HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150217
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 17, 2015
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Library Ground Breaking Ceremony
II. Parks Projects Review
III. Castle Creek Bridge/Hallam Street Connectivity Study
IV. Health & Human Services Discussion
P
1
I
I
.
P
2
I
I
.
P
3
I
I
.
P
4
I
I
.
P5II.
P6II.
P7II.
P8II.
P9II.
P10II.
P11II.
P12II.
P13II.
P14II.
P15II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : Tyler A. Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager
Matt Kuhn, Trails Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Jeff Woods, Director of Parks
DATE OF MEMO: February 10, 2015
MEETING DATE: February 17, 2015
RE: Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study: Conceptual Design Review
Work session
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding pedestrian, bicyclist, and traffic safety for this
corridor and requests support to continue to final design on the Castle Creek/Hallam Street
Connectivity Study.
BACKGROUND: Open Space and Trails Board members along with Engineering, Parks, and
Transportation staff have identified the Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Street corridor as
deficient link in Aspen’s bicycle and pedestrian network. Due to topographic, property, and
geometric constraints safe travel options are limited throughout this area.
The Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study follows the ideals of The City of Aspen Civic
Master Plan (CMPAG) adopted by City Council in December 2006. The Plan states “Aspen’s
future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people’s everyday lives.
Other modes of travel should be made as safe and convenient as possible to facilitate that
goal…the level of investment in…more and better bikeways and walkways should increase.”
During the January 7th 2014 work session, staff and Open Space and Trails Board
members presented the Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity project as a priority to
City Council. Council members directed staff to return to Council with a design contract
addressing feasibility options for this corridor. Council approved the staff recommended
professional services contract with Loris and Associates during the April 7th 2014 regular
Council meeting.
During staff’s recent check in at the January 20th City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board
Meeting, unanimous support was given for the conceptual design of this project.
DISCUSSION:
Since this project’s inception staff has worked with the Loris and Associates team to collect data,
engage the public, and develop a workable conceptual design. Public outreach has been essential
to selecting and refining the conceptual design. To date staff has held:
P16
III.
Two public meetings (July 10th and September 10th)
A Council work session (May 20th),
Two Open Space and Trails Board work sessions (September 18th, January 15th)
Input from these meetings and outreach shaped the four conceptual combinations (Attachment
B). These combinations attempted to illustrate all possible treatments that met the project’s
goals. These opportunities as originally stated were:
Improve pedestrian safety through better pedestrian/traffic interactions, including
treatments for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
Improve Aspen’s East-West pedestrian and bike connectivity;
Update and enhance Castle Creek Bridge connections to adjacent roadway, pedestrian,
bicyclist infrastructure;
Improve the existing bus stop location;
Enhance pedestrian safety by examining existing crossings and pedestrian patterns;
Improve the crossing infrastructure including ADA accessibility upgrades;
Engage the Open Space and Trails Board Members and other stakeholders during the
design process;
Engage the Colorado Department of Transportation Staff and other stakeholders during
the design process;
Engage the community and other stakeholders during the design process;
Re-evaluate past corridor study, planning, bridge analysis and cost estimation
Provide alternatives that don’t exclude any future “Entrance to Aspen” design.
Public and stakeholder input ultimately guided staff and the design team to a solution that not
only met the projects goals but met the community’s values and vision for this corridor.
This refinement and selection process created a preferred concept depicted in Attachment A.
This concept addresses all of the original project opportunities outlined in the scoping and
respects the major design constraints of the corridor.
The conceptual design presented in Attachment A utilizes the existing Right of Way and Castle
Creek Bridge Structure from Cemetery Lane to 7th Street. It is important to note that with this
level of conceptual design, details such as material choice, landscaping treatments, bus shelter
options, and even some trail geometry still requires further refinement. Staff is committed to
P17
III.
continuing to work with adjacent property owners and other stakeholder groups to refine the final
treatments of the corridor.
Staff believes the preferred concept (Attachment A) best meets all stakeholder and community
needs while taking a lower impact and fiscally conservative approach to enhancements to the
corridor.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $150,000.00 has been established by engineering staff in the
2015 asset management plan to cover the development of construction drawings based on the
preferred concept. Parks Department will contribute the remaining funds needed to complete the
final design through a supplemental budget request. The final design contract will require
Council approval in the form of a consent agenda item.
A rough order of magnitude estimate using 2014 Aspen-based unit cost data projects
construction costs at around $2,700,000. This estimate will be refined as the final design
alignment and material choices are finalized. Staff would add a placeholder during the asset
management plan process for the 2016.
Staff has also begun exploring state funding partnerships with Colorado Department of
Transportation thru the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality program (CMAQ), and the Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery program (FASTER). These funding partnerships require further design
development to qualify. Staff will continue to research opportunities for supplemental funding
sources as this project develops.
