.86 0.96 (a) Operational storage is 25 percent of the maximum day demand (See WSMP, Chapter 5, Table 5-1) (b) Emergency storage is 50 percent of the maximum day demand (See WSMP, Chapter 5, Table 5-1) (c) Fire flow volume is based on a single fire associated with commercial, Industrial, or Institutional/governmental land uses, which requires 4,000 gpm for 4 hours and assumed to be sprinklered for planning purposes in the future (See WSMP, Chapter 5, Table 5-2). (d) Groundwater capacity assumes capacity in emergency well is equal to 1,500 gpm, based on most recent performance testing.
Pressure Zone
Maximum Day Demand,
mgd
Storage Capacity
Surplus (Deficit), MG
Pressure Zone
Maximum Day Demand,
mgd
Storage Capacity
Surplus (Deficit), MG
0.96 0.96
0.96 3.07 (3.07)
4.05 (4.05)
4.05 (2.85)
0.96 4.05 (1.99)
5.01 (2.95)
n-c-648-60-22-10-engr-task 2- storage capacity analysis.xlsx City of Menlo Park
WSMP Supplement
Last Revised: 09-09-22
Page H-2.14
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
4.0 Hydraulic Evaluation
To hydraulically evaluate recommended storage facilities and the impacts to the City’s distribution system, West Yost first updated the City’s hydraulic model to include the following:
• Future system scenarios updated with revised 2040 water demands and new diurnal patterns calculated based on updated peaking factor information; • A new storage reservoir in the Lower Zone, located adjacent to Willow Oaks Park, likely to be constructed beneath the existing school district field. This site is currently being considered by the City. In addition, two booster pump stations, (1) one at the storage site which would supply the Lower Zone, and (2) one at Karl Clark Park to supply the HighPressure Zone from the Lower Pressure Zone (essentially an in-line booster pump station), and associated pipelines.
• Willow Village and Life Sciences District pipeline improvements, which are planned in the future as established as part of other concurrent analyses. • Distribution system piping downstream of the Madera Turnout and at the intersection of Ivy Drive and Willow Road was corrected to reflect as-built information provided by the City. • Model set up to support an extended period simulation. A seven-day extended period simulation, along with the updated diurnal, was used to evaluate tank operations.
As described above, two booster pump stations are needed to support the nominal hydraulic grade lines of the Lower and High-Pressure Zone. Table 7 summarizes the basis for the sizing each of the booster pump stations.
Table 7. Basis of Booster Pump Station Sizing
Facility
Assumed
Location Flow Requirement Basis Head Requirement Basis
BPS Supplying
Lower Zone
At planned
storage tank
site, Willow
Oaks Park
Maximum of either:
• Peak Hour demand
(2,388 gpm, see Table 4)
• Maximum day demand plus
fire flow (4,000 gpm plus
1,527 gpm, or 5,527 gpm)
Maximum Day demand plus fire
flow drive the sizing and is
equivalent to 5,550 gpm or 8 mgd
• Suction Head Assumption:
Low water level in tank of
(2 feet)
• Discharge Head Assumption:
Nominal grade of Lower Zone
(213 feet)
• Total Nominal Dynamic Head
Required: Difference between
discharge and suction head
(211 feet)
BPS Supplying
High-Pressure
Zone
At Karl Clark
Park
Maximum of either:
• Peak Hour demand
(1,797 gpm, see Table 4)
• Maximum day demand plus
fire flow (4,000 gpm plus
1,189 gpm, or 5,189 gpm)
Maximum Day demand plus fire
flow drive the sizing and is
equivalent to 5,200 gpm or
7.5 mgd
• Suction Head Assumption:
Average grade of Lower Zone
(187 feet)
• Discharge Head Assumption:
Average grade of HighPressure Zone (319 feet)
• Total Nominal Dynamic Head
Required: Difference between
discharge and suction head
(132 feet)
Page H-2.15
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
Planning and Modeling Criteria
The planning and modeling criteria used to evaluate the proposed Project are based on the system performance and operational criteria developed in the WSMP. The criteria used to evaluate the water system and proposed pipelines for the Project consist of the following:
• Minimum allowable service pressure is 40 pounds per square inch (psi) under normal system operating conditions.
• Residual pressure at the flowing hydrant (during a maximum day demand plus fire flow condition) and at customer service locations throughout the Lower Pressure Zone must be equal to or greater than 20 psi.
• Maximum velocities of 5 feet per second (ft/s) for distribution system pipelines and 4 ft/s for transmission pipelines under normal conditions.
• Maximum velocities of 12 ft/s for distribution system pipelines and 7 ft/s for transmission pipelines under fire flow conditions.
Hydraulic Evaluation
To evaluate the proposed storage locations the following evaluations were performed under buildout conditions to assess distribution system performance, and to confirm that the City’s future distribution system would be able to deliver the required potable water, while meeting the City’s adopted water system performance criteria.
• Future Operating Conditions without New Facilities (Baseline). This scenario evaluates customer service pressures in the system without the new facilities and is evaluated over an extended period simulation.
• Future Operating Conditions with New Facilities. This scenario evaluates customer service pressures in the system with the new facilities and is evaluated over an extended period simulation.
• Future Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow. This scenario evaluates whether fire flow can be provided by new facilities.
For this evaluation, storage and pumping facilities were assumed to be located at the following locations:
• Lower Zone Storage and Booster Pump Station at Willow Oaks Park • High-Pressure Zone Booster Pump Station at Karl Clark Park With respect to operating assumptions, all turnouts serving the Lower and High-Pressure zones were assumed to be online in all scenarios except the emergency scenario, where fire flows were evaluated with turnouts offline. During peak periods, booster pump stations were assumed to be online and operating together (i.e., in series). Based on the updated diurnal curves from both zones, operation of these facilities was assumed to be between 10 P.M and 9 A.M. to capture peak demand for both pressure zones. The new tank was assumed to refill beginning at 10 A.M. stop when the level reaches 19 feet, to maintain 1 foot of headspace with a 20-foot-tall tank. An altitude valve was assumed to control the rate of flow into the tank by maintaining a minimum upstream pressure of 49 psi (resulting in a fill rate of approximately 2,000 gpm.
Results for the three scenarios are described in the following sections.
Page H-2.16
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
Baseline Conditions
Results from the baseline simulation indicate the system can adequately meet the City’s minimum pressure criterion of 40 psi at all customer service locations. Figure 1 presents the minimum pressure and maximum pipeline velocity for the Lower Zone and High-Pressure Zone. Under these baseline conditions, the 12-inch pipeline between Burgess Turnout and Santa Monica Ave, located in the Lower Zone, has velocities between 3 and 5 feet per second (ft/s), exceeding the velocity criterion of 4 ft/s for transmission pipelines. This pipeline was also identified in the WSMP as having high velocities however, no recommendations were identified since a minimum pressure of 40 psi was met. Since Figure 1 shows no impact in maintaining pressure, replacement of this pipeline is still not recommended. The high velocities are due to the pressure settings at the Burgess Turnout and the effective hydraulic grade it establishes, which when compared to other turnouts results in this turnout providing the largest amount of supply to the zone. The velocities can be reduced if the pressure settings at the other turnouts are adjusted.
With respect to the High-Pressure Zone, the existing 12-inch pipeline along Market Place and Ivy Drive exceeds 4 ft/s. Since there is no impact to pressure in the vicinity of this pipeline, no recommendations were identified.
With Proposed Tank and Pump Station Facilities
Results with proposed tank and pump station facilities are similar to the baseline conditions and meet the City’s minimum pressure criterion of 40 psi at all customer service locations. Figure 2 presents the minimum pressure and maximum pipeline velocity for the Lower and High-Pressure Zone with storage facilities added.
Velocities in the 12-inch Willow Road pipeline between Gilbert Avenue and Highway 101 range from 3 to 5 ft/s with the segment of pipe between Okeefe Street and Durham Street exceeding 5 ft/s, which exceed the City’s velocity criterion for transmission pipelines. The total headloss through this stretch of pipe is 18 feet, or approximately 4.83 ft of headloss per 1,000 feet. Under normal conditions, the WSMP states maximum headloss for transmission pipelines should be 3 ft of loss per 1,000 feet. While there aren’t impacts to pressure from the high velocity, upsizing is recommended to mitigate excessive velocities and headloss through the pipeline. This is further discussed in the Fire Flow discussion below.
Figure 3 presents the decrease in pressure when compared to the baseline conditions. Locations in purple represent a 3 to 5 psi drop in pressure, and locations in blue represent a 1 to 3 psi drop in pressure. The net decrease in pressure of the distribution system can be attributed to the filling of the new tank or the localized reduction in pressures on the suction side of the High-Pressure Zone pump station.
Figure 4 summarizes tank levels and booster pump station flow/operations. The blue line corresponds to the tank level. Periods of decrease indicate the tank is emptying / when the pump station is online and supplying the system, while periods of increase correspond to the tank filling when the pump station is offline. Figure 5 and Figure 6 compare pressures in the vicinity of the Lower Zone and High-Pressure pump stations, respectively. With respect to the Lower Zone, pressures under baseline conditions are maintained at 55 psi. When storage is added, pressures range from 65 psi, when the pump station is operating, to 48 psi, when the pump station is off, and the tank is re-filling. At the High-Pressure Zone pump station, pressures with and without storage are essentially the same.
Page H-2.17
0 900 1,800
Scale in Fe et
Note s:
1. De m and s re fle ct the upd ated b ase line d e m and s c onsiste nt with Tab le 2.
2. Future m axim um d ay d e m and is eq ual to 1.7 m gd for the High P re ssure Zone and 2.4 m gd for the Lower Zone.
3. Results are b ased on the m inim um pred icted pre ssure s and m axim um ve loc ities ob served in a 168 hour exte nd ed pe riod sim ulation. Diurnal patterns in the hyd raulic m od e l for the Lower and High P ressure zones were upd ated b ased on 2018 through 2021 d ata. Re fer to the d iurnal patterns c ontained in Attac hm e nt A.
84 101
101
101
101
5TH AVE
RUNNYMEDE ST
WHITEHALL LN
NEWELL ROAD
MIDDLEFIELD RD
SPRING ST
GLEN WY
COLEMAN AVE
ALMA ST
GUINDA STREET
8TH AVE
EDISON WY
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
WAREHOUSE RD
MADERA AVE
SEVIER AVE
MENALTO AVE
CATALPA DR
UN VI ERS TI Y AVE
BROADWAY
WEBSTER STREET
WILBURN AVE
SANTA CRUZ AVE
BARRON AVE
REDWOOD AVE
CENTER DR VI E
WILLOW RD
STOCKBRIDGE AVE
GREENWOOD DR
LAUREL ST
LINFIELD DR
LLOYDEN DR
VALPARAISO AVE
SEAPORT BLVD
EL CAMINO REAL
POLHEMUS AVE
OAK GROVE AVE
NEWBRIDGE ST
ROBLE AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
ARLINGTON WY
HAMPSHIRE AVE
CENTER ST
WOODLAND AVE
LINDEN ST
BAY RD
CARLOS AVE
FAIR OAKS LN
SEMICIRCULAR RD
BERKSHIRE AVE
BURGESS DR
1ST AVE
SELBY LN
2ND AVE
HOOVER ST
JAMES AVE
ENCINAL AVE
O'CONNOR ST
DONOHOE ST
STONEP NI ELN
FLORENCE ST
UNIVERSITY DR
ALMENDRAL AVE
LINCOLN AVENUE
HAVEN AVE
SARATOGA AVE
CRANE ST MENLO AVE
PALO VERDE AVE
WILLIAM AVE
LINCOLN ST
RAVENSWOOD AVE
COOLEY AVE
10TH AVE
HAZELWOOD WY
DUMBARTON AVE
17TH AVE
FELTON DR
KAVANAUGH DR
OAK CT
RUTHVEN AVENUE
CHAUCERSTREE
PA
T
LO ALTO AVENUE
9TH AVE
STAMBAUGH ST
PLACITAS AVE
MARSH RD
COLUMBIA AVE
CHILCO ST
RECREATION AVE
W BAYSHORE RD RD
LIVE OAK AVE
AUSTIN AVE
IRVING AVE
PACIFIC AVE
WESTMORELAND AVE
GLENWOOD AVE
BELLEAU AVE
PAGE ST
HANNAWAY
ALBERNI ST
VICTORIA DR
HAMILTON AVENUE
GARDEN ST
SEMINARY DR
REDW OOD WY
FAIR OAKS AVE
LINDENAVE
WATKINS AVE
FLYNN AVE
BERKELEY AVE
BELL ST
WARRINGTON AVE
SAN MATEO AVE
GARWOOD WAY
LORELEI LN
LEAHY ST
WAVERLEYST
15TH AVE
ATHERTON AVE
GLORIA WY
JOHNSON ST
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
18TH AVE
MCCORMICKLN
MARLBOROUGH AVE
FLOODCIR
EMILIE AVE
GLENDALE AVE
WOODSIDE RD
PARK RD
PARK ST
DANA AVENUE
3RD AVE
11TH AVE
OAKW OOD DR
SHERWOOD WAY
CONCORD DR
HOLLAND ST
MANHATTAN AVE
HEDGE RD
WILLOW ST
FOREST AVENUE
EUCLID AVE
CHARTER ST
STANFORD AVE
SCOTT AVE
WINCHESTER DR
DOUGLAS AVE
GREENOAKS DR
MAGNOLIA DR
LABURNUM RD
HAIGHT ST
SERRANO DR
MENLO OAKS DR
EDGEW OOD DRIVE
SHEARER DR
ROSEWOOD DR
SENECA STREET
ISABELLA AVE
NIMITZ AVE
MAC ARTHUR AVE
BYRON STREET
S PERIMETER RD
FULTON STREET
HALE STREET
HAWTHORNE DR
OAKSIDE AVE
ELENA AVE
ME RRILL ST
HURLINGAME AVE
12TH AVE
POPLAR AVE
NOTTINGHAM AVE
LENNOXAVE
4TH AVE
PINE ST
NORA WY
WAYNECT
NORTHUMBERLANDAVE
6TH AVE
PITMAN AVENUE
FIFE AVENUE
SAN BENITO AVE
DEVONSHIRE AVE
E OAKWOOD BLVD
EDGE RD
14TH AVE
16TH AVE
RALMAR AVE
PALMER LN
E CREEKDR
JENNINGS LN
MAPLE AVE
JERVIS AVE
BLENHEIM AVE
COLBY AVE
ADDISON AVE
BOHANNON DR
ENCINA AVE
DE BELL DR
ROLISON RD
SCOTT DR
ALLEY
PENINSULA WY
WALNUT AVE
PEGGYLN
E BAYSHORE RD
PRIVATE ST
OAK AVE
ASHFIELD RD
MICHAELDR
DEODORA DR
ALMA LN
ROSE AVE
DODGE DR
ALEJANDRA AVE
PARKWOOD DR
MARCUSSEN DR
7TH AVE
CAPITOL AVE
RALSTON RD
NOEL DR
AMADOR AVE
MILLS ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
US HIGHWAY 101
OAKLAND AVE
CRESCENTDRIVE
ROBLEDADR
ARDEN RD
HOLBROOK LN
AMHERST AVE
LOYOLA AVE
W PERIMETER RD
BRITTON AVE
FREDRICK AVE
PATRICIA DR
CAMPBELL AVE
W OAKWOOD BLVD
TOYONRD
STATE HIGHWAY 84
PARK LN
BURNS AVE
VETERANS BLVD
HWY 101
HEATHER DR
E O'KEEFE ST
ADAM WY
TUSCALOOSA AVE
PAULSON
CIR
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY
CITY OF
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Figure 1
Future System Baseline
Maximum Day Results
City of Menlo Park
Water Master P lan Supple m e nt
Minimum System Pressure
Le ss than 40 psi
≥ 40 psi to < 60 psi
≥ 60 psi to < 80 psi
≥ 80 psi to < 100 psi
≥ 100 psi to < 120 psi
120 psi or greate r
Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Le ss than 3 ft/s
3 to 5 ft/s
Greater than 5 ft/s
Existing P ipe line
Existing P ressure Red uc ing Valve Station
Existing SFP UC Turnout
Water Se rvic e Bound ary
WEST YOST - N:\Clie nts\648 City of Me nlo P ark\60-22-10 WMP Supple m e nt\GIS\MXD\Task 3 - Hyd raulic Evaluation\Resu lts-Base line.m xd - km iller - 9/9/2022 Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Page H-2.18
0 900 1,800
Sca le in Feet
N o tes:
1. Dem a nds reflect the upda ted b a seline dem a nds co nsistent w ith Ta b le 2.
2. Future m a xim um da y dem a nd is equa l to 1.7 m gd fo r the High Pressure Zo ne a nd 2.4 m gd fo r the Lo w er Zo ne.
