HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-02 City Council Agenda Packet
1 02/02/09
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
February 02, 2009
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint Meeting with Assemblyman Ira Ruskin Concerning State and
Local Issues
ATTACHMENT
7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Lynne Johnson
Upon Her Retirement
ATTACHMENT
3. Proclamations Celebrating Black History Month and Honoring
Individuals on the 9th Annual List of 50 Most Important African-
Americans in Technology
02/02/09 2
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
ATTACHMENT (4)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
4. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Utilities’ Legislative Policy
Guidelines for 2009
CMR 125:09 ATTACHMENT
5. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C07122034 with URS
Corporation Americas to Add $111,160 for Construction Management
Services for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $1,411,160 for the Palo
Alto, Mountain View/Moffett Area Recycled Water Pipeline Project,
Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-04010
CMR 121:09 ATTACHMENT
6. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance
Authorizing the Closing of the Budget for the 2008 Fiscal Year
and to Approve 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
(Item continued from 01/26/09)
CMR 108:09 ATTACHMENT
7. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Maze & Associates’
Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30,
2008 and Management Letter
(Item continued from 01/26/09)
02/02/09 3
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The
presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger
number of speakers.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
8. Finance Committee Recommendation to Review and Comment on the
Update to the Long Range Financial Forecast, Status of Midyear
Financials, Presentation of Budget Policies and Guidelines for the FY
2010-2011 Budget Process
CMR 109:09 ATTACHMENT
STUDY SESSION
9. Review of the Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Stanford
University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center Expansions
MEMO CMR 127:09 ATTACHMENT
MEMO ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
The Honorable City Council December 16, 2008
Attn: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Maze & Associates’ Audit