Design Expenditures
2014 Project Expenditures
Loris and Associates Proposal $54,130.00
Contingency $ 5,870.00
Total $60,000.00
2015 Proposed Project Expenditures
Final Design/Construction Drawing Contract Determined during
final design scoping
Design Funding
2014 Funding
Castle Creek Ped and Bike Improvements (acct #000.15.94766) $30,000.00
Castle Creek Bridge Fence Improvements (acct #100.94.94306) $30,000.00
Total $60,000
2015 Funding
Castle Creek Ped and Bike Improvements (acct#000.15.94766) $150,000
Supplemental Request Parks Department Determined after
final design scoping
P18
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Creating connectivity for bikes and pedestrians encourages
the use of those transportation modes and makes it easy for Aspen’s citizens and visitors to
choose the modes with the smallest carbon footprint instead of choosing the automobile.
Reducing vehicular traffic affects a number of City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard measures
such as: levels of small particulate air pollution, Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts, and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions.
This project also has a net gain in green space and permeable surfaces due to the overall slight
reduction of asphalt surface in the right of way. Staff further coordinated with the City Forester
in order to accommodate existing trees and reduce impacts to the urban forest
PROPOSED ACTION: Staff proposes to complete the design of the preferred concept
illustrated in Attachment A and develop full construction plans. Staff would return to Council for
approval of a contract to complete final design documents in April 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A - Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Preferred Conceptual Design
Attachment B - Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Public Outreach Alternatives
P19
III.
HALLAM STREET \ CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE CONNECTIVITY STUDY
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
February 17, 2015
P
2
0
I
I
I
.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ FEBRUARY 17, 2015
P
2
1
I
I
I
.
P22III.
N 0 30 60 120
Scale - 1” = 60’
180
City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014
LEGEND
S
S
Grade separated underpass crossing
Path to meet back up
with existing
mulit-use path
Multi-use path roundabout
Continue path from roundabout
to underpass
Utilize existing bridge with 8’ trail and
elbow railings
Mixing zone with cautionary striping
North side cycle track
North side cycle track
Pedestrian sidewalk
Hi-visibility cycle
track crossing
Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop
Eliminate on-street parking
Maintain existing
bus stop but rotate
90 degrees
Eliminate left turn from SH 82 onto 7th
Smooth curve at SH 82
Close 7th southbound
maneuvers onto Hallam
Reconstruct curb at 7th Street
W. HALLAM ST
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
L
A
N
E
B
A
R
N
A
R
D
P
A
R
K
C
T
P
O
W
E
R
P
L
A
N
T
R
D
H
A
R
B
O
U
R
L
A
N
E
N
.
8
T
H
S
T
N
.
7
T
H
S
T
W. FRANCIS ST
N
.
7
T
H
S
T
E. BLEEKER ST
H
A
R
B
O
U
R
L
A
N
E
P
2
3
I
I
I
.
N 0 30 60 120
Scale - 1” = 60’
180
City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014
LEGEND
S
S
Grade separated underpass crossing
Path to meet back up
with existing
mulit-use path
Multi-use path roundabout
Continue path from roundabout
to underpass
New 14’ wide mulit-use bridge
North side-multi-use path
North side multi-use path
Close 8th street
access
Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop
Eliminate on-street parking Move bus stop close to 8th
street and turn 90 degrees Maintain existing curb-line
Retaining wall
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
L
A
N
E
B
A
R
N
A
R
D
P
A
R
K
C
T
P
O
W
E
R
P
L
A
N
T
R
D
H
A
R
B
O
U
R
L
A
N
E
N
.
8
T
H
S
T
N
.
7
T
H
S
T
W. FRANCIS ST
N
.
7
T
H
S
T
E. BLEEKER ST
H
A
R
B
O
U
R
L
A
N
E
P
2
4
I
I
I
.
N 0 30 60 120
Scale - 1” = 60’
180
City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014
LEGEND
S
S
Grade separated underpass crossing
Path to meet back up
with existing
mulit-use path
Multi-use path roundabout
Continue path from roundabout
to underpass
Utilize existing bridge with 8’ trail and
elbow railings
North side multi-use path
Pedestrian sidewalk
Route bikes via sharrow
to Francis Street
Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop
Eliminate on-street parking
Maintain existing
bus stop but rotate
90 degrees
Eliminate left turn from SH 82 onto 7th
Close 7th southbound
maneuvers onto Hallam
Reconstruct curb at 7th Street
P
2
5
I
I
I
.
N 0 30 60 120
Scale - 1” = 60’
180
City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014
LEGEND
S
S
Grade separated underpass crossing
Path to meet back up
with existing
mulit-use path
Multi-use path roundabout
Continue path from roundabout
to underpass
Utilize existing bridge with 8’ trail and
elbow railings
North side multi-use path
Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop
Eliminate on-street parking
New 14’ wide mulit-use bridge
North side multi-use path
Close 8th street
access
Move bus stop close to 8th
street and turn 90 degrees Maintain existing curb-line
P
2
6
I
I
I
.