3. Results are b ased o n the m inim um predicted pressures a nd m a xim um velo cities o b served in a 168 ho ur extended perio d sim ulatio n. Diurna l pa tterns in the hydra ulic m o del fo r the Lo w er a nd High Pressure zo nes w ere upda ted b a sed o n 2018 thro ugh 2021 da ta . Refer to the diurna l pa tterns co nta ined in Atta chm ent A.
84 101
101
101
101
5TH AVE
RUNNYMEDE ST
WHITEHALL LN
NEWELL ROAD
MIDDLEFIELD RD
SPRING ST
GLEN WY
COLEMAN AVE
ALMA ST
GUINDA STREET
8TH AVE
EDISON WY
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
WAREHOUSE RD
MADERA AVE
SEVIER AVE
MENALTO AVE
CATALPA DR
UN VI ERS TI Y AVE
BROADWAY
WEBSTER STREET
WILBURN AVE
SANTA CRUZ AVE
BARRON AVE
REDWOOD AVE
CENTER DR VI E
WILLOW RD
STOCKBRIDGE AVE
GREENWOOD DR
LAUREL ST
LINFIELD DR
LLOYDEN DR
VALPARAISO AVE
SEAPORT BLVD
EL CAMINO REAL
POLHEMUS AVE
OAK GROVE AVE
NEWBRIDGE ST
ROBLE AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
ARLINGTON WY
HAMPSHIRE AVE
CENTER ST
WOODLAND AVE
LINDEN ST
BAY RD
CARLOS AVE
FAIR OAKS LN
SEMICIRCULAR RD
BERKSHIRE AVE
BURGESS DR
1ST AVE
SELBY LN
2ND AVE
HOOVER ST
JAMES AVE
ENCINAL AVE
O'CONNOR ST
DONOHOE ST
STONEP NI ELN
FLORENCE ST
UNIVERSITY DR
ALMENDRAL AVE
LINCOLN AVENUE
HAVEN AVE
SARATOGA AVE
CRANE ST MENLO AVE
PALO VERDE AVE
WILLIAM AVE
LINCOLN ST
RAVENSWOOD AVE
COOLEY AVE
10TH AVE
HAZELWOOD WY
DUMBARTON AVE
17TH AVE
FELTON DR
KAVANAUGH DR
OAK CT
RUTHVEN AVENUE
CHAUCERSTREE
PA
T
LO ALTO AVENUE
9TH AVE
STAMBAUGH ST
PLACITAS AVE
MARSH RD
COLUMBIA AVE
CHILCO ST
RECREATION AVE
W BAYSHORE RD RD
LIVE OAK AVE
AUSTIN AVE
IRVING AVE
PACIFIC AVE
WESTMORELAND AVE
GLENWOOD AVE
BELLEAU AVE
PAGE ST
HANNAWAY
ALBERNI ST
VICTORIA DR
HAMILTON AVENUE
GARDEN ST
SEMINARY DR
REDW OOD WY
FAIR OAKS AVE
LINDENAVE
WATKINS AVE
FLYNN AVE
BERKELEY AVE
BELL ST
WARRINGTON AVE
SAN MATEO AVE
GARWOOD WAY
LORELEI LN
LEAHY ST
WAVERLEYST
15TH AVE
ATHERTON AVE
GLOR AI WY
JOHNSON ST
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
18TH AVE
MCCORMICKLN
MARLBOROUGH AVE
FLOODCIR
EMILIE AVE
GLENDALE AVE
WOODSIDE RD
PARK RD
PARK ST
DANA AVENUE
3RD AVE
11TH AVE
OAKW OOD DR
SHERWOOD WAY
CONCORD DR
HOLLAND ST
MANHATTAN AVE
HEDGE RD
WILLOW ST
FOREST AVENUE
EUCLID AVE
CHARTER ST
STANFORD AVE
SCOTT AVE
WINCHESTER DR
DOUGLAS AVE
GREENOAKS DR
MAGNOLIA DR
LABURNUM RD
HAIGHT ST
SERRANO DR
MENLO OAKS DR
EDGEW OOD DRIVE
SHEARER DR
ROSEWOOD DR
SENECA STREET
ISABELLA AVE
NIMITZ AVE
MAC ARTHUR AVE
BYRON STREET
S PERIMETER RD
FULTON STREET
HALE STREET
HAWTHORNE DR
OAKSIDE AVE
ELENA AVE
ME RRILL ST
HURLINGAME AVE
12TH AVE
POPLAR AVE
NOTTINGHAM AVE
LENNOXAVE
4TH AVE
PINE ST
NORA WY
WAYNECT
NORTHUMBERLANDAVE
6TH AVE
PITMAN AVENUE
FIFE AVENUE
SAN BENITO AVE
DEVONSHIRE AVE
E OAKWOOD BLVD
EDGE RD
14TH AVE
16TH AVE
RALMAR AVE
PALMER LN
E CREEKDR
JENNINGS LN
MAPLE AVE
JERVIS AVE
BLENHEIM AVE
COLBY AVE
ADDISON AVE
BOHANNON DR
ENCINA AVE
DE BELL DR
ROLISON RD
SCOTT DR
ALLEY
PENINSULA WY
WALNUT AVE
PEGGYLN
E BAYSHORE RD
PRIVATE ST
OAK AVE
ASHFIELD RD
MICHAELDR
DEODORA DR
ALMA LN
ROSE AVE
DODGE DR
ALEJANDRA AVE
PARKWOOD DR
MARCUSSEN DR
7TH AVE
CAPITOL AVE
RALSTON RD
NOEL DR
AMADOR AVE
MILLS ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
US HIGHWAY 101
OAKLAND AVE
CRESCENTDRIVE
ROBLEDADR
ARDEN RD
HOLBROOK LN
AMHERST AVE
LOYOLA AVE
W PERIMETER RD
BRITTON AVE
FREDRICK AVE
PATRICIA DR
CAMPBELL AVE
W OAKWOOD BLVD
TOYONRD
STATE HIGHWAY 84
PARK LN
BURNS AVE
VETERANS BLVD
HWY 101
HEATHER DR
E O'KEEFE ST
ADAM WY
TUSCALOOSA AVE
PAULSON
CIR
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY
CITY OF
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Figure 2
Future System with New Facilities
Maximum Day Results
City of Menlo Park
W a ter Ma ster Pla n Supplem ent
Minimum System Pressure
Less tha n 40 psi
≥ 40 psi to < 60 psi
≥ 60 psi to < 80 psi
≥ 80 psi to < 100 psi
≥ 100 psi to < 120 psi
120 psi o r grea ter
Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Less tha n 3 ft/s
3 to 5 ft/s
Grea ter tha n 5 ft/s
Existing Pipeline
N ew 4 MG Ta nk - W illo w Oa ks Pa rk
N ew 8 MGD Pum p Sta tio n (Discha rging to Lo w er
Zo ne)
N ew 7 MGD Pum p Sta tio n (Discha rging to High
Pressure Zo ne)
Existing Pressure Reducing Va lve Statio n
Existing SFPUC Turno ut
W a ter Service Bo unda ry
W EST YOST - N :\Clients\648 City o f Menlo Pa rk\60-22-10 W MP Supplem ent\GIS\MX D\ Ta sk 3 - Hydra ulic Eva lua tio n\ W illo wOa ksResults-Eva lua tio n.m xd - km iller - 9/29/2022 Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Page H-2.19
0 900 1,800
Sca le in Feet
N o tes:
1. Dem a nds reflect the upda ted b a seline dem a nds co nsistent w ith Ta b le 2.
2. Future m a xim um da y dem a nd is equa l to 1.7 m gd fo r the High Pressure Zo ne a nd 2.4 m gd fo r the Lo w er Zo ne.
3. Results are b ased o n the m inim um predicted pressures a nd m a xim um velo cities o b served in a 168 ho ur extended perio d sim ulatio n. Diurna l pa tterns in the hydra ulic m o del fo r the Lo w er a nd High Pressure zo nes w ere upda ted b a sed o n 2018 thro ugh 2021 da ta . Refer to the diurna l pa tterns co nta ined in Atta chm ent A.
84 101
101
101
101
5TH AVE
RUNNYMEDE ST
WHITEHALL LN
NEWELL ROAD
MIDDLEFIELD RD
SPRING ST
GLEN WY
COLEMAN AVE
ALMA ST
GUINDA STREET
8TH AVE
EDISON WY
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
WAREHOUSE RD
MADERA AVE
SEVIER AVE
MENALTO AVE
CATALPA DR
UN VI ERS TI Y AVE
BROADWAY
WEBSTER STREET
WILBURN AVE
SANTA CRUZ AVE
BARRON AVE
REDWOOD AVE
CENTER DR VI E
WILLOW RD
STOCKBRIDGE AVE
GREENWOOD DR
LAUREL ST
LINFIELD DR
LLOYDEN DR
VALPARAISO AVE
SEAPORT BLVD
EL CAMINO REAL
POLHEMUS AVE
OAK GROVE AVE
NEWBRIDGE ST
ROBLE AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
ARLINGTON WY
HAMPSHIRE AVE
CENTER ST
WOODLAND AVE
LINDEN ST
BAY RD
CARLOS AVE
FAIR OAKS LN
SEMICIRCULAR RD
BERKSHIRE AVE
BURGESS DR
1ST AVE
SELBY LN
2ND AVE
HOOVER ST
JAMES AVE
ENCINAL AVE
O'CONNOR ST
DONOHOE ST
STONEP NI ELN
FLORENCE ST
UNIVERSITY DR
ALMENDRAL AVE
LINCOLN AVENUE
HAVEN AVE
SARATOGA AVE
CRANE ST MENLO AVE
PALO VERDE AVE
WILLIAM AVE
LINCOLN ST
RAVENSWOOD AVE
COOLEY AVE
10TH AVE
HAZELWOOD WY
DUMBARTON AVE
17TH AVE
FELTON DR
KAVANAUGH DR
OAK CT
RUTHVEN AVENUE
CHAUCERSTREE
PA
T
LO ALTO AVENUE
9TH AVE
STAMBAUGH ST
PLACITAS AVE
MARSH RD
COLUMBIA AVE
CHILCO ST
RECREATION AVE
W BAYSHORE RD RD
LIVE OAK AVE
AUSTIN AVE
IRVING AVE
PACIFIC AVE
WESTMORELAND AVE
GLENWOOD AVE
BELLEAU AVE
PAGE ST
HANNAWAY
ALBERNI ST
VICTORIA DR
HAMILTON AVENUE
GARDEN ST
SEMINARY DR
REDW OOD WY
FAIR OAKS AVE
LINDENAVE
WATKINS AVE
FLYNN AVE
BERKELEY AVE
BELL ST
WARRINGTON AVE
SAN MATEO AVE
GARWOOD WAY
LORELEI LN
LEAHY ST
WAVERLEYST
15TH AVE
ATHERTON AVE
GLORIA WY
JOHNSON ST
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
18TH AVE
MCCORMICKLN
MARLBOROUGH AVE
FLOODCIR
EMILIE AVE
GLENDALE AVE
WOODSIDE RD
PARK RD
PARK ST
DANA AVENUE
3RD AVE
11TH AVE
OAKW OOD DR
SHERWOOD WAY
CONCORD DR
HOLLAND ST
MANHATTAN AVE
HEDGE RD
WILLOW ST
FOREST AVENUE
EUCLID AVE
CHARTER ST
STANFORD AVE
SCOTT AVE
WINCHESTER DR
DOUGLAS AVE
GREENOAKS DR
MAGNOLIA DR
LABURNUM RD
HAIGHT ST
SERRANO DR
MENLO OAKS DR
EDGEW OOD DRIVE
SHEARER DR
ROSEWOOD DR
SENECA STREET
ISABELLA AVE
NIMITZ AVE
MAC ARTHUR AVE
BYRON STREET
S PERIMETER RD
FULTON STREET
HALE STREET
HAWTHORNE DR
OAKSIDE AVE
ELENA AVE
ME RRILL ST
HURLINGAME AVE
12TH AVE
POPLAR AVE
NOTTINGHAM AVE
LENNOXAVE
4TH AVE
PINE ST
NORA WY
WAYNECT
NORTHUMBERLANDAVE
6TH AVE
PITMAN AVENUE
FIFE AVENUE
SAN BENITO AVE
DEVONSHIRE AVE
E OAKWOOD BLVD
EDGE RD
14TH AVE
16TH AVE
RALMAR AVE
PALMER LN
E CREEKDR
JENNINGS LN
MAPLE AVE
JERVIS AVE
BLENHEIM AVE
COLBY AVE
ADAMS DR
ADDISON AVE
BOHANNON DR
ENCINA AVE
DE BELL DR
ROLISON RD
SCOTT DR
ALLEY
PENINSULA WY
WALNUT AVE
PEGGYLN
E BAYSHORE RD
PRIVATE ST
OAK AVE
ASHFIELD RD
MICHAELDR
DEODORA DR
ALMA LN
ROSE AVE
DODGE DR
ALEJANDRA AVE
PARKWOOD DR
MARCUSSEN DR
7TH AVE
CAPITOL AVE
RALSTON RD
NOEL DR
AMADOR AVE
MILLS ST
SAN ANTONIO ST
US HIGHWAY 101
OAKLAND AVE
CRESCENTDRIVE
ROBLEDADR
ARDEN RD
HOLBROOK LN
AMHERST AVE
LOYOLA AVE
W PERIMETER RD
BRITTON AVE
FREDRICK AVE
PATRICIA DR
CAMPBELL AVE
W OAKWOOD BLVD
TOYONRD
STATE HIGHWAY 84
PARK LN
BURNS AVE
VETERANS BLVD
HWY 101
HEATHER DR
E O'KEEFE ST
ADAM WY
TUSCALOOSA AVE
PAULSON
CIR
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY
CITY OF
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Figure 3
Future System with New Facilities
Changes in Differential Pressure
and Velocity Results
City of Menlo Park
W a ter Ma ster Pla n Supplem ent
Change in Minimum Pressure
> 3 to ≤ 5 psi dro p
> 1 to ≤ 3 psi dro p
N o Cha nge
Change in Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Less tha n 3 ft/s
Grea ter tha n 3 ft/s
Existing Pipeline
N ew 4 MG Ta nk - W illo w Oa ks Pa rk
N ew 8 MGD Pum p Sta tio n (Discha rging to Lo w er
Zo ne)
N ew 7 MGD Pum p Sta tio n (Discha rging to High
Pressure Zo ne)
Existing Pressure Reducing Va lve Statio n
Existing SFPUC Turno ut
W a ter Service Bo unda ry
W EST YOST - N :\Clients\648 City o f Menlo Pa rk\60-22-10 W MP Supplem ent\GIS\MX D\ Ta sk 3 - Hydra ulic Eva lua tio n\ W illo wOa ksResults-Difference.m xd - km iller - 9/29/2022 Change in Maximum Pipeline Velocity
Page H-2.20
City of Menlo Park
Water System Master Plan Supplement
Last Revised: 09-09-2022
-2,500
-1,500
-500
500
1,500
2,500
3,500
4,500
5,500
6,500
7,500
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Flow, gpm (+ Flow: flow from tank; - Flow: flow to tank) Tank Level, Feet
Hour
Figure 4. Facility Operations
Tank Level Lower Zone Tank Flow High Pressure Zone Pump Station Flow Page H-2.21
City of Menlo Park
Water System Master Plan Supplement
Last Revised: 09-09-2022
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Pressure, psi
Hour
Figure 5. Comparison of Pressure at the Lower Zone Pump Station Baseline Conditions With Tank
Page H-2.22
City of Menlo Park
Water System Master Plan Supplement
Last Revised: 09-09-2022
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Pressure, psi
Hour
Figure 6. Comparison of Pressure at the High Pressure Zone Pump Station Baseline Conditions With Tank
Page H-2.23
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
Fire Flow Conditions
To evaluate the future water system for fire flow conditions, InfoWater’s “Available Fire Flow Analysis” tool was used to determine the available flow at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi under maximum day demand conditions in the Lower and High-Pressure Zones. The analysis assumed the Willow Oaks Tank is 75 percent full and the Lower and High-Pressure Zone booster pump stations are operating. Figure 7 summarizes the available fire flow at each tested hydrant location while meeting the minimum residual pressure criterion of 20 psi and fire flow criteria based on sprinklered services. Fire flow requirements for sprinklered services are 50 percent of not sprinklered service requirements. Locations that meet fire flow requirements are shown in green. Locations that do not meet fire flow requirements are shown in red. The majority of the locations meet fire flow requirements. Deficient locations are confined to areas where there are single feeds to an area or where there are small diameter pipelines supplying the area that constrain flow. These areas were also deficient in the WSMP under sprinklered conditions.