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
– Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
Lo
r
i
s
an
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
Al
t
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Sh
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
an
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
P27III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 1
Ta
b
l
e
of
Co
n
t
e
n
t
s
Pa
g
e
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
2
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
:
3 – 4
De
s
i
g
n
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
:
5
De
s
i
g
n
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
6 – 9
Sm
a
l
l
Gr
o
u
p
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
an
d
Po
l
l
i
n
g
of
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
vi
e
w
s
10
– 11
Ta
l
l
y
of
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Po
l
l
i
n
g
12
Pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
– Gr
a
p
h
i
c
13
Ne
x
t
St
e
p
s
14
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
:
Li
s
t
of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
15
P28III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 2
As
p
e
n
– Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Me
e
t
i
n
g
‐
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
On
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
,
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
me
m
b
e
r
s
jo
i
n
e
d
wi
t
h
of
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
fr
o
m
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
,
As
p
e
n
Parks and
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
Al
t
a
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
al
o
n
g
wi
t
h
Lo
r
i
s
an
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
an
d
Sh
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
an
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
in
th
e
Si
s
t
e
r
Ci
t
i
e
s
ro
o
m
of the
As
p
e
n
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
fo
r
a se
c
o
n
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
to
gi
v
e
in
p
u
t
an
d
vo
i
c
e
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
fo
r
th
e
Ha
l
l
a
m
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
Bi
k
e
an
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
at
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
we
r
e
in
v
i
t
e
d
to
th
i
s
ev
e
n
t
vi
a
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
av
e
n
u
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
5 ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
m
e
n
t
,
the
ci
t
y
we
b
s
i
t
e
,
ci
t
y
me
e
t
i
n
g
ca
l
e
n
d
a
r
,
ma
i
l
e
r
s
se
n
t
to
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
,
an
d
th
e
ci
t
y
’
s
so
c
i
a
l
me
d
i
a
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
The
go
a
l
of
th
e
s
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
is
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
th
e
bi
k
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
in
th
e
ar
e
a
as
we
l
l
as
im
p
r
o
v
e
overall
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
.
Th
e
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
th
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
we
r
e
to
cl
a
r
i
f
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
ro
u
t
e
an
d
to
po
l
l
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
as to
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
or
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
te
a
m
Pe
t
e
r
Lo
r
i
s
,
Jo
s
h
Me
h
l
e
m
,
Ty
l
e
r
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
f
f
,
wi
t
h
th
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
s
Sh
e
r
w
o
o
d
Sh
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
an
d
Ro
b
e
r
t
Sh
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
,
cr
a
f
t
e
d
a fo
c
u
s
e
d
pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
wh
i
c
h
wa
s
op
e
n
to
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
fo
r
al
l
in
p
u
t
fr
o
m
the
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
ke
y
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
in
th
e
ci
t
y
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
th
e
ro
u
t
e
we
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
and
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
we
r
e
po
s
e
d
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
to
th
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
ab
o
u
t
ea
c
h
.
Th
e
gr
o
u
p
wa
s
th
e
n
as
k
e
d
to
we
i
g
h
ea
c
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
on
it
s
me
r
i
t
s
,
as
we
l
l
as
it
s
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
to
th
e
“s
p
i
r
i
t
”
of
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
fo
r
fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
to
th
e
ci
t
y
an
d
designers
fo
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
P29III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 3
Ea
c
h
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
wa
s
ex
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
an
d
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
of
cl
a
r
i
t
y
we
r
e
an
s
w
e
r
e
d
by
Lo
r
i
s
an
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
:
o
Ar
e
th
e
r
e
wi
d
t
h
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
in
op
t
i
o
n
s
1.
1
an
d
1.
2
?
A:
Op
t
i
o
n
1.
1
ha
s
a 10
’
wi
d
e
cy
c
l
e
tr
a
c
k
an
d
a 6’
wi
d
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
an
d
Op
t
i
o
n
1.
2
ha
s
a 10
’
wi
d
e
pa
t
h
.
o
St
o
p
ba
r
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
op
t
i
o
n
3.
1
?
A:
Th
e
st
o
p
ba
r
wo
u
l
d
be
lo
c
a
t
e
d
be
h
i
n
d
th
e
cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
.
o
An
y
ex
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
so
u
t
h
si
d
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
to
“r
e
c
l
a
i
m
”
la
n
e
sp
a
c
e
?
A:
Du
e
to
th
e
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
,
wi
t
h
th
e
sm
a
l
l
gi
r
d
e
r
on
th
e
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
a
t
wa
s
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
ca
r
r
y
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
lo
a
d
i
n
g
on
l
y
,
re
c
l
a
i
m
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
by
in
f
r
i
n
g
i
n
g
on
th
e
so
u
t
h
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
is
no
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Th
e
ba
s
i
c
re
‐
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
la
n
e
an
d
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
wi
d
t
h
s
by
1’
ea
c
h
(4
’
to
t
a
l
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
mo
t
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
)
.