To confirm the tank size and that the tank and booster pump station can provide sufficient capacity to meet fire flow requirements across the system, fire flow under emergency conditions was evaluated. In particular, this analysis was performed to confirm that up to 5,550 gpm is supplied from the proposed tank and booster pump station facilities while also maintaining a residual pressure of 20 psi. If this flow rate of cannot be maintained, it would suggest that the capacity of the tank is oversized. Under normal conditions, up to 5,500 gpm was obtained from the booster pump station, depending on the location of the tested fire flow event.
Fire Flow during Emergency Conditions
Under emergency conditions, the fire flow analysis assumed SFPUC is offline and thus notsupplying water to the City through the turnouts. Under these emergency conditions the existing emergency well at the City’s Corporation Yard was assumed to be online supplying the Lower Zone. The following five locations were tested and analyzed under these conditions: east of the Willow Oaks Tank site, west of the Willow Oaks Tank site, just before Highway 101, High-Pressure Zone, and near Willow Village Facebook campus in the Bayfront area.
Findings concluded the tank is adequately sized as the flow discharging from the tank and booster pump station exceed 4,000 gpm (ranging between 4,775 and 5,775 gpm). However, for the tested locations within the High-Pressure Zone or in the Bayfront area, hydraulic restrictions along Willow Road, between the Willow Oaks Tank site and Highway 101 crossing, result in pressures in the Bayfront area to drop below 20 psi, thus not satisfying fire flow requirements. It is worth noting that these results are based on maximum day demand during emergency conditions, and likely not resemble realistic demand conditions during an SFPUC supply outage. Under these outage conditions, conservation measures would be in-place and enforced across the City. As a result, average day conditions were also checked and minimum residual pressures across the Lower and High-Pressure Zone remain above 20 psi and all fire flow requirements are met.
To increase and improve the reliability of the system, it is recommended that a new parallel 16-inch diameter pipeline along Willow Road be considered by the City. Currently, there is a 12-inch pipeline along Willow Road which acts as the main conduit for water distribution between the Lower Zone and the Bayfront area and High-Pressure Zone. In the event of a break on the existing pipeline, supply from the Burgess turnout and the emergency well would be limited to the Lower Zone. Additionally, the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline was identified as a high priority pipeline for replacement (PR-LOW-005, PR-LOW-006). To limit traffic disruption along Willow Road, construction of the new parallel 16-inch diameter pipeline should coincide with the replacement of the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline. Costs associated with the new parallel pipeline is provided in the Cost Evaluation section below and included in the City’s five-year CIP in Attachment C.
Page H-2.24
0 700 1,400
Scale in Feet
Notes:
1. Results based on maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi at customer service connections.
2. Labeled value adjacent to nodes is the associated
Available Fire Flow, reported in gallons per minute (gpm). 84 84
84 101
101
101
101
SPRING ST
ALLEY
LINCOLN AVENUE
FOREST AVENUE
BOYCE AVENUE
NEWELL ROAD
ROLISON RD
SANTA CRUZ AVE
CLARKE AVE
MIDDLEFIELD RD
GLEN WY
COLEMAN AVE
MENALTO AVE
TULANE AVE
BEECH ST
WAREHOUSE RD
CARLTON AVE
MADERA AVE
SEVIER AVE
HOLLYBURNE AVE
WINDERMERE AVE
GUINDA STREET
CATALPA DR
UNIVERSITY AVE
N PERIMETER RD
OAKS ST
REDWOOD AVE
CENTER DRIVE
GILBERT AVE
WILLOW RD
GREENWOOD DR
LAUREL ST
LINFIELD DR
TERMINAL AVE
EL CAMINO REAL
VALPARAISO AVE
RUNNYMEDE ST
MYRTLE ST
FAIR OAKS LN
OAK GROVE AVE
NEWBRIDGE ST
MORGANLN
ROBLE AVE
RINGWOOD AVE
ALMA ST
ARLINGTON WY
LYTTON AVENUE
FORDHAM ST
WALNUT ST
O'BRIEN DR
WEEKS ST
PURDUE AVE
WOODLAND AVE
BAY RD
LIVE OAK AVE HAMILTON AVE
MARKET PL
MARMONA DR
WEBSTER STREET
BURGESS DR
HOOVER ST
JAMES AVE
ENCINAL AVE
EDISON WY
O'CONNOR ST
SOUTHW OOD DRIVE
SANDLEWOOD ST
STONE PINE LN
FLORENCE ST
UNIVERSITY DR
DONOHOE ST
MICHIGAN AVE SARATOGA AVE
WESTMINSTER AVE
CRANE ST
MENLO AVE
BLACKBURNAVE
PALO VERDE AVE
LINCOLN ST
HILL AVE
RAVENSWOOD AVE
8TH AVE
COOLEY AVE
10TH AVE
EMILIE AVE
HAZELW OOD WY
PIERCE RD
JOHNSON ST
DURHAM ST
17TH AVE
FELTON DR
TATE ST
IVY DR
E BAYSHORE RD
W BAYSHORE RD RD
HAMILTON AVENUE
OAK CT
NOTRE DAME AVE
VAN BUREN RD
RUTHVEN AVENUE
CHAUCERSTREET
PALO ALTO AVENUE
PAGE ST
MARSH RD
CHILCO ST
RECREATION AVE
GONZAGA ST
IRVING AVE
FAIR OAKS AVE
INDEPENDENCE DR
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
GLENWOOD AVE
EDGEWOOD DRIVE
FULTON STREET
HANNA
WAY
OAKWOOD PL
DUMBARTON DR
ALBERNI ST
NEWELL RD
VICTORIA DR
GARDEN ST
LEXINGTON DR
MCKENDRY DR
SEMINARY DR
LINDENAVE
LANE PL
WATKINS AVE
MAC BAIN AVE
BERKELEY AVE
BELL ST
URSULA WY
GARWOOD WAY
LORELEI LN
SANTA MONICA AVE
WAVERLEY ST
15TH AVE
GLORIA WY
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
CHRYSLER DR
18TH AVE
GREEN ST
MCCORMICK LN
SANTA MARGARITA AVE
FLOODCIR
EVERETT AVENUE
ILLINOIS ST JEFFERSON DRIVE
MADISONWAY
ALMANOR AVE
DEL NORTE AVE
DANA AVENUE
ARNOLD WAY
11TH AVE
HENDERSON AVE
O'KEEFE ST
OAKWOOD DR
BAINES ST
SHERWOOD WAY
CONCORD DR
HOLLAND ST
MANHATTAN AVE
HEDGE RD
ELM ST
POPE ST
SONOMA AVE
EUCLID AVE
HAVEN AVE
COMMONWEALTH DR
GREENOAKS DR
MAGNOLIA DR
LABURNUM RD
HAIGHT ST
MENLO OAKS DR
CHESTER ST
ROSEWOOD DR
SENECA STREET
NASH AVE
BYRON STREET
GEORGETOWN ST
S PERIMETER RD
MODOC AVE
HALE STREET
HAWTHORNE DR
LAUREL AVE
CENTRAL AVE
MERRILL ST
12TH AVE
POPLAR AVE
LENNOXAVE
CONSTITUTION DR
JEFFERSON DR
PINE ST
WAYNE CT
MARTIN AVENUE
PITMAN AVENUE
FIFE AVENUE
SAN BENITO AVE
ALEJANDRA AVE
EDGE RD
14TH AVE
16TH AVE
RALMAR AVE
PALMER LN
E CREEK DR
JERVIS AVE
COLBY AVE
DOUGLAS WY
ASHBY DRIVE
ADAMS DR
BUCHANAN CT
ADDISON AVE
BOHANNON DR
YARNALL PL
RESIDENT LN
ELLIOTT DR
AVELAR ST
BRADLEY W Y
ENCINO RD
EMMETT WY
MOULTON DR
HAMILTON CT
ROBIN WAY
TEHAMA AVE
VIRGINIA LN
BUCKTHORN WAY
DE BELL DR
BAYLOR ST
ANNAPOLIS ST
SPRUCE AVE
LUPIN LN
MADRONE RD
HUNTERST
SCOTT DR
TRENTON W AY
PENINSULA WY
PEGGY LN
OAK AVE
PATRICIA LANE
DODGE DR
FRONTAGE RD
MICHAEL DR
DEODORA DR
ALMA LN
ROSE AVE
PARKWOOD DR
MARCUSSEN DR
CAPITOL AVE
NOEL DR
MILLS ST
E BAYSHORE RD RD
SAN ANTONIO ST
OAKLAND AVE
US HIGHWAY 101
CRESCENTDRIVE
ARDEN RD
HOLBROOK LN
W PERIMETER RD
SCHEMBRI LN
FREDRICK AVE
CAMPBELL AVE
L G RO CAI RI
TOYON RD
STATE HIGHW AY 84
BURNS AVE
DEMETER ST
HEATHER DR
E O'KEEFE ST
PAULSON CIR
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY
CITY OF
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
1,899
3,191
3,934
3,413
3,673
3,671
2,211 2,812 3,631 2,384
1,858
3,665
1,594
2,649
675 1,766
1,476
2,293
2,869
2,822
3,192 3,469
2,402
3,372
3,619 3,305
2,110
3,833
3,686
Figure 7
Future System with New Facilities
Fire Flow Results under
Sprinklered Criteria
City of Menlo Park
Water Master Plan Supplement
Meets Requirements
Available Fire Flow is less than the Required Fire
Flow
Available Fire Flow meets or exceeds the
Required Fire Flow
Existing Pipeline
New 4 MG Tank - Willow Oaks Park
New 8 MGD Pump Station (Discharging to Lower
Zone)
New 7 MGD Pump Station (Discharging to High
Pressure Zone)
Existing Pressure Reducing Valve Station
Existing SFPUC Turnout
Water Service Boundary
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\648 City of Menlo Park\60-22-10 WMP Supplement\GIS\MXD\ Task 3 - Hydraulic Evaluation\WillowOaksResults-FireFlow.mxd - kmiller - 9/ 9/2022 Page H-2.25
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
Hydraulic Evaluation Findings and Conclusions
The hydraulic evaluation findings indicate that the Lower and High-Pressure Zone pump stations need to operate together to maintain pressure across the zones. When the High-Pressure Zone pump station turns on, the pressures drop locally and require the Lower Zone pump station to supply water and maintain pressure. During tank fill periods, pressures near the tank facility decrease. Therefore, the Lower Zone Booster Pump station is required to support both the Lower Zone and the High-Pressure Zone. If the High-Pressure Zone pump station is not constructed, water in storage could not be used to support the High-Pressure Zone. Therefore, it is recommended that both pump stations and the tank be constructed at the same time.
It is important to note the findings and conclusions presented above are for the Lower Zone tank at Willow Oaks Park site. The City is actively exploring other locations and change in tank site would impact the results discussed in this TM and will need to be further explored. However, a tank site south of Willow Oaks Park would be hydraulically constrained by the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline along Willow Road. Additional pipeline improvements would be required to mitigate the bottleneck, increasing overall construction and capital costs significantly.
The proposed locations for the Willow Oaks Tank and two booster pump stations are in residential areas.
The City has expressed concern for potential noise impacts from the operations of these facilities. While there will be noise generated during operations, placing pumps within an enclosure (i.e., in a concrete masonry unit block building) significantly reduces noise. Additional measures (i.e., sound attenuation panels) can be incorporated to further reduce noise.
As discussed above in the Fire Flow during Emergency Conditions section, it is recommended the City consider installing a new 16-inch diameter parallel pipeline along Willow Road to increase reliability of the system, especially during an emergency condition or a main break. While the fire flow analysis determined only 1,500 linear feet (LF), between Willow Oaks Park and Chester Street, is needed to meet all fire flow requirements during a maximum day emergency condition, complete redundancy would be achieved when a parallel pipe is installed between Middlefield Road and the Highway 101 crossing. Construction of the new parallel 16-inch diameter pipeline should coincide with the replacement of the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline.