Th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
fo
r
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
th
e
sidewalk by 3’ and
in
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
a 1’
wi
d
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
between traffic and the
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
A ne
w
“e
l
b
o
w
”
pedestrian railing,
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
th
a
t
on
th
e
Ca
s
t
l
e
Creek Underpass
(u
n
d
e
r
th
e
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
br
i
d
g
e
)
could be constructed
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ro
o
m
on the sidewalk.
o
Do
th
e
s
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
th
e
So
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
sidewalk (on the
br
i
d
g
e
)
?
A:
Th
e
so
u
t
h
si
d
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
remains “as is” in all of
th
e
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
.
A meeting
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a south side
ra
i
l
i
n
g
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
th
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
railing on the north
si
d
e
al
s
o
.
P30III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 4
o
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
fe
n
c
e
is
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
“p
u
s
h
i
n
g
”
pe
o
p
l
e
in
t
o
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
la
n
e
s
as
it
is
da
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
.
A:
Th
e
fe
n
c
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
s
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
bi
k
e
s
to
ke
e
p
a “s
h
y
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
”
aw
a
y
fr
o
m
it
,
wh
i
c
h
me
a
n
s
th
a
t
pe
d
s
an
d
bi
k
e
s
mu
s
t
tr
a
v
e
l
cl
o
s
e
r
to
th
e
cu
r
b
th
a
n
wh
a
t
wo
u
l
d
fe
e
l
sa
f
e
.
o
Us
a
g
e
of
th
e
s
e
“p
o
i
n
t
s
”
of
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
?
Ha
s
th
e
r
e
be
e
n
a fu
l
l
st
u
d
y
?
A:
Se
v
e
r
a
l
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
st
u
d
i
e
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
ne
w
st
u
d
i
e
s
to
an
a
l
y
z
e
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
of
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
ha
v
e
no
t
be
e
n
ma
d
e
.
o
Wi
d
t
h
of
th
e
“n
e
w
pa
t
h
br
i
d
g
e
”
(m
a
k
e
it
bi
k
e
on
l
y
?
)
A:
Th
e
ne
w
br
i
d
g
e
co
u
l
d
be
bi
k
e
on
l
y
,
bu
t
th
e
n
pe
d
s
wo
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
us
e
th
e
na
r
r
o
w
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
on
th
e
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
br
i
d
g
e
.
o
Wh
a
t
do
we
do
ab
o
u
t
th
e
ba
n
d
i
t
la
n
e
s
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
La
n
e
bu
s
st
o
p
?
A:
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
be
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
tr
a
i
l
s
an
d
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
bo
a
r
d
fo
r
fu
r
t
h
e
r
st
u
d
y
o
Is
th
e
r
e
a st
r
o
n
g
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
to
tu
r
n
on
t
o
8 th
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
on
Ha
l
l
a
m
to
7 th
? (o
p
t
i
o
n
7.
2
)
A:
It
is
li
k
e
l
y
th
a
t
bi
k
e
s
wo
u
l
d
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
7 th
un
l
e
s
s
th
e
r
e
wa
s
a ba
r
r
i
e
r
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
th
e
m
to
tu
r
n
on
t
o
8 th
,
or
if
th
e
ma
i
n
ro
u
t
e
in
t
o
to
w
n
wa
s
on
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
.
o
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
la
n
d
is
s
u
e
s
wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to
be
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
ab
o
u
t
th
e
fo
r
e
s
t
r
y
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
.
A:
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
be
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
wh
e
n
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
wi
t
h
th
e
fo
r
e
s
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
.
o
Wo
u
l
d
th
e
bu
s
st
o
p
mo
v
e
cl
o
s
e
r
in
t
o
the street? (8.2)
A:
Th
e
bu
s
st
o
p
sh
e
l
t
e
r
wo
u
l
d
be rotated 90
de
g
r
e
e
s
an
d
be
po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
between the path and
bu
s
pu
l
l
‐ou
t
ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
to
RF
T
A
standards.
o
Wh
a
t
do
e
s
th
e
fo
r
e
s
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
th
i
n
k
of access to their
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
?
(r
o
u
t
e
@ 7 th
)
A:
Th
e
Fo
r
e
s
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
wi
l
l
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in all conversations
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
at
7 th
.
o
Ra
i
s
e
d
Pe
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
(i
s
th
a
t
an
op
t
i
o
n
?
)
(option 9)
A:
A ra
i
s
e
d
pe
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
is
an option at 7 th .
o
Ho
w
do
yo
u
mi
s
s
‐us
e
a br
i
d
g
e
?
(v
e
r
y
good discussion
he
r
e
)
A:
Bi
k
e
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
travelling up valley in
th
e
do
w
n
va
l
l
e
y
la
n
e
.
Th
e
r
e
are also conflicts if
bi
k
e
s
an
d
pe
d
s
ar
e
on
th
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
at the same
ti
m
e
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
Bu
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ut
i
l
i
z
e
s
th
e
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
La
n
e
stop currently.
o
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
(p
r
e
c
l
u
d
e
s
closing 8 th street,
be
c
a
u
s
e
pe
o
p
l
e
wi
l
l
pa
r
k
th
e
r
e
)
o
Ch
u
r
c
h
do
w
n
7 th
ha
s
hi
g
h
Su
n
d
a
y
traffic.
o
Tu
r
n
i
n
g
le
f
t
at
7 th
is
so
im
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
already.
o
Pe
d
/ Ca
r
in
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
(o
p
t
i
o
n
9)
se
e
m
s
as if south and west
is
un
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
P31III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 5
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
we
r
e
th
e
n
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
to
gi
v
e
a fe
e
l
of
th
e
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
la
y
o
u
t
of
th
e
ro
u
t
e
wi
t
h
se
l
e
c
t
e
d
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
g
e
t
h
e
r
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
:
o
Ha
s
it
be
e
n
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
to
us
e
th
e
ex
t
r
a
1’
on
th
e
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
to
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
it
as
a bi
k
e
pa
t
h
?
(w
i
t
h
sm
a
l
l
e
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
la
n
e
s
)
A:
Th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ma
k
e
th
e
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
4’
wi
d
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
a 1’
hi
g
h
cu
r
b
.
Si
n
c
e
on
e
go
a
l
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
is
to
capture more bike riders than
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
10
%
of
th
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
wh
o
mi
g
h
t
be
co
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
ri
d
i
n
g
on
a 4’
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
,
a bi
k
e
/
p
e
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
that is separated from traffic
is
de
s
i
r
e
d
.
o
Ri
g
h
t
ha
n
d
tu
r
n
e
r
s
on
8 th
se
e
m
to
be
ob
l
i
v
i
o
u
s
to
Pe
d
an
d
Cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
(a
d
d
a st
o
p
ba
r
)
(i
t
’
s
a bl
i
n
d
sp
o
t
as
we
l
l
)
A:
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
be
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
in
a fi
n
a
l
de
s
i
g
n
.
o
Do
e
s
it
he
l
p
to
mo
v
e
th
e
“i
n
b
o
u
n
d
”
bu
s
st
o
p
to
th
e
Ea
s
t
?
(n
o
t
do
i
n
g
th
a
t
ma
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
ja
y
‐wa
l
k
i
n
g
)
A:
Th
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
bu
s
st
o
p
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
de
p
e
n
d
on
th
e
se
l
e
c
t
e
d
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
wi
l
l
be
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
with RFTA.
o
Ou
t
b
o
u
n
d
bu
s
st
o
p
(c
a
n
yo
u
mo
v
e
it
wi
t
h
o
u
t
cl
o
s
i
n
g
8 th
St
.
)
?
A:
It
ca
n
be
mo
v
e
d
to
th
e
we
s
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
cl
o
s
i
n
g
8 th
; ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
bu
s
e
s
mi
g
h
t
bl
o
c
k
li
n
e
s
of
si
g
h
t
fr
o
m
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
turning off of 8 th .
o
Bi
k
e
ro
u
n
d
‐a ‐bo
u
t
s
?
A:
Bi
k
e
ro
u
n
d
‐a ‐bo
u
t
s
,
if
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
an
d
si
g
n
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
,
ar
e
an
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
wa
y
of
ha
n
d
l
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
wh
e
r
e
multiple trail routes intersect.
o
Is
th
e
r
e
an
op
t
i
o
n
to
se
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
to
Ma
r
o
l
t
?
A:
A go
a
l
of
th
i
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
is
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
be
t
t
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
to
th
e
We
s
t
En
d
.
Ot
h
e
r
th
a
n
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
i
l
s
,
the Combinations presented
in
th
e
st
u
d
y
do
no
t
se
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
to
Ma
r
o
l
t
.
P32III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 6
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
Mo
r
e
of
a se
a
s
o
n
a
l
is
s
u
e
(4
‐5)
mo
n
t
h
s
ou
t
of
th
e
ye
a
r
– is
it
re
a
l
l
y
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
ma
k
e
su
c
h
dr
a
s
t
i
c
/
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
ch
a
n
g
e
s
for something that isn’t
a pr
o
b
l
e
m
al
l
ye
a
r
?
o
ST
R
O
N
G
L
Y
di
s
l
i
k
e
ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
at
ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
la
n
e
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
op
t
i
o
n
s
:
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
A
P33III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 7
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
B:
P34III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 8
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
C:
P35III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 9
Co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
D:
P36III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 10
Sm
a
l
l
Gr
o
u
p
s
we
r
e
th
e
n
as
k
e
d
to
sh
a
r
e
th
e
i
r
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
of
th
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
i
r
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
in
th
e
s
e
areas.