The hydraulic evaluation performed for the Project is based on the assumptions listed above. If any of these items are changed or modified in any way, other than as described in this TM, additional hydraulic evaluation may be required.
Capital Cost Estimate
Table 8 summarizes the capital cost estimates developed for the major facilities using the same unit costs presented in the WSMP and escalated to San Francisco July 2022 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 15,640. The total capital cost for the new major facilities ranges from $20.8 million (M) with a new 2 MG storage tank to $25.9 M with a new 3 MG Tank.
As discussed in Appendix F of the WSMP, the construction costs of the tank include installation of the storage tank, site piping, minor earthwork and grading, paving, instrumentation, all related sitework and does not include land acquisition. The storage tank construction costs are representative of construction under normal excavation and foundation conditions for a partially or fully buried reinforced concrete tank (up to about 20 feet in depth below grade). If special conditions exist such as high groundwater levels, salinity levels, or fill above storage reservoir, costs may increase drastically.
Page H-2.26
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
A capital cost estimate for 1,500 LF of new 16-inch diameter parallel pipeline is included in Table 8. Unit cost, assuming open-cut construction were used. Due to the traffic conditions associated with Willow Road, capital cost estimates include additional contingencies to account for these traffic impacts. The length and cost of this new pipeline is associated with the Willow Oaks Park tank site. If the City selects a different tank location the length and cost of this new parallel pipeline will need to be re-evaluated.
As previously mentioned, the City is considering a second well in the Lower Zone. Currently it is planned that this second well will be located to be located at the Lower Zone tank site. To assist with City in its planning efforts, capital costs for a new groundwater well are included in Table 8. Detailed well costs are shown in Attachment B and include downhole, pump and motor, electrical equipment, chemical feed system, site and building, land acquisition and contingencies. Treatment costs, however, are not included and would further increase capital costs.
Table 8. Capital Cost Estimates for New Storage Tank at Willow Road and Booster Pump Stations(a) Facility
Construction Cost(b),
$M
Total Capital
Cost(c), $M
Booster Pump Stations and Tank Costs
New 2 – 3 MG Tank 7.54 – 11.44 9.80 – 14.87
New 8 mgd pump station for Lower Zone 4.42 5.74
New 7 mgd pump station for High-Pressure Zone 4.03 5.24 Total with 2 MG Tank 15.99 20.78
Total with 3 MG Tank 19.89 25.85
Other Costs
1,500 feet of new 16-inch parallel pipe along Willow Road(d) (minimum LF per hydraulic modeling) 2.95 3.84
New Groundwater Well 3.89 5.06
(a) Costs shown are based on the July 2022 San Francisco ENR CCI of 15,640. (b) Costs include mark-ups equal to 30 percent (Base Constructions Costs plus Construction Contingency). (c) Costs include mark-ups equal to 69 percent (Base Construction Costs plus Construction Contingency: 30 percent and; Professional Services: 30 percent of Base Construction Costs plus Contingency). (d) New parallel pipeline tied to the new storage tank project due to capacity restrictions along Willow Road. Length and costs are associated with the Willow Oaks Park tank site and will need to be re-evaluated upon selection of a different tank site.
FIVE-YEAR CIP
As part of the WSMP, a pipeline risk assessment was performed to identify priority pipeline replacements based on likelihood of failure and consequence of failure factors. For the current effort, the City required that pipelines identified as high and medium-high risk in the WSMP be grouped into more discrete project packages ranging approximately between 1,500 to 2,500 linear feet (LF) so that the City can subsequently use as part of its update to the upcoming five-year CIP. During the grouping exercise, pipeline segments were grouped based on vicinity to each other. Pipelines within each of the groupings, however, had varying risk assessments (i.e., high, or medium-high). Therefore, a Risk Profile was established to define what the overall project risk profile (based on the grouped pipelines and their associated risk categories) of grouping. Then, to further prioritize pipelines, a system priority rank was developed. This system priority rank was based on the above-described project grouping risk profile and considered other factors Page H-2.27
TM – City of Menlo Park
December 9, 2022
N-648-60-22-10-WP-Task 5
like pipe age and number of leaks. Finally, water mains the City already intends to replace are also included as part of the system priority rank.
Per City request, the new 16-inch diameter parallel pipeline project is included in the updated five-year CIP and will resolve capacity restrictions along Willow Road. It is important to note this pipeline project originated from the hydraulic evaluation and therefore was not included in the WSMP pipeline risk assessment. The length and cost associated with the new pipeline is associated with the Willow Oaks Park tank site and will need to be re-evaluated upon the selection of a different tank site. Project priority is dependent on the timing of the storage tank construction and installation of the parallel pipe should coincide with the replacement of the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline (PR-Low-005 and PR-Low-006) to minimize traffic impacts along Willow Road.
Shapefiles for all project packages will be provided to the City. Attachment C includes the following:
• A table summarizing the thirty-five project packages from highest priority to lowest priority by pressure zone.
• Figures showing the top ten project packages, based on system priority rank, for the HighPressure and Lower Zone and Upper Zone, respectively. • Figures showing all project packages for the High-Pressure and Lower Zone and Upper Zone, respectively.
With respect to construction costs, areas where pipelines would need to cross under railroad tracks or canals, project costs were refined to include an approximate Jack-and-bore/trenchless length. Construction costs and capital costs were updated accordingly to reflect proposed construction methods. Due to the current supply chain issues, the unit costs were calculated based on a weighted average, by diameter, of the 2021 Water Main Replacement Project for Haven Avenue Fire Flow Improvements Bid Results received from the City on May 11, 2022, rather than escalated from the WSMP contributing to an 88 percent increase in total capital cost. Unit costs are summarized in Table 9. It is worth noting, that costs presented in Table 9 are base construction costs. Additional markups, consistent with the WSMP, would need to be applied to develop capital cost estimate, which account for construction/estimating contingency as well as implementation or professional services. Refer to Appendix F in the WSMP for more details.
Table 9. Updated Pipeline Construction Unit Cost Summary Pipe Diameter, inches Cost, dollar/linear foot
Open-Cut
8 540
10 670
12 780
14 910
16 1,010
18 1,140
Jack-and-Bore
8 (with 16-inch casing) 1,600
12 (with 24-inch casing) 2,160
16 (with 30-inch casing) 2,400
Page H-2.28
WSMP Update
Attachment A
Page H-2.29
Updates to the 2018 Water System Master Plan
1 Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
UPDATES TO WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
The City has recently completed a review of the City’s 2018 Water System Master Plan (WSMP) document with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). Through this review process, DDW provided minor comments to the 2018 WSMP to enhance the document. At the request of the City, West Yost made minor updates to the City’s WSMP which included the following:
• Updated Table 5-1. Summary of Recommended Water System Planning and Design Criteria. This table was updated to indicate the source of the fire flow requirements and updated the minimum residential fire flow requirement to 1,000 gallons per minute, whether buildings are sprinklered or non-sprinklered.
• Updated Table 5-2. Recommended Fire Flow Requirements. Consistent with changes to Table 5- 1, residential fire flow requirements were updated to 1,000 gpm. • Updated Table 6-8. Summary of Peak Factors by Pressure Zone. On this table, footnotes were updated for the High Pressure Zone to clarify that while actual data was used to calculate peaking factors, data for the year considered is questionable. See Supplement Section Below. • Table 3-7. Summary of Peaking Factors by Pressure Zone. The title of this table was updated to Summary of Recommended Peaking Factors by Pressure Zone. • Figure 2-3. Existing System Hydraulic Profile. This figure was updated to indicate the emergency interconnections within each zone. While these interconnections are indicated, hydraulic grade lines were not reported since these are specific to the connecting agencies and data from each of is not available. In addition, a clarifying note was added to the figure to note that the regulating stations serving the Lower Zone reduce pressure from the SFPUC turnouts, and thus their respective settings and elevations set the hydraulic grade of the zone.
WATER MASTER PLAN SUPPLEMENT
Since updated demand and peaking factor data is now available, the City requested that a new demand evaluation be performed to estimate more recent existing demands and confirm peaking factors used to estimate maximum day and peak hour demands. In addition, since storage requirements are based on demands, the City also requested that a storage re-analysis be performed using this updated data so that storage needs could be refined. The City has identified a potential storage site and along with the storage sizing, the City also requested that West Yost hydraulically evaluate the feasibility of this site to serve both the Lower and High Pressure Zones.
In addition, the City also requested that West Yost develop a prioritized list of pipeline replacements projects based on the pipeline risk assessment performed in the 2018 WSMP and a target length of 1,500 to 2,500 linear feet. In addition to further breaking down projects, capital costs were updated to reflect escalation since the completion of the WSMP.
These additional evaluations are documented in a technical memorandum in a new Appendix E, which was appended to this WSMP.
Page H-2.30
Conceptual Capital Cost Estimate
for a New Groundwater Well
Attachment B
Page H-2.31
Attachment B
A detailed breakdown of the conceptual capital costs for a new groundwater well are summarized in Table 1. These costs were developed based on construction costs for municipal wells in the region.
These costs omit costs significantly impacted by marked volatility and COVID supply chain constraints.
Construction costs include allowances for general conditions, contractor overhead and profit, sales tax, and planning-level estimating contingencies. The construction costs are considered budget-level estimates with accuracies of -10 percent to +40 percent in accordance with the recommendations of the Association of Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). Other project costs are included to estimate the value of other project elements including engineering, construction management and program implementation (e.g., administrative, CEQA, legal, etc.).
Costs assume water quality in the new groundwater well meet all Title 22 drinking water standards. If water quality in a new well is found not to meet Title 22 drinking water standards, additional treatment facilities would be required to be permitted as active wells, and the type of treatment would be dependent on the specific constituents that exceed maximum contaminant levels. Costs associated with these treatment facilities vary widely and would be in addition to the costs presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Conceptual Capital Cost Estimate for a New Groundwater Well Cost Element Basis Estimated Cost
Construction Costs
Downhole
Based on recent bid costs, not significantly impacted by market volatility and or supply chain constraints
$816,000
Pump and Motor $150,000
Electrical Equipment $700,000
Chemical Feed System $150,000
Site/Building $700,000
Land Acquisition $15/sq. ft., with an assumed 6,500 sq. ft. lot $97,500 Subtotal $2,613,500
Estimating Contingency 20% of Direct Costs $523,000
Subtotal Direct Construction Cost (with Contingency) $3,136,500 General Conditions 10% of Direct Construction Costs (with Contingency) $314,000 Overhead and Profit 10% of Direct Construction Costs (with Contingency) $314,000 Sales Tax 8% of 1/2 of Direct Construction Costs (with Contingency) $126,000 Total Construction Cost $3,890,500
Other Project Costs(a)
Engineering 10% of Construction Cost $390,000
Construction Management 10% of Construction Cost $390,000 Program Implementation 10% of Construction Cost $390,000 Total Other Project Costs $1,170,000
Total Capital Costs $5,060,500
(a) Other project cost multipliers are consistent with City's 2022 Water Master Plan assumptions.
Page H-2.32
Five-Year CIP
C1: Summary of Updated Project Packages by Zone
C2: Top Ten Project Packages
C3: Pipeline Replacement Projects
Attachment C
Page H-2.33
C1. Summary of Updated Project Packages by Zone
Page H-2.34
Table 1. Summary of Updated Project Packages by Zone(a) Project ID
No. of Pipe
Segments Length, LF
Risk Profile,
% by Risk Level
System
Priority
Rank(b) Location Construction Method
Estimated
Construction Cost(c)
Capital Cost (includes
mark-ups)(d) Notes (per City list)
High Pressure Zone
PR-HP-001 9 2,410 100% High 6 Along Independence Drive and Haven Ave Open-Cut $ 2,100,000 $ 2,730,000 PR-HP-009 4 2,641 100% High 4 Along Commonwealth Drive
Open-Cut plus 300
feet of Jack & Bore $ 3,140,000 $ 4,080,000
PR-HP-005 12 1,638 100% High 5 Along Jefferson Drive Open-Cut $ 1,660,000 $ 2,160,000 Project includes High Pressure Zone item 4 recommended by City staff PR-HP-008 9 1,578 98% High, 2% Medium-High 12 Along Haven Ave Open-Cut $ 1,370,000 $ 1,780,000 PR-HP-003 5 1,861 80% High, 20% Medium-High 19 Along Chrysler Drive and Commonwelath Drive Open-Cut $ 1,790,000 $ 2,320,000 PR-HP-002 2 2,075 100% Medium-High 18 Along Constitution Drive and Independence Drive Open-Cut $ 1,470,000 $ 1,920,000 Project includes High Pressure Zone item1 recommended by City staff PR-HP-007 13 1,763 100% High 8 Along Del Norte Ave, Market Place and Terminal Ave Open-Cut plus 310
feet of Jack & Bore $ 2,380,000 $ 3,100,000 Project includes High Pressure Zone item 2 and 3 recommended by City staff PR-HP-006 11 2,160 100% High 11 Along Chilco Street and Jefferson Drive Open-Cut $ 2,160,000 $ 2,810,000 Project includes High Pressure Zone item 3 and 4 recommended by City staff PR-HP-004 9 1,698 100% High 10 Along Constitution Drive and Independence Drive Open-Cut $ 1,480,000 $ 1,920,000 Project includes High Pressure Zone item 5 recommended by City staff $ 17,550,000 $ 22,820,000
Lower Zone
PR-Low-010 8 2,244 100% High 7 Along Middlefield Road Open-Cut $ 2,100,000 $ 2,730,000 Project includes Low Zone item 1 recommended by City staff PR-Low-009 12 1,376 98% High, 2% Medium-High 22 Along Laurel Streek and Mielke Drive Open-Cut plus 460
feet of Jack & Bore $ 2,210,000 $ 2,870,000
PR-Low-005 10 1,905 84% High, 16% Medium-High 23 Along Durham Street and Willow Road Open-Cut $ 1,860,000 $ 2,420,000 Project includes Low Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Low-002 23 2,090 100% Medium-High 20 Along Chilco Street and Henderson Ave Open-Cut $ 2,150,000 $ 2,790,000 PR-Low-011 9 1,848 11% High, 89% Medium-High 21 Along O'Brien Drive Open-Cut $ 1,880,000 $ 2,440,000 Project includes Low Zone item 3 recommended by City staff PR-Low-001 10 1,913 84% High, 16% Medium-High 27 Along Almanor Ave, Ivy Drive and Market Place Open-Cut $ 1,840,000 $ 2,400,000 PR-Low-004 8 2,085 80% High, 20% Medium-High 24 Along Bay Road and Van Buren Road Open-Cut $ 1,770,000 $ 2,310,000 Project includes Low Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Low-006 13 1,607 67% High, 33% Medium-High 30 Along Coleman Ave, Gilbert Ave and Willow Road Open-Cut $ 1,480,000 $ 1,930,000 Project includes Low Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Low-007 11 1,801 100% Medium-High 34 Along Bay Road Open-Cut $ 1,260,000 $ 1,640,000 PR-Low-008 16 1,957 100% Medium-High 35 Along Vay Road and Del Norte Ave Open-Cut $ 1,470,000 $ 1,910,000 PR-Low-012 3 670 37% High, 63% Medium-High 33 Along Menlo Oaks Drive Jack & Bore $ 1,390,000 $ 1,810,000 PR-Low-003 8 1,450 24% High, 76% Medium-High 29 Along Bay Road Open-Cut plus 350
feet of Jack & Bore $ 2,650,000 $ 3,450,000 Project includes Low Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Low-013(e) 5 1,500 100% Medium-High 36 Along Willow Road Open-Cut $ 2,954,000 $ 3,841,000 $ 25,014,000 $ 32,541,000
Upper Zone
PR-Up-014 5 2,060 100% High 3 Along Monte Rosa Drive and Sand Hill Road Open-Cut $ 2,710,000 $ 3,520,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 1 recommended by City staff PR-Up-012 7 1,854 100% High 2 Along Sand Hill Road Open-Cut $ 2,430,000 $ 3,160,000 PR-Up-007 17 2,102 100% High 1 Along Continental Drive Open-Cut $ 2,130,000 $ 2,770,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 4 recommended by City staff PR-Up-004 13 2,038 100% High 9 Along Monte Rosa Drive Open-Cut $ 2,070,000 $ 2,690,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 1 recommended by City staff PR-Up-006 2 2,075 90% High, 10% Medium-High 13 Along Eastridge Ave and Sharon Park Drive Open-Cut $ 1,460,000 $ 1,900,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Up-009 13 2,139 67% High, 33% Medium-High 16 Along Sharon Park Drive Open-Cut $ 1,740,000 $ 2,270,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Up-010 14 2,112 60% High, 40% Medium-High 15 Along Sand Hill Circle and Sharon Park Drive Open-Cut $ 1,850,000 $ 2,400,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Up-001 7 3,275 49% High, 44% Medium-High 14 Along Sharon Oaks Drive, Sharon Park Drive and Sharon Road Open-Cut $ 2,800,000 $ 3,650,000 PR-Up-005 9 1,886 44% High, 56% Medium-High 17 Along Continental Drive and Monte Rosa Drive Open-Cut $ 1,910,000 $ 2,490,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 1 recommended by City staff PR-Up-013 22 1,765 65% High, 35% Medium-High 28 Along Sand Hill Circle and Sand Hill Road Open-Cut $ 1,750,000 $ 2,270,000 PR-Up-002 7 2,547 100% Medium-High 25 Along Branner Drive and Campbell Lane Open-Cut $ 1,790,000 $ 2,320,000 Project includes Upper Zone item 2 recommended by City staff PR-Up-003 6 2,199 100% Medium-High 26 Along Cranner Drive and Sharon Park Drive Open-Cut $ 1,540,000 $ 2,010,000 PR-Up-008 19 2,214 100% Medium-High 31 Along Lassen Drive and Trinity Drive Open-Cut $ 1,930,000 $ 2,510,000 PR-Up-011 8 1,955 100% Medium-High 32 Along Sand Hill Circle Open-Cut $ 1,700,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 27,810,000 $ 36,170,000
Total 359 70,490 Total All Zones 70,374,000 $ $ 91,531,000 Total High & Medium-High 436 78,644
Total of Projects -
100% High $ 18,340,000 $ 23,840,000
Projects Unprioritized 77 8,153
Total of Projects - Top
10 by System Priority
Rank
$ 22,090,000 $ 28,720,000
(a) Costs shown are based on a weighted average, by diameter, of the 2021 Water Main Replacememnt Project for Haven Anenue Fire Flow Improvements Bid Results received from City on 5/11/2022. (b) Priority rank is based on pipe age and leaks.
(c) Costs include mark-ups equal to 30 percent (Base Construction Costs plus Construction Contingency) (d) Costs include mark-ups equal to 69 percent (Base Construction Costs plus Construction Contingency: 30 percent and' Professional Services: 30 percent of Base Construction Costs plus Contingency).
High Pressure Zone Subtotal
Lower Zone Subtotal
Upper Zone Subtotal
(e) New 16-inch diameter parallel pipeline project tied to the Lower Zone storage tank project to resolve capacity restrictions along Willow Road. Project priority will be dependent on timing of tank construction. Length and costs are assoicated with the Willow Oaks Park tank site and will need to be re-evaluated upon selection of a different tank site. Construction costs increased by 50% due to increased traffic control required on Willow Road. n-c-648-60-22-10-engr-task 4- CIPSummary.xlsx
City of Menlo Park
WSMP Supplement
Page Last Revised: 11-11-2022 H-2.35
C2. Top Ten Project Packages
Page H-2.36
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\648 City of Menlo Park\60-22-10 WMP Supplement\GIS\MXD\ Task 4 - CIP\CIP_High_LowerZone_Top10.mxd - kmiller - 4/28/2022 Figure 1
Top 10 Pipeline
Replacement Projects
High and Lower Zone
City of Menlo Park
Water Master Plan Supplement
Pipes shown in orage are omitted from the CIP but will be completed as part of main replacements conducted in the future with lower priority rehab and replacement projects.
PR - HP-007
PR-Low-010
PR-HP-001
PR-HP-005
PR-HP-004
PR-HP-009
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY
CITY OF
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Sand Hill Reservoirs
Sharon Heights Pump Station
Pressure Reducing Valve Station
SFPUC Turnout
Priority 1
Priority 10
Other CIP Project
Medium-High/High Risk - Not Prioritized
Existing Pipeline - Not Medium-High/High
Risk 0 1,500 3,000
Scale in Feet Page H-2.37
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\648 City of Menlo Park\60-22-10 WMP Supplement\GIS\MXD\ Task 4 - CIP\CIP_UpperZone_Top10.mxd - kmiller - 4/28/2022 Figure 2
Top 10 Pipeline
Replacement Projects
Upper Zone
City of Menlo Park
Water Master Plan Supplement
PR-Up-012
PR-Up-004
P R-Up-014
P R-Up-007
TOWN OF
WOODSIDE
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Sand Hill Reservoirs
Sharon Heights Pump Station
Pressure Reducing Valve Station
SFPUC Turnout
Priority 1
Priority 10
Other CIP Project
Medium-High/High Risk - Not Prioritized
Existing Pipeline - Not Medium-High/High
Risk
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
Pipes shown in orage are omitted from the CIP but will be completed as part of main replacements conducted in the future with lower priority rehab and replacement projects.
Page H-2.38
C3. Pipeline Replacement Projects
Page H-2.39
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\648 City of Menlo Park\60-22-10 WMP Supplement\GIS\MXD\ Task 4 - CIP\CIP_High_LowerZone.mxd - kmiller - 11/11/2022 Figure 1
Pipeline Replacement Projects
High and Lower Zone
City of Menlo Park
Water Master Plan Supplement
Pipes shown in orage are omitted from the CIP but will be completed as part of main replacements conducted in the future with lower priority rehab and replacement projects.
PR-Low-013
PR- HP-001
PR-H P - 0 08
PR-H P-0 0 7
PR
H- P-006
PR-HP-003
PR-HP-005
PR-HP-004
PR-HP-009
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY
CITY OF
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
PR-Low-011
PR-Low-0 05
PR-Low-006
PR-L ow- 009
PR-Low-00 2
PR-Low-008
PR-Low-010
PR-Low-007
PR-Low-00 3
PR-Low-004
PR-Low-012
Sand Hill Reservoirs
Sharon Heights Pump Station
Pressure Reducing Valve Station
SFPUC Turnout
pipe_parallel_16
Upper Zone - CIP Pipeline Projects
Lower Zone - CIP Pipeline Projects
High Pressure Zone - CIP Pipeline Projects
Medium-High/High Risk - Not Prioritized
Existing Pipeline - Not Medium-High/High
Risk 0 1,500 3,000
Scale in Feet Page H-2.40
WEST YOST - N:\Clients\648 City of Menlo Park\60-22-10 WMP Supplement\GIS\MXD\ Task 4 - CIP\CIP_UpperZone.mxd - kmiller - 4/28/2022 Figure 2
Pipeline Replacement Projects
Upper Zone
City of Menlo Park
Water Master Plan Supplement
PR-Up-001
PR-Up-012
PR-Up-004
PR- Up-003
PR-Up-005
PR-Up-006
PR-Up-002
PR-Up 0- 08
P
R -Up-010
P R-Up-014
PR-Up-013
PR-Up-011
P R-Up-007
PR-Up-009
TOWN OF
WOODSIDE
TOWN OF
ATHERTON
CITY OF
PALO ALTO
Sand Hill Reservoirs
Sharon Heights Pump Station
Pressure Reducing Valve Station
SFPUC Turnout
Upper Zone - CIP Pipeline Projects
Lower Zone - CIP Pipeline Projects
High Pressure Zone - CIP Pipeline Projects
Medium-High/High Risk - Not Prioritized
Existing Pipeline - Not Medium-High/High
Risk 0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
Pipes shown in orage are omitted from the CIP but will be completed as part of main replacements conducted in the future with lower priority rehab and replacement projects.
Page H-2.41
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
MPFD Fire Station No. 1
Willow Oaks School Field
Alma Site
C'
SRI
B-1
B-2
B-3A
B-3B
B-4
March 2023 Figure 1
Exploratory Boring
Locations, Menlo
Park Emergency Wells Path: T:\Projects\Menlo Park Emergency Wells 78503\GIS\Maps\Figures\Exploratory Borings\Figure 1 - Boring Location Map.mxd (
N
0 375 750
Scale in Feet
ATTACHMENT D
Page H-2.42
!.
B-1
Path: T:\Projects\Menlo Park Emergency Wells 78503\GIS\Maps\Figures\Exploratory Borings\Figure 2 - Boring B-1 Alma Street.mxd Legend !. Proposed Boring Locations Sanitary Sewer Storm Drain Water Main Water Lateral Site Boundary Menlo Park City Limits (N
05 25 0
Scale in Feet
Alma Street East Creek Drive
March 2023 Figure 2
Exploratory Boring
Location, Alma Street
Menlo Park
Boring X (feet) Y (feet)
B-1 6076597.11 1989910.69
Page H-2.43
!.
B-2
Path: T:\Projects\Menlo Park Emergency Wells 78503\GIS\Maps\Figures\Exploratory Borings\Figure 3 - Boring B-2 Willow Oaks Park_r2.mxd Legend
!. Proposed Boring Locations
FenceGateSanitary SewerStorm DrainWater MainWater LateralSite BoundaryMenlo Park City Limits (
N
05 25 0
Scale in Feet
Willow Road
Willow Oaks Park
March 2023 Figure 3
Exploratory Boring
Location, Willow Oaks
School Field
Menlo Park
Boring X (feet) Y (feet)
B-2 6080235.30 1994694.56
Page H-2.44
!.
!.
B-3A
B-3B
Path: T:\Projects\Menlo Park Emergency Wells 78503\GIS\Maps\Figures\Exploratory Borings\Figure 4 - Boring B-3 SRI_r2.mxdLegend !. Proposed Boring Locations
Sanitary SewerStorm DrainWater MainWater LateralSite BoundaryMenlo Park City Limits (
N
05 25 0
Scale in Feet
Middlefield Road
Willow Oaks Park
Ravenswood Road
March 2023 Figure 4
Exploratory Boring
Location, SRI
Menlo Park
Boring X (feet) Y (feet)
B-3A 6075671.42 1994158.46
B-3B 6075655.89 1994104.74
Page H-2.45
!.
B-4
Path: T:\Projects\Menlo Park Emergency Wells 78503\GIS\Maps\Figures\Exploratory Borings\Figure 5 - Boring B-4 MPFD Fire Station 1_r2.mxd Legend
!. Proposed Boring Locations
Sanitary SewerStorm DrainWater MainWater LateralSite BoundaryMenlo Park City Limits (N
05 25 0
Scale in Feet
Middlefield Road Santa Monica Avenue
March 2023 Figure 5
Exploratory Boring
Location,MPFD Fire
Station No. 1 Menlo Park
Boring X (feet) Y (feet)
B-4 6077908.41 1993258.25
Page H-2.46
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 22-078-CC
Informational Item: Annual City Council priority and goal setting workshop update
Recommendation
This is an informational item and does not require City Council action.
Policy Issues
The City Council holds an annual priority and goal setting workshop to provide direction to the city manager on aligning resources and work plans for the next year.
Background
The City Council held its annual workshop March 18, 2023 (Attachment A) with a professional facilitator and City staff. The City Council received information on major projects and initiatives underway that will continue through the next fiscal year, an analysis of community input on City Council priorities, live public comment, an overview of norms for governing, and the context for priority setting. The workshop presentation is available in Attachment B and an article discussed during the workshop from the Institute for Local Government, “Attributes of Exceptional Councils,” is available in Attachment C. The City Council engaged in robust discussion of priority issues and a voting exercise to set top priorities for fiscal year 2023-24.
Analysis
This staff report provides a high level overview of top priorities.
Through a voting exercise, the City Council set the following priorities:
• Housing – (4) four votes
• Emergency preparedness – (3) three votes
• Climate action – (3) three votes
• Activating downtown, with the added focus on economic development, small businesses – three (3) votes
• Safe streets – three (3) votes
• Advancing equity – two (2) votes
• Community engagement – two (2) votes
• Organizational effectiveness – zero (0) votes
City Council indicated that advancing equity and community engagement would be expected aspects of work undertaken citywide.
AGENDA ITEM H-3 Page H-3.1
Staff Report #: 23-078-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Next steps
The City Council’s priorities will guide the fiscal year 2023-24 budget development. A series of next steps include, but are not limited to:
• The professional facilitator will produce a workshop final report that will be brought to City Council in coming weeks.
• Staff will review the approximately 12 emails related to priorities received before the workshop to the [email protected] email address.
• Staff will continue to build out the dedicated webpage (Attachment D). • Staff will build a fiscal year 2023-24 work plan based on top priorities. • The City Council may decide to hold study sessions on top priorities over the course of the calendar year.
Impact on City Resources
There is no impact on City resources.
Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. Hyperlink – March 18, 2023, City Council staff report: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendasand-minutes/city-council/2023-meetings/agendas/20230318-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=3 B. City Council priority and goal setting workshop presentation C. “Attributes of Exceptional Councils,” Institute for Local Government D. Hyperlink – Public engagement website: menlopark.gov/priorities Report prepared by:
Stephen Stolte, Assistant City Manager
Page H-3.2
City Hall Council Chambers
March 18, 2023 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Steve Mermell | Facilitator
City of Menlo Park
City Council Workshop
ATTACHMENT B
Welcome from Mayor Wolosin
2 Councilmember
Maria Doerr
Councilmember
Betsy Nash
Vice Mayor
Cecilia Taylor
Councilmember
Drew Combs
Mayor
Jen Wolosin
3 Public
Comment
Page H-3.5
4 Opening
Comments
from the City
Manager
Consensus direction from Council on
priorities is needed
Build a foundation for Strategic
Planning
Page H-3.6
Today’s
Objectives
Understand major projects and initiatives
underway that will continue through the end
of FY 2023-24
Review community input on Council priorities
Establish Council priorities through the end of
FY 2023-24
Strengthen teamwork
5 Page H-3.7
Agenda
6 Discuss governance and norms
Discuss the context for priority setting
Discuss major projects and initatives underway
Establish Council’s priorities through FY2023-24
Review follow-up steps from staff
Wrap up
Page H-3.8
Listen to
understand
each other’s
point of view
Seek
consensus
Assume good
intent
Speak up if we
need course
correction
Stay focused
7 Workshop
Ground Rules
Page H-3.9
Time
management tool
Bike Rack Bike Rack
Items to discuss at a
later time
8 Page H-3.10
The What
Goals Teamwork
The How
Being in Alignment with These
9 Serving the
Community
Requires
Page H-3.11
Institute for Local Government
All Four of These Are Needed
Unity of
Purpose
Clear Roles and
Responsibilities
Positive
Governance
Culture
Norms,
Protocols, and
Policies
10 Effective
Councils
Page H-3.12
Exceptional City Councils
1. Have a sense of team; a partnership with the
city manager to govern and manage the city
2. Have clear roles and responsibilities that are
understood and adhered
3. Honor the relationship with staff and each
other
4. Routinely conduct effective meetings
5. Hold themselves and the city accountable
6. Have members who practice continuous
improvement
Institute for Local Government
11 Page H-3.13
Council
Discussion
About Norms
Norms are agreed
upon standards of
behavior and
practices
Many Councils have a
set of adopted norms
for governance
12 Page H-3.14
Typical Council Norms
For Effective Governance
1) Maintain a citywide perspective, while
being mindful of our districts.