Th
e
sm
a
l
l
gr
o
u
p
wo
r
k
wa
s
th
e
fo
c
u
s
e
d
in
t
o
a po
l
l
i
n
g
of
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
da
t
a
pr
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
experience and stories from
th
e
me
m
b
e
r
s
of
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
wh
o
li
v
e
an
d
us
e
th
e
Ha
l
l
a
m
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
re
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
.
Ea
c
h
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
wa
s
th
e
n
as
k
e
d
to
ra
n
k
ea
c
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
5 (S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
)
to
1 (S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
di
s
l
i
k
e
)
.
Th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of the data were then plotted
an
d
po
i
n
t
s
of
co
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
be
g
a
n
to
em
e
r
g
e
.
P37III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 11
Th
e
en
t
i
r
e
gr
o
u
p
wa
s
th
e
n
en
g
a
g
e
d
in
a di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
of
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
po
l
l
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
:
o
Se
a
m
l
e
s
s
n
e
s
s
of
th
e
Mu
l
t
i
‐us
e
is
mo
s
t
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
o
“A
s
p
e
n
vo
t
e
”
(w
h
o
li
v
e
s
th
e
r
e
vo
t
e
d
,
th
e
re
s
t
di
d
n
’
t
re
a
l
l
y
ca
r
e
…
2
.
1
)
o
Sa
f
e
t
y
tr
u
m
p
s
co
s
t
on
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
3 op
t
i
o
n
o
Ro
t
a
t
e
th
e
bu
s
st
o
p
…
d
o
n
’
t
ca
r
e
if
it
mo
v
e
s
o
Ma
k
i
n
g
7 th
an
d
8 th
st
r
e
e
t
ea
c
h
on
e
wa
y
(o
n
e
co
m
i
n
g
in
,
on
e
co
m
i
n
g
ou
t
)
if
yo
u
ar
e
le
a
v
i
n
g
bo
t
h
op
e
n
o
Lo
t
s
of
op
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
ve
r
y
we
l
l
pu
t
to
g
e
t
h
e
r
,
wa
s
n
’
t
he
a
v
i
l
y
fo
c
u
s
e
d
on
fi
n
a
n
c
e
s
*
o
7 th
to
8 th
st
r
e
e
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a lo
t
of
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
,
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
i
n
g
fa
c
t
o
r
s
.
P38III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 12
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
5 ‐
St
r
o
n
g
l
y
Ag
r
e
e
4 ‐
Ag
r
e
e
3 ‐
No
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
2 ‐ Disagree 1 ‐ Strongly Disagree
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
1.
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Bi
k
e
& Pe
d
1.
1
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
cy
c
l
e
tr
a
c
k
pl
u
s
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
3
0
5
8 5
1.
2
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
mu
l
t
i
‐us
e
pa
t
h
11
8
2
0 1
2.
0
Bu
s
St
o
p
at
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
La
n
e
2.
1
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
0
5
8
3 5
3.
0
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
La
n
e
3.
1
po
r
k
ch
o
p
is
l
a
n
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
1
2
4
7 7
3.
2
un
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
of
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
La
n
e
8
6
0
3 7
3.
3
ro
u
n
d
‐a ‐bo
u
t
wi
t
h
a mu
l
t
i
‐us
e
un
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
1
0
4
7 8
3.
4
us
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
i
l
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
,
im
p
r
o
v
e
si
g
n
a
g
e
9
0
2
6 3
4.
0
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
La
n
e
to
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
4.
1
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
tr
a
i
l
3
1
7
2 6
4.
2
de
t
a
c
h
e
d
tr
a
i
l
10
3
4
2 1
5.
0
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
5.
1
us
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ve
h
i
c
l
e
br
i
d
g
e
(8
'
tr
a
i
l
& el
b
o
w
ra
i
l
i
n
g
s
)
14
5
0
0 1
5.
2
ne
w
pa
t
h
br
i
d
g
e
1
2
1
7 10
6.
0
Br
i
d
g
e
to
8t
h
St
r
e
e
t
6.
1
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
11
6
3
1 1
7.
0
8t
h
St
r
e
e
t
7.
1
cl
o
s
e
8 th
5
2
1
4 11
7.
2
ro
u
t
e
bi
k
e
s
on
t
o
8 th
to
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
6
1
5
3 6
7.
3
ke
e
p
8 th
op
e
n
,
im
p
r
o
v
e
bi
k
e
an
d
pe
d
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
10
5
2
4 1
8.
0
Bu
s
st
o
p
s
at
8t
h
St
r
e
e
t
8.
1
mo
v
e
cl
o
s
e
r
to
8 th
an
d
tu
r
n
90
⁰
6
5
7
3 1
8.
2
ke
e
p
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
bu
s
st
o
p
in
sa
m
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
bu
t
tu
r
n
90
⁰
4
5
7
1 5
9.
0
7t
h
St
r
e
e
t
9.
1
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
fr
o
m
SH
82
on
t
o
7 th
5
3
4
3 7
9.
2
ma
k
e
SH
82
cu
r
v
e
sm
o
o
t
h
e
r
8
1
6
4 2
9.
3
cl
o
s
e
7t
h
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
or
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
8
2
7 2
9.
4
en
h
a
n
c
e
bi
k
e
an
d
pe
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
Ha
l
l
a
m
12
6
3
0 2 P39III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 13
Pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
tw
o
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
an
d
th
e
de
s
i
g
n
te
a
m
s
in
p
u
t
,
he
r
e
is
th
e
“p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
”
fo
r
th
e
Ha
l
l
a
m
‐
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
P40III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 14
P41III.
`
As
p
e
n
‐
Ha
l
l
a
m
Ca
s
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
Br
i
d
g
e
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Me
e
t
i
n
g
#2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
1
4
Page 15
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
:
HA
L
L
A
M
– CA
S
T
L
E
CR
E
E
K
BR
I
D
G
E
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
ME
E
T
I
N
G
AT
T
E
N
D
E
E
S
– Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Li
s
t
*
Pe
t
e
r
Lo
r
i
s
pl
o
r
i
s
@
l
o
r
i
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
.
c
o
m
Jo
s
h
Me
h
l
e
m
jo
s
h
m
e
h
l
e
m
@
a
l
t
a
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
Ty
l
e
r
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
f
f
Ty
l
e
r
.
C
h
r
i
s
t
o
f
f
@
c
i
t
y
o
f
a
s
p
e
n
.
c
o
m
Sh
e
r
w
o
o
d
Sh
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
30
3
‐99
3
‐89
3
5
sh
e
r
w
o
o
d
s
h
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
@
c
o
m
c
a
s
t
.
n
e
t
Ro
b
e
r
t
Sh
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
30
3
‐88
2
‐12
9
0
ro
b
s
h
a
n
k
l
a
n
d
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
*1
1
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
di
d
no
t
si
g
n
in
bu
t
we
r
e
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
in
th
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
.
N
A
M
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
E
M
A
I
L
S
c
o
t
t
H
o
f
f
m
a
n
9
7
0
‐3
7
9
‐
0
2
9
2
s
c
o
t
t
@
c
r
e
s
t
o
n
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
D
a
n
Pe
r
l
9
7
3
‐9
8
6
‐
4
4
8
7
d
a
n
@
w
e
‐
c
y
c
l
e
.
o
r
g
Ja
c
k
A
p
p
l
e
7
1
3
‐4
4
9
‐
1
4
2
4
ja
c
k
a
p
p
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Jo
e
We
l
l
s
9
7
0
‐
9
2
5
‐
8
0
8
0
jo
e
w
e
l
l
s
@
m
e
.
c
o
m
B
e
t
s
y
Ma
n
g
o
n
e
3
0
3
‐5
7
0
‐
2
7
8
2
b
e
s
t
y
m
a
n
g
o
n
e
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Ph
i
l
i
p
Je
f
f
r
e
y
s
ph
i
l
i
p
j
e
f
f
r
e
y
s
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Ph
i
l
i
p
G
o
l
d
e
n
9
7
0
‐9
2
5
‐
1
6
3
3
p
g
o
l
d
e
n
@
p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
.
c
o
m
E
l
y
s
e
E
l
l
i
o
t
t
9
7
0
‐
9
2
5
‐
3
5
2
7
e
l
y
s
e
e
l
l
i
o
t
t
@
a
o
l
.
c
o
m
Y
a
s
m
i
n
e
J
e
p
a
g
t
a
9
7
0
‐
9
2
0
‐
6
8
0
8
h
o
l
l
a
n
d
h
@
r
o
f
.
n
e
t
S
u
s
a
n
Ap
p
l
e
7
1
3
‐
4
4
9
‐
1
4
2
4
su
z
y
m
a
g
n
a
n
i
@
y
a
h
o
o
.
c
o
m
M
a
r
g
i
e
Mu
s
g
r
a
v
e
9
7
0
‐
9
2
5
‐
1
1
6
9
fs
p
e
t
e
r
s
@
r
o
f
.
n
e
t
M
a
x
Ta
a
m
9
7
0
‐3
6
6
‐
6
0
3
8
m
a
x
.
t
a
a
m
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
Je
s
s
i
e
Y
o
u
n
g
9
7
0
‐
9
4
8
‐
4
5
3
4
j
b
v
y
o
u
n
g
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
A
n
n
Mu
l
l
i
n
s
9
7
0
‐
9
2
5
‐
7
5
5
9
mu
l
l
i
n
s
.