2) Move from I to we, and from campaigning
to governing.
3) Work together as a body, modeling
teamwork and civility for our community.
4) Assume good intent.
5) Disagree agreeably and professionally.
6) Utilize long range plans to provide big
picture context that is realistic and
achievable.
7) Stay focused on the topic at hand.
Ensure each member of Council has an
opportunity to speak.
8) Demonstrate respect, consideration
and courtesy to all.
9) Share information and avoid surprises.
10) Keep confidential things confidential.
11) Respect the council/manager form of
government and the roles of each
party.
12) Communicate concerns about staff to
the City Manager; do not criticize staff
in public..
13 Page H-3.15
Consensus
on Norms
Do you
concur with
these typical
norms?
What
would
you
change?
14 Page H-3.16
Councilmembers’
Comments
About Setting
Priorities
15 Desire to be more
strategic
Consider a two-year
budget process
Keep focused on
what we've already
started
Keep a
citywide
focus
Ensure we are
inclusive of all
segments of the
community
Page H-3.17
Priority
Setting
16 We can’t
do
everything
But we can do
some things very
well if we are
focused
Successful City Governments
• Respect the ongoing work of City departments as the
day-to-day operations must be well managed; that takes
time
• Have a collaborative, trusting relationship between the City Council and staff
• Set a few priorities, with a staff work plan to achieve them
Page H-3.18
17 Don’t fill up the bucket
with so many small
rocks that there isn’t
room for the big ones
Put the big
rocks in first
Then add the small
ones where there is
room
“Big Rocks”
Page H-3.19
Today’s Process:
Council
Discussion and
Consensus on
Top Priorities
18 Review accomplishments and
context for setting priorities
Discuss items of interest to
Council
Understand what is already
planned
Use dot voting to determine top
priorities
Staff will incorporate into budget
and work plans
Page H-3.20
Some Key
Accomplishments
Cited by
Councilmembers
19 • New executive leadership
• Completing the redistricting process
• Greater participation and diversity on City
commissions
• Development of the Climate Action Plan
• Covid-19 response
• Approval of the Housing Element
• Approval of Willow Village development
project
• Beginning to address historical inequities
within the City
Page H-3.21
Financial
Outlook
20 General Fund revenues have
started to recover from
pandemic impacts
Economic uncertainty
• Bank collapses, significant layoffs in
tech sector
Development of updated fiveyearGeneral Fund financial
forecast
• To better inform decision-making
Page H-3.22
How
Management
Staff Allocate
Their Time
21 85%
5%
5%
5%
Management’s Time
Day-to-day management of
municipal services
Unforseen challenges
New initiatives
Strategic improvements
and training
Page H-3.23
Key Challenges
Forging a vision for the
City and setting
priorities
Planning for
emergencies Housing
Addressing impacts of
racial inequality
Staff vacancies and
capacity
Managing the pace of
development
Creating a vibrant
downtown Climate change
Improving
communication and
engagement
22 Page H-3.24
Former
Council
Priorities
Adopted April 2021
23 Redistricting
Reimagining Public Safety
Conversion of buildings to all-electric (CAP #1)
Housing Element and Zoning Code updates
ConnectMenlo update
Menlo Park Community Campus building
Reimagining downtown
Caltrain rail corridor quiet zone analysis
Middle Avenue rail crossing and complete streets
Page H-3.25
Former
Council
Work Plan
Adopted April 2021
24 Racial equity – NLC REAL program and baseline project Set citywide goal for increasing electric vehicles (EVs) and decreasing gasoline sales (CAP #2)
Expand EV charging access for multifamily and commercial properties (CAP #3)
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by 25% or an amount recommended by the Complete Streets Commission (CAP #4)
Transportation management association formation (CAP #4a) Eliminate the use of fossil fuels from municipal operations (CAP #5) Develop a climate adaptation plan (CAP #6)
Implement Menlo Park SAFER bay (CAP #6a)
Public health advocacy (Covid-19, mental health)
Caltrain grade separation
Willow Road traffic calming
Coleman and Ringwood avenues transportation study
Page H-3.26
Examples of
Significant
Council
Directed Projects
or Items
Requiring
Allocation of
Staff Time
25 Implement new technology to improve operations and customer service
Evaluate and improve public engagement strategies and emergency preparedness communications
Maintain a productive workforce and continue to fill key vacancies and retain talent; complete negotiations with labor groups Advance Climate Action Plan goals: Reach Code 2.0, public education, fossil fuel use elimination at City facilities Implement Housing Element including Environmental Justice and Safety Elements
Advance transportation projects that enhance safety and quality of life
Coordinate development projects
Page H-3.27
Priorities Mentioned by Councilmembers
26 Emergency
preparedness Climate action Activating downtown Safe streets Housing Advancing
equity
Organizational
effectiveness
Community
engagement
Page H-3.28
27 Community
Input on
Priorities
Page H-3.29
Community Input on Priorities
28 Main themes of 392 online submissions:
Quiet zone for train noise (41%)
Expand pickleball opportunities (25%)
Preserve/improve tennis opportunities (17%)
Safe streets for bicycles and traffic (14%)
Sustainability, mainly electrification and climate action (10%) Other themes: Emergency preparedness/response, recreation opportunities/improvements and park preservation, housing, downtown vibrancy
Page H-3.30
Discussion of Priority Issues
29 Emergency preparedness
• The changing nature of threats
• Response plans
• Communication to residents and
businesses
Climate action
• Advancing plans for climate adaptation
• Reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
• Reducing/eliminating use of fossil fuels
• Electrifying buildings and vehicles
Activating Downtown
• Creating vibrancy
• Attracting diners and shoppers
• Developing downtown parking lots
Safe Streets
• Multimodal: walking, biking, cars
• Traffic enforcement
Page H-3.31
Discussion of Priority Issues (continued)
30 Housing
• Creating workforce housing
• Meeting state requirements (RHNA)
• Managing the pace of development
Advancing Equity
• Through the priority of City expenditures
• Addressing the geographic determinants
of health
• Addressing impacts of red-lining
Organizational Effectiveness
• Strategic planning
• Better use of advisory bodies
• Review of policies and processes
• Enhancing the City's website to offer
more online services
Community Engagement
• Improving communication with those not
"plugged-in" to city hall, e.g., seniors,
low-income residents, community-based
organizations
• Hosting events that build community
Page H-3.32
Dot Voting
Priorities to be set
through FY 2023-24
31 Dot voting exercise
for priorities
• Place your dot next to
your four top priorities
Page H-3.33
Commitments
from Staff
32 Align programs, projects and activities
to advance Council priorities consistent
with budget, staffing, and workloads
Build Council direction into the
budget
Page H-3.34
Staying on
Track with
Priorities
33 Regular
progress
reporting
Hold off on new
Council initiatives
until next priority
setting
Page H-3.35
Best Practice
Criteria for
Adding
Initiatives and
Projects
Mid Cycle
34 Emergency (natural
disaster, pandemic,
civil unrest)
New outside
funding opportunity
that is time
sensitive
New multi-agency
opportunity that
cannot be delayed
Community safety
issue that must be
addressed in near
term
Changes in laws or
Otherwise wait until mandates
next priority-setting
process
What comes off
the plate if
something goes
on?
What are the
consequences of
shifting direction
mid way?
Page H-3.36
35 Workshop
report
City
Manager’s
next steps
Next
Steps
Page H-3.37
Closing
Comments
36 Please share a comment about what was
useful about today’s discussions.
Page H-3.38
Steve Mermell | [email protected]
Thank you!
1 Leading public organizations and governing with colleagues on a council is a challenging art of community service. The Institute recognizes that many aspects of leadership and governance are not intuitive. This piece is intended to provide councilmembers and city managers insight into the attributes of exceptional councils as well as provide practical tips to help them become exceptional.
1. Exceptional councils develop a sense
of team – a partnership with the city
manager to govern and manage the city
The mayor, councilmembers and city manager see
themselves and work as a team as they undertake a
series of tasks to further their common purpose. The
individual team members work in a coordinated and
collaborative manner with a high degree of respect, trust and openness. The team values diversity in style and
perspective. The team thinks and acts strategically as it examines issues/situations and decides on a course of
action serving their city’s mission and goals.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Successfully transition from candidate
to a member of the council.
Become a champion of the city. Make
decisions based on the needs and
interests of the community at-large / the
greater good.
Develop, communicate and support
policy goals and council decisions.
Demonstrate a willingness to work
collaboratively (as a team) and have a
citywide perspective.
BEST PRACTICE TIPS
Build capacity to create a more effective team. The governance team (mayor, councilmembers and city manager) should get to know each other; how each person approaches issues, decision making style and so on. This can be accomplished at annual meetings or workshops through-out the year.
In the event that councilmembers disagree, clear ground rules (norms of behavior and practice) can help quell acrimony before it becomes a problem. It’s important to remember that trust is built around understanding and respect, not necessarily agreement.
Attributes of Exceptional Councils
ATTACHMENT C Page H-3.40
Attributes of Exceptional Councils
2 2. Exceptional councils have clear
roles and responsibilities that are
understood and adhered.
Exceptional councils understand their role is to serve as policy maker - to represent the values, beliefs and priorities of their community while serving in the community’s best interest. They carry out a variety of responsibilities including:
developing and adopting a vision for the city; focusing and aligning plans, policies, agreements and budgets in furtherance of this vision; and holding themselves and
the city manager accountable for results.
Exceptional councils understand that the city manager
is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city.
The city manager is responsible for undertaking and
accomplishing the policy objectives of the council.
Exceptional councils recognize the subject matter expertise of staff and utilize their knowledge and experience to
guide and inform decision making.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Understand the role of local
government and their responsibilities.
Know their role- to set vision and policy,
avoid micromanagement.
Councilmembers should strive to be
informed about the issues facing the
city and be prepared to ask questions of
staff and each other.
BEST PRACTICE TIPS
Create a shared understanding of the city manager’s role and the council’s expectations to optimize the working relationships. This shared understanding is informed by local charter and ordinance provisions that provide the overall framework for the relationship. The council should make time to have conversations during retreats and or study sessions to define and/or reveal and refine their role and responsibilities. Since role clarity between the city council and city management is critical to mutual success, having clear protocols helps avoid misunderstandings.
Page H-3.41
Attributes of Exceptional Councils
3 3. Exceptional councils honor the
relationship with staff and each other
Exceptional councils understand that a good working
relationship with staff is vital for the city to be run successfully. Exceptional councils treat each other and staff with dignity and respect. They act with civility and a high level of professional decorum. Councilmembers
build trust by not playing the “gotcha game” and strive to have a no secrets, no surprises approach as an operating norm. Finally, they respect the diversity of styles and perspectives among their colleagues and staff and are
open to new ideas.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Councilmembers have the ability to
respectfully disagree (to disagree
without being disagreeable).
They are able to leave it at the dais;
debates are about policy, not
personality.
Exceptional councilmembers reflect
positive decorum/model of leadership
by providing respectful tone with
colleagues.
Establish a set of behaviors ahead of
time, potentially documented in a code
of conduct, to help promote civility and
respect.
BEST PRACTICE TIPS
Set council priorities and strategic goals at an annual meeting; these goals and priorities are a tool to guide the city manager and staff on where to focus their efforts. This annual meeting provides time for the council to reflect on community priorities as well as offer an opportunity to discuss their decorum and their relationship among each other and the relationship between the city manager/staff and the council.
4. Exceptional councils routinely conduct
effective meetings
Open and public meetings are central to democratic
decision-making. Exceptional councils master the art
of effective meetings. They develop and adhere to meeting protocols and processes. They spend time planning and
organizing the agenda with the aim of having a more
focused meeting. They allocate the council’s time and
energy appropriately (focused on the council’s role and responsibilities) and meeting short- and long-term priorities.
They honor the public’s participation and engagement
and they generally start on time and are held during
reasonable hours.
Exceptional councils use public meetings not only for their intended purpose, information sharing and decision-making,
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Councilmembers are respectful of each
other, the public and everyone’s time.
Councilmembers use engaging body
language as a way to demonstrate
respect.
Issues are not personalized, thoughtful
dialogue is the objective.
Agenda packets are read,
councilmembers come prepared and
have an open mind
Respect is demonstrated for varied
opinions.
Everyone strives to be civil and act with
decorum.
Page H-3.42
Attributes of Exceptional Councils
4 but they also use the meeting to demonstrate respect and civility for each other, staff and the public. Exceptional councilmembers prepare in advance of the meeting, remain focused on the city goals and objectives and mindful of their role and responsibilities.
BEST PRACTICE TIPS
Develop and adopt (with regular reviews and updates), guidelines for conducting meetings and making decisions. These governance protocols typically address meeting procedures (agenda preparation, how to put issues on the agenda, debate and voting procedures (parliamentary rules) and standards of decorum (civility)). As part of a regular self-assessment, councils should evaluate their meetings and their effectiveness and adjust behavior and practices for better results.
5. Exceptional councils hold themselves
and the city accountable
Exceptional councils operate openly, ethically and work to engage the community in a myriad of decisions impacting the prosperity and well-being of their community. Toward that end, exceptional councils consistently provide shortand long-term strategic direction and goals, as well as provide budget, program and policy oversight.
Exceptional councils hold themselves accountable for the conduct, behavior and effectiveness of the council. They establish clear priorities and goals and hold the city
manager accountable for results. And finally, they embrace accountability as a process and tool to calibrate ongoing efforts to address and meet policy and program objectives.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Councilmembers operate ethically and
with integrity.
Councils conduct team building / goal
setting exercise to track progress
towards mutually agreed upon goals
Councils taking responsibility for the
results (good and bad).
Councils celebrate success.
Councilmembers hold themselves
responsible for adhering to operating
protocols and codes of conduct.
BEST PRACTICE TIPS
Annually evaluate council and city manager performance toward achieving the city’s priorities and goals (consider having this be part of an annual goal setting meeting). Council should consider assessing its own behavior and effectiveness as part of its annual self-assessment.
Page H-3.43
Attributes of Exceptional Councils
5 6. Exceptional councils have members
who practice continuous personal
learning and development
Governance is not intuitive. In addition, the policy and economic environment impacting cities are ever changing.
Exceptional councils continually provide the opportunity to build their knowledge and skills, to enhance their
understanding of key issues, increase their awareness
of best practices and sharpen their leadership and
governance skills.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Stay informed on key issues
Gain key insights and knowledge on all
aspects of governing, from budgets to
plans and everything in between.
Learning to listen is sometimes more
important than learning to give a
speech.
BEST PRACTICE TIPS
Seek out national, state and local professional growth and educational opportunities. These opportunities can focus on the nuts and bolts of governing to helping you gain valuable information and/or insights on key policy issues facing your city. In addition, city run orientations for newly elected officials provide a good way to acclimate new members to the council’s norms and protocols as well as the budget and key policy issues.
Page H-3.44
Police
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-079-CC
Informational Item: Re-Imagining Public Safety Ad Hoc Subcommittee update
Recommendation
The purpose of this informational item is to provide an update to the public and to the City Council on the work being done in the Ad Hoc Re-Imagining Public Safety Subcommittee (Subcommittee.) Policy Issues
In accordance with the City Council procedures manual, the city manager and the Mayor set the agenda for City Council meetings. The Subcommittee consists of Mayor Wolosin and Vice Mayor Taylor, who wanted to update the City Council and public.
Analysis
The Subcommittee was formed in August 2021 to facilitate communication and understanding between the police department and the community and explore contemporary policing practices that meet the interests and needs of the community for the feeling of safety and satisfaction with professional provision of public safety services in this City. The Subcommittee has met about 34 times to date.
During the late spring of 2022, the City held “safe space focus groups” in each of the City’s five represented Districts facilitated by an academic, and without police presence. A wrap-up Town Hall meeting with the police department was also held to review the depersonalized and anonymous feedback generated from the “safe space” meetings. A summary of the meetings was included in the June 28, 2022 City Council agenda (Attachment B).
Since the Town Hall, the Subcommittee has received reports of initiatives, changes, and future programs implemented and planned by the police department in light of the feedback from the “safe space” meetings.
The members of the committee – the city manager, the police chief, and the two involved City Councilmembers – engaged in an iterative process to explore the future direction and priorities of the department as it continues to evolve in light of progressive policing priorities.
Attachment A provides an informational report which summarizes the progress to date from these meetings, and a picture at the future objectives of the Subcommittee and the police department.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM H-4 Page H-4.1
Staff Report #: 23-079-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Attachments
A. Memorandum – informational report – Subcommittee update Hyperlink – June 28, 2022, City Council Staff Report: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendasand-minutes/city-council/2022-meetings/agendas/20220628-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=329 Report prepared by:
Dave Norris, Police Chief
Reviewed by:
Justin Murphy, City Manager
Page H-4.2
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Police
MEMORANDUM
Date: 02/28/23
To: City Council via City Manager Murphy
From: Re-imagining Public Safety Ad Hoc Subcommittee (by Chief Norris) Re: Informational Report - Re-imagining Public Safety Subcommittee Update Honored City Council –
Structural discrimination and bias are an ongoing challenge for the city and its institutions. Menlo Park is reckoning with ways to create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all community members.
The Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Re-imagine Public Safety was formed in August 2021 to facilitate communication and understanding between the police department and the community and explore contemporary policing practices that meet the interests and needs of the community, for the feeling of safety and satisfaction with professional provision of public safety services in this City. The Subcommittee has met about 34 times over the 18 months since its inception.
From March through May 2022, this Subcommittee supported a series of listening sessions, five sessions held in each of the City’s five represented districts, to gain understanding directly from our public concerning the community’s questions, concerns, priorities, and interests in policing within this community. To address some early concerns that the public might be apprehensive to provide this feedback due to fear of retaliation or concern of dismissal of the feedback by police, the subcommittee employed Dr. Terri Givens, a local academic, to facilitate these meetings. Police Chief Dave Norris committed to removing police presence entirely in these information gathering sessions. Dr. Givens and her team collected and de-personalized the feedback from these sessions, and referred the substance of the feedback to the Police Department.
On June 1, 2022, the Police Department participated in a public Town Hall presentation (Attachment A) to the community, acknowledging receipt of the feedback received, accepting some further community questions, and presented a comprehensive summary of these items along with a strategic process to address these questions and concerns, provide further community transparency, engage in a continuing plan to listen to the community, and identify progressive strategies and objectives for further evolution of policing and public safety in Menlo Park.
The full summary of the information sessions and Town Hall is available in the Reimagining Public Safety Subcommittee Update presented as an informational item to City Council on June 28, 2022 (Attachment B).
In the months that followed, the Police Chief and City Manager worked closely with the Council Members on the Subcommittee to identify a roadmap for the future action by the Police Department and Community to continue to take in feedback and information from the community through interactive strategies, identify further information sources and available resources and partners to facilitate further evolution, deploy these strategies, and employ smart measures to constantly evaluate progress, take in feedback, and make adjustments as needed for success.
The following is a summary of the general workplan moving forward to address the work done in this ad hoc Subcommittee in an enduring fashion.
Page H-4.3 ATTACHMENT A
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov 2 Video Presentations:
The Police Department has planned a number of public transparency sessions to share with our community how our department is composed, how we operate, our hiring, training and policy, and what the future holds for policing. We originally proposed to do several conventional, longer presentations. However, recent good feedback suggests we may break this up in to some much smaller, bite-sized video shorts to make this information more accessible and easier to digest. We are currently using a similar format (Attachment C) to highlight department activities and people, and address some of the questions brought forth in last June’s Town Hall.
Our department intends to begin rolling out informative transparency videos by summer of 2023. Here are some of the planned topic areas:
• Organizational Structure and Department Operating Units • Operational Strategies – how we do what we do
• Community Connectedness – Public Events, Neighborhood Watch, Youth Initiatives, Social Media • Police Officer Timeline – what it takes from recruitment to solo officer • Legislative Changes and Impact on the Policing Profession • Hot Issues in Policing – Alternatives to Patrol, Topics on the National Narrative, Local Policing • Policy, Training, and Accountability (includes complaint investigation & consequences) • Future of Policing – Technology, Partnerships, and Real-Time Transparency Transparency, Community Engagement and Social Media:
• RIPA Data – The Racial Identity Profiling Act required all police departments to report stop data (supporting information and details for every detention made by police) to the CA Department of Justice (DOJ) beginning in January 2022. The Police Department has just finished collecting our first year of data.
• Annual Report –state law requires an annual report of data to DOJ by April 1. This obligation has been completed, and we will be coordinating that with a publicly available document to present the first year’s data.
• Public Transparency Dashboard – while all of the reported RIPA data will be available through the DOJ database, we will be setting up public dashboards localized to Menlo Park. Working through a large bulk of data as it is held with the DOJ can be difficult and cumbersome. However, this data will be available in its rawest form for those interested in reviewing it that way. For most of the public, an easier to read, visually appealing, yet objective and honest display of data makes more sense, and we feel the department has an obligation to make this information easier to see for our public. It takes time and coordinated effort to accomplish this in a meaningful way – this project is in development.
• “Behind the Badge” Series
• Menlo Park PD has recorded several sessions in its “Behind the Badge” series, giving the public a closer look at the men and women who serve our community and keep us safe. We have many more sessions yet to come, and we are looking for some ways to make this more interactive with our public.
• Community Events and Initiatives – The Police Department is in the early stages of return to expanded interaction with our public through large and small-scale activities:
• Events - National Night Out, Faith & Blue, Neighborhood Watch, Coffee with a Cop, etc. • Community Police Academy – An in-depth and interactive “inside look” at Menlo Park PD with a cohort of 12-20 members of our public. The first 2023 Class just wrapped up this month (February Page H-4.4
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov 3 2023), and the department will be exploring a Youth Academy version as well as a version for nonnative English-speakers. • “How-to” Resources – there have been many suggestions from our public to help guide us to providing needed information in the most accessible and understandable way. • The Police Department will be working with the public to ensure this is community driven based on public interests.
• The department will assess any needs for added resources if this project requires it.
Complaints and Accountability:
• At the request of the community and Subcommittee, the Police Department’s Compliments and Complaints webpage (Attachment D) has been modified from a downloadable / printable PDF to an easy-to-use, automatically transferred web-form. Information will be added to the Compliments & Complaints webpage to provide further details on complaint review, investigation, and disposition. • The Police Department currently provides ongoing updates to the City Council through quarterly reporting. One of the dimensions of the report is complaint data. In the quarterly report, complaints taken within the quarter are listed and compared to total calls for police service. Details of personnel investigations are limited due to confidentiality, but each complaint is thoroughly reviewed, and dispositions are completed on each one. Beginning with the first quarterly for 2023, the Police Department will provide data on complaint dispositions in addition to intake. • PD continues to work on an ombudsman concept for complaint receipt (this item is in Research and Development – hoping for a solution within 2023)
• At the Subcommittee’s request, the Police Chief will arrange to meet and dialogue with “Fixin San Mateo.” (PD is in process of connecting by Spring 2023) • “Brown Act” Advisory Group
• The Subcommittee has discussed the idea of a “Brown Act” body to provide perspective and suggestions on progressive policing. This type of advisory body would take significant staff resources and time to get established and started.
• With understanding of continued interest in some type of advisory body and the support of the Subcommittee, the Police Department is engaging and piloting a “Community-Police Advisory Roundtable” - a non-Brown Act, highly diverse and transparent group consisting of Community Members and Police Department Members.
• The Community-Police Advisory Roundtable will consist of community members with representation from each of the five Menlo Park Council Districts, ideally a representative from our schools and local businesses, and police department representatives from both the line and leadership levels.
• This group will be transparent to the public, with detailed notes from the meetings and other interactive opportunities.
• The department has asked for time to fully develop and evaluate this solution before taking on the resources and effort of creating a “Brown Act” group.
Additional Strategies:
• Youth Connection – the Subcommittee has expressed a priority to identify interactive engagement opportunities with Menlo Park Youth (this is also a priority initiative for the department, and is in development)
• Youth Advisory Committee
• School and student-related partnerships and discussion sessions • Planning is underway for a refresh of the Community Police Academy targeting youth participants later in 2023.
Page H-4.5
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov 4 • Diversity, Equity, Inclusiveness (DEI)
• The Police Department is committed to be an early adopter and leader among City departments in any City Organization DEI initiative (currently in City Staff development with commitment from MPPD).
• Emergency Preparedness
• The department is currently working with City Staff to prepare for recruitment of an E-Prep Coordinator (later in 2023).
• The Menlo Park Fire Protection District has offered their expertise for advice and coordination. • First Orders of business for new E-Prep Coordinator will be identifying City Staff Readiness and Evaluating City Continuation of Operations / Continuation of Government (COOP-COG) readiness and plan.
Contemporary Issues in Public Safety:
• Homelessness, Substance Abuse, Mental Health, and Crime – a very complex topic area – • The Police Department will be working with new Housing Manager, County Health, Samaritan House, LifeMoves / WeHope and Other Partners for a Study Session or local Town Hall to take a comprehensive look at this topic and possible approaches (target later in 2023). • Mental Health Crisis Response
• The department will provide some transparency to the public on MPPD Training, Options, and Resources in regard to mental health crisis response.
• The department will collaborate with the public in research and discussion of alternative response strategies.
• The City of Menlo Park is awaiting County response to our application to participate in the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT).
As we know that ad hoc Council Subcommittees are by their nature designed for a limited purpose, this update serves as a natural point for consideration of the potential sunset of the ad hoc Reimagining Public Safety Subcommittee. While we may be winding down the formal composition of this group, our effort carries on to gain understanding of our community’s needs through ongoing exploration, fact-finding, and dialogue with community members, a continual orientation to the future of policing and public safety, and a desire to remain open and connected.
The Police Department is dedicated to ensuring that our community feels orderly and safe, and we recognize that it takes a holistic understanding of all parts of this great city, and includes the thoughts and feelings of all of those who live, work, learn and play in Menlo Park. This is the commitment of the men and women who represent you in your Menlo Park Police Department.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Ad Hoc Re-imagining Public Safety Subcommittee by:
Chief Dave Norris, Menlo Park Police Department.
Reviewed by:
City Manager Justin Murphy
Attachments:
A. Hyperlink – Town Hall presentation: menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Police/Reimaginingpublic-safety/Watch-the-community-meeting Page H-4.6
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov 5 B. Hyperlink – informational item to City Council on June 28, 2022:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2022- meetings/agendas/20220628-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=329 C. Hyperlink – Video presentation format:
vimeo.com/channels/menloparkpd/videos/sort:preset/format:thumbnail D. Hyperlink – Police Department’s Compliments and Complaints webpage:
menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Police/Compliments-and-complaints Page H-4.7
Police
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-083-CC
Informational Item: Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data annual report for calendar year 2022
Recommendation
The purpose of this informational item is to provide the annual report to the public and to the City Council on data collected for calendar year 2022 pursuant to the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (Attachment A.)
Policy Issues
Assembly Bill (AB) 953 requires an agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to issue its annual report by April 1, 2023.
Analysis
In 2015, the State of California passed AB 953, otherwise known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA.) AB 953, hereafter referred to simply as RIPA, requires that law enforcement agencies in the state of California collect perceived demographic data from specified police contacts.
This data, referred to by RIPA as “stop data,” is to be collected in accordance with the California Code of Regulations and submitted to the Department of Justice on a yearly basis.
As outlined by the California Code of Regulations (11 CCR §999.224), RIPA stop data must be collected during police contacts matching either of the following criteria: “(1) Any detention … by a peace officer of a person; or (2) any peace officer interaction with a person in which the officer conducts a search...” Specified data fields for each RIPA stop must be completed at the end of every qualifying contact and certain data collected is based on the officer’s perception.
The collection requirement of this statute was implemented in waves, with each wave having a staggered commencement date based on agency size. Larger agencies in the state began collecting stop data as early as 2018. As a smaller-size agency, Menlo Park Police Department (MPPD) began collecting stop data for RIPA January 1, 2022.
As part of this “final wave” of California agencies required to collect data, the MPPD is required to report the 2022 data collected by our agency to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) by April 2023. For clarity, MPPD has been fulfilling this obligation through automatically updating data directly to DOJ on a monthly basis throughout 2022.
We are also cognizant of the recommendations of the 2020-21 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury in their report on RIPA that San Mateo County law enforcement agencies provide reports quarterly to their public regarding collected data and its relation to ongoing productivity and training of their police departments. The AGENDA ITEM H-5 Page H-5.1
Staff Report #: 23-083-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov attached RIPA Report will be used as a template to aggregate future collected information for quarterly reports to the public.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. MPPD RIPA report 2022
Report prepared by:
Dave Norris, Police Chief
Tracy Weber, Communications and Records Manager
Dani O’Connor, Management Analyst I
Page H-5.2
MENLO PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT RIPA
REPORT 2022
PUBLIC SAFETY
Page H-5.3
ATTACHMENT A
page 5
RIPA DATA
OVERVIEW:
In 2015, the State of California passed Assembly Bill No. 953 (AB 953), otherwise known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). AB 953, hereafter referred to simply as RIPA, requires that law enforcement agencies in the state of California collect perceived demographic data from specified police contacts.