a
n
n
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
W
i
l
l
Sc
h
a
f
f
e
r
w
h
s
c
h
a
f
f
e
r
@
m
i
n
d
s
p
r
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
P42III.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: February 13, 2015
MEETING DATE: February 17, 2015
RE: Council Goal: Review of HHS funding
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council requested some additional time in a worksession to
discuss their thoughts relative to the Council goal to review HHS funding. Today’s meeting is
intended to: (1) allow Councilmember Romero to participate in the conversation, (2) to let other
councilmembers to elaborate on their thoughts around future HHS funding, and (3) get a briefing
on the concept of “collective impact” as requested by Council.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council adopted as one of their 2013-14 Top Ten Goals
review of HHS funding. On December 2nd at a joint meeting with the BOCC, you heard from
provider groups about trends and needs.
On Feb. 2 at a worksession relative to the Council goal to review HHS funding, staff asked a series
of questions to guide the Council’s dialogue about the use of and the amount of city funding for
HHS purposes.
1. Who do you want to serve?
a. focus on an issue/issue area?
b. focus on a geographic area?
c. focus on a population segment?
d. a mix of the above?
2. In selecting whom to serve, what factors are most important to you? (fill a gap in
funding/services; supplement existing funding across the board; focus on the biggest
existing problem area; address/mitigate emerging issues; support direct services;
supporting research/planning for the future, etc.)
3. What outcomes are you trying to achieve in that focused area/those focused areas?
4. Or do you want to more broadly participate in funding efforts as you currently do?
5. What additional information do you need to make your decisions?
BACKGROUND: One of Council’s Top Ten Goals for 2014-15 was to:
“Complete a review of HHS funding that identifies the purpose of the city’s
involvement in funding of HHS services, how we will participate in that funding
effort, and the amount and source of the city contribution.”
P43
IV.
Page 2
At the joint worksession in December, providers identified six trend areas that concerned them:
1. Access to general health care services
2. Affordable housing in a reasonable distance from jobs
3. Mental health services – regarding the increasing volume and complexity of care, bilingual
providers and adequate case management
4. Substance abuse – particularly in the 10 – 18 age range
5. Affordable, appropriate and accessible child care
6. Senior services and our aging population.
What is Collective Impact?
Collective impact is the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common
agenda for solving a complex social problem.
In order to create lasting solutions to social problems on a large-scale, organizations — including
those in government, civil society, and the business sector — need to coordinate their efforts and
work together around a clearly defined goal.
Collective impact is a significant shift from the social sector’s current paradigm of "isolated
impact," because the underlying premise of collective impact is that no single organization can
create large-scale, lasting social change alone. There is no "silver bullet" solution to systemic social
problems, and these problems cannot be solved by simply scaling or replicating one organization
or program. Strong organizations are necessary but not sufficient for large-scale social change.
Not all social problems are suited for collective impact solutions. Collective impact is best
employed for problems that are complex and systemic rather than technical in nature. Collective
impact initiatives are currently being employed to address a wide variety of issues around the
world, including education, healthcare, homelessness, the environment, and community
development. Many of these initiatives are already showing concrete results, reinforcing the
promise of collective impact in solving complex social problems.
The Five Conditions of Collective Impact Success
Collective impact is more rigorous and specific than collaboration among organizations. There are
five conditions that, together, lead to meaningful results from collective impact:
1. Common Agenda: All participants share a vision for change that includes a common
understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving the problem through agreed-
upon actions.
2. Shared Measurement: All participating organizations agree on the ways success will be
measured and reported, with a short list of common indicators identified and used for
learning and improvement.
3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: A diverse set of stakeholders, typically across sectors,
coordinate a set of differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action.
P44
IV.
Page 3
4. Continuous Communication: All players engage in frequent and structured open
communication to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and create common motivation.
5. Backbone Support: An independent, funded staff dedicated to the initiative provides
ongoing support by guiding the initiative’s vision and strategy, supporting aligned activities,
establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy, and
mobilizing resources.
DISCUSSION: Staff is here to record your conversations about the values you have preference
for in your determination about how you want to allocate funding – both current funding and any
additional funding.
What role do you want to play?
What gap do you want to fill or area do you want to strengthen?
Who do you want to serve?
Do you want to focus your efforts/funding or continue to allocate funds to a broad
area of concerns?
How much additional funds are you interested in devoting to this area?
What additional information do you want in order to facilitate your decision-
making?
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: You have previously indicated an interest in increasing
your contributions to the health and human service funding in the community. This increase has
been discussed as coming from a reallocation of existing Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Taxes and
you have a separate Council Top Ten Goal to review that funding stream to determine if you might
reallocate some of that for other worthwhile community purposes. Absent additional sources of
funding, the General Fund would bear the responsibility for providing additional funding and those
needs would need to be weighed against other competing demands for General Fund uses.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P45
IV.