This data, referred to by RIPA as “stop data,” is to be collected in accordance with the California Code of Regulations and submitted to the Department of Justice on a yearly basis.
As outlined by the California Code of Regulations (11 CCR § 999.224), RIPA stop data must be collected during police contacts matching either of the following criteria: “(1) Any detention … by a peace officer of a person; or (2) any peace officer interaction with a person in which the officer conducts a search...” Specified data fields for each RIPA stop must be completed at the end of every qualifying contact and certain data collected is based on the officer’s perception. Therefore, it is important to note that the way an officer perceives any given individual might differ from the way that individual identifies themselves.
The collection requirement of this statute was implemented in waves, with each wave having a staggered commencement date based on agency size. Larger agencies in the state began collecting stop data as early as 2018. As a smaller-size agency, Menlo Park Police Department began collecting stop data for RIPA on January 1, 2022 and regularly uploading the data to the Department of Justice shortly thereafter.
The Menlo Park Police Department welcomes the opportunity to use this data to continuously maintain and improve upon our longstanding core values, and providing the people of Menlo Park a transparent overview of each year’s RIPA data and utilizing that data to continuously monitor our work and engage in meaningful conversations with our Community. The following report has been compiled using Menlo Park Police Department RIPA stop data from the period of January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022.
METHODOLOGY:
The information presented in the RIPA section of this report is representative of the 2022 statistical data gathered from the work of on-duty Menlo Park Police Officers. This data includes all stop data reported by our police officers. While about 93% of these stops typically occur within the City of Menlo Park, our jagged boundaries result in occasional stops in adjoining jurisdictions, including Atherton, East Palo Alto, and Unincorporated San Mateo County.
Officers report the following for “perceived characteristics” for each person stopped:
• Perceived Race or Ethnicity of Person Stopped
• Perceived Gender of Person Stopped
• Person Stopped Perceived to be LGBT
• Perceived Age of Person Stopped
• Person Stopped Has Limited or No English Fluency
• Perceived or Known Disability of Person Stopped
Specific officer actions are also tracked if the individual meets the stop requirements of RIPA. These include:
• Reason for stop
• Result of the stop
• Actions taken during the stop
It is important to note that this data collection is unprecedented for this agency. As first-year data, it is too early to deeply answer the “why” behind many of these data points. However, it establishes a firm baseline for exploring these questions and serves as an excellent point of reference for future professional policing efforts.
Page H-5.4
page 6
RIPA DATA
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF RIPA DATA:
• Menlo Park PD purchased special software to collect RIPA Data and conducted department-wide training for our officers.
Multiple reminders were sent to officers to keep personnel on track with collection of data. • This is an entirely new set of data never before collected by our personnel, and progress was tracked throughout the year. In review of the 2022 data, our MPPD Management Team is identifying any gaps in data collection, training, and accountability to make each subsequent year’s practices and data accuracy an improvement on the previous year.
Constant improvement is an important value at MPPD, as we strive to bring you the most professional team possible. • This year’s race/ethnicity data was very consistent in outcome (± 2%) with statewide race/ethnicity data tracked across over 3 million stops reviewed in the 2023 RIPA Board Annual Report. • The 2022 data provides us a baseline from which we can learn, adjust, and perfect officer performance and stop data reporting for upcoming years.
• Menlo Park Police Department is committed to making stop data available to the public in an easy-to-read format and raw data on a quarterly basis.
REFERENCE MATERIALS SUPPLEMENTAL TO REVIEW OF COLLECTED DATA:
• Link for the DOJ Data Portal
• NOTE – Various state reports on this site include accumulated annual RIPA data aggregated by year up to 2021, and will not yet include Menlo Park PD Data from 2022
• Link to 2023 RIPA Board Annual Report
• Link to Menlo Park PD Open Data - Current
• Link to MPPD Lexipol Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing Policy and RIPA Policy 402 (p. 314) • This includes section 402.4.2 “REPORTING OF STOPS” and 402.7 “REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”
• Link to the 2020-21 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury’s Report - “BUILDING GREATER TRUST BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY & LAW ENFORCEMENT VIA THE RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT” Demographics Reference -
• City of Menlo Park
• San Mateo County
• 9 SF Bay Area Counties
• State of California
PERCEIVED DISABILITY
No data to display
No data to display
0 4
8 12
Blind or Limited Vision
Intellectual or Developmental Disability - Including Dementia Mental Health Condition
Other Disability
Speech Impairment or Limited Use of Language
0 4 8 12
Blind or Limited Vision 2
Intellectual or Developemental
Disability, Including Demetia 2
Mental Health Condition 15
Other Disability 5
Speech Impairment or Limited
Use of Language 2
It should be noted that there were no
perceived disabilities for 7,083 contacts.
Page H-5.5
page 7
RIPA DATA
TOTAL STOPS
7,109
OFFICER INITIATED
ACTIVITY
6,998
CALLS FOR SERVICE
RESULTING IN STOPS
111
ANNUAL RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT (RIPA) STATISTICS
ACTIONS TAKEN DURING STOP
Consensual encounter resulting in search 75
Determine if student violated school property 0
Investigation to determine if the person is a truant 24 Knowledge of outstanding arrest warrant/wanted person 114 Known to be on parole/probation/PRCS/mandatory supervision 37 Possible conduct warranting discipline under Education Code 0 Reasonable suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity 430 Traffic violation 6,429
Asked for consent to search a person 173
Asked for consent to search property 172
Baton or other impact weapon used 0
Canine bit or held a person 6
Chemical spray used 1
Curbside detention 65
Electronic control device used 0
Field sobriety test conducted 51
Firearm discharged or used 1
Firearm pointed at person 10
Handcuffed or flex cuffed 288
Impact projectile deicharged or used 0
None 6,095
Other physical or vehicle contact 19
Patrol car detention 271
Person photographed 166
Person removed from vehicle by order 87
Person removed from vehicle by physical contact 4
Property was seized 157
Search of person was conducted 459
Search of property was conducted 361
Vehicle impounded 33
Page H-5.6
page 8
RIPA DATA
RESULT OF STOP
REASON FOR STOP
STOPS BY TIME OF DAY
Citation for infraction 2,099
Contacted parent/legal guardian or other person responsible for the minor 0 Contacted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 0
Custodial arrest pursuant to outstanding warrant 144
Custodial arrest without warrant 162
Field interview card completed 65
In-field cite and release 315
No action 693
Noncriminal transport for caretaking 8
Psychiatric hold 0
Referral to school administrator 0
Referral to school counselor or other support staff 0
Warning (verbal or written) 3,797
Consensual encounter resulting in search 75
Determine if student violated school policy 0
Investigation to determine if the person is truant 24
Knowledge of outstanding arrest warrant/wanted person 114 Known to be on parole/probation/PRCS/mandatory supervision 37 Possible conduct warranting discipline under Education Code 0 Reasonable suspicion tha tthe person was engaged in criminal activity 430 Traffic violation 6,249
0 200 400 600
0000-0100
0300-0400
0600-0700
0900-1000
1200-1300
1500-1600
1800-1900
2100-2200
0000-0100
0300-0400
0600-0700
0900-1000
1200-1300
1500-1600
1800-1900
2100-2200
0 200 400 600
Page H-5.7
page 9
Hispanic/Latino
39.9%
White
28.1%
Black/African American
12.1%
Asian
8.9%
Middle Eastern or South Asian
6.4%
Pacific Islander
3.7%
RIPA DATA
PERCEIVED RACE
STOPS BY DAY OF WEEK
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Saturday
Friday
Thursday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Monday
Sunday
Asian 656
Black/African American 895
Hispanic/Latino 2,952
Middle Eastern or South Asian 472
Native American 76
Pacific Islander 275
White 2,081
As defined in RIPA Regulations – More than one option can be chosen “Asian” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East or Southeast Asia, including for example, Cambodia, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam, but who does not fall within the definition of “Middle Eastern or South Asian” or “Pacific Islander.”
“Black/African American” Refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. “Hispanic/Latino” refers to a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. “Middle Eastern or South Asian” refers to a person of Arabic, Israeli, Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Nepali, Bhutanese, Maldivian, or Afghan origin.
“Native America” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South American. “Pacific Islander” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guan, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands, but who does not fall within the definition of “Middle Eastern or South Asian” or “Asian.” “White” refers to a person of Caucasian descent having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe and Eastern Europe.
Saturday
Friday
Thursday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Monday
Sunday
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Page H-5.8
page 10
RIPA DATA
PERCEIVED GENDER
PERCEIVED AGE
No data to display
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Female (Cisgender Woman/Girl)
Male (Cisgender Man/Boy
Transgender Man/Boy
Transgender Woman/Girl
Gender Nonconforming (Nonbinary)
Female (Cisgender Woman/Girl) 2,004
Male (Cisgender Man/Boy) 5,080
Transgender Man/Boy 13
Transgender Woman/Girl 7
Gender Nonconforming (Nonbinary) 5
As defined in RIPA Regulations
“Transgender man/boy” means a person who was assigned female at birth but who currently identifies as a man, or boy if the person is a minor. “Transgender woman/girl” means a person who was assigned male at birth but who currently identifies as a woman, or girl if the person is a minor. “Gender nonconforming” means a person whose gender-related appearance, behavior, or both, differ from traditional conceptions about how males or females typically look or behave. A person of any gender or gender identity may be gender nonconforming. For this reason, an officer my select “Gender nonconforming” in addition to any of the other gender data values, if applicable.
No data to display
21-30 Years
34.6%
31-40 Years
28.2%
41-50 Years
17.5%
11-20 Years
9.7%
51-60 Years
6.5%
0-10 Years 2
11-20 Years 687
21-30 Years 2,463
31-40 Years 2,002
41-50 Years 1,246
51-60 Years 465
61-70 Years 188
71-80 Years 45
81-90 Years 10
90 Years or Older 1
Page H-5.9
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel St.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-330-6300
menlopark.gov/police
Building
a Safe Community
Page H-5.10
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-084-CC
Informational Item: California Public Records Act internal procedures Recommendation
This informational item provides an update on City procedures for California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests, which also meet recommendations made by the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury.
Policy Issues
The city meets its obligations under the CPRA (Government Code §7922.000 et seq.) and provides transparency into the People’s business.
Background
On November 1, 2022, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the City’s response to the San Mateo Civil Grand Jury report, “A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know.” The staff report and response can be found in Attachment A. The report assessed CPRA programs across the county and issued a recommendation that “the city council should direct staff to consider and report back by June 30, 2023, on the creation of a written CPRA policy or procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff.” In its response, the City informed the Grand Jury that written procedures were already drafted and implemented, and indicated the city would conduct a review of its written procedures, and where appropriate, make revisions to more efficiently meet the obligations of the CPRA. Additionally, the City committed to reporting to the City Council before June 30, 2023, on its written policies and procedures.
Analysis
The city clerk’s office drafted a procedural document for CPRA requests and shared with each city department, which was requested to identify CPRA coordinators. The coordinators and department heads reviewed the procedural document and provided comment. The city clerk’s office, in conjunction with the city attorney’s office, then reviewed the comments resulting in a further draft procedural document. City staff then commenced processing the public records requests pursuant to those written procedures. This procedures document was created and implemented in March 2022, which was six months before the city received the Grand Jury report.
Since receiving the Grand Jury report, and as planned when the procedure document was created, staff has been implementing various revisions to the procedures throughout the year. For example, conducting searches of emails and communications has been refined to put the records in various formats to assist in expediting review, of what may be voluminous requests. The latest version of the Standard Operating AGENDA ITEM H-6 Page H-6.1
Staff Report #: 23-084-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Procedure for Public Records Act Request is available in Attachment B.
The City has received requests of all sizes and has been able to meet its obligations under the CPRA using these procedures. City staff will continue to refine and modify the procedures as needed.
Impact on City Resources
There is no impact on City resources.
Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § § 15378 and 15061(b) (3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. Hyperlink – November 1, 2022 City Council Staff Report:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2022- meetings/agendas/20221101-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=89 B. Standard Operating Procedure for Public Records Act Request Report prepared by:
Judi Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk
Reviewed by:
Eli Flushman, Deputy City Attorney
Page H-6.2
Standard Operating Procedure for Public Records Act
Request
City Clerk Procedure
Adopted March 28, 2023
Purpose
Under the California Public Records Act (PRA), a member of the public may request a City record(s) be provided to them for their use.
Description
The PRA request can be made online, via email, in person, or over the phone and requester is not required to provide their name or a reason for the request.
The city clerk’s office inputs all received PRAs into the City’s digital system (GovQA).
The City is not required to create records; only to provide the records we have.
Please refer to the City’s current records retention schedule for reference and is available through the city clerk’s office.
Procedure
1. Receive PRA
a. Send to city clerk’s office if received by staff
i. If staff is unsure, best practice is to send to the city clerk’s office for review
2. City clerk’s office will enter the PRA into GovQA, unless the requestor has submitted through GovQA a. GovQA will automatically send an email notification to the requester acknowledging receipt of the PRA b. GovQA will automatically send an email notification to the city clerk’s office and city attorney (CAO)
3. The city clerk’s office will generate a cloud based (e.g., Box.com) folder for each PRA
4. The city clerk’s office will send an email notification to staff to upload any responsive records a. Email will include
i. Description of records requested
ii. Date range of records requested
iii. Cloud based (e.g., Box.com) folder link
iv. Due date (typically, eight days before a response is due) a. All PRAs must be responded to within 10 business days of receipt b. Staff must review the request at that time and should timely raise to the city clerk’s office if:
i. The request is vague, unclear, or ambiguous
ii. The request will generate an unreasonable amount of documents c. Staff should only provide responsive documents, but will error on over inclusion i. Staff will seek clarification from CAO on responsiveness d. If the request contains sensitive material, or materials believed to be privileged or confidential, staff will note it and the basis for the belief
e. IT (information technology) staff may be requested to search City emails/communications i. Generate reasonable search terms with the given parameters ii. Remove duplicate emails from the search results
iii. Assess whether the search should be narrowed or expanded iv. Put the final search results into .pdf format for redacting and pst. format as needed
5. The city clerk’s office will send an email notification to the CAO when documents are ready for CAO review a. The city clerk’s office may request staff do the following with the responsive records:
i. Audit for responsiveness
ii. Mark responsive documents for redactions
iii. Redactions may include personal contact information, private financial information, etc.
6. CAO will review and may request additional assistance from staff/city clerk’s office or inquire as to additional responsive records.
7. The CAO will send an email notification to the city clerk’s office when records are ready to release or to request an extension (extensions are no greater than 14 calendar days)
8. The city clerk’s office will respond to the requestor through GovQA Page H-6.3
ATTACHMENT A
Standard Operating Procedure for Public Record Act Request City Clerk Procedure 2
Adopted March 28, 2023
Procedure history
Action Date Notes
Procedure adopted March 28, 2023 Prepared by and for the city clerk’s office Page H-6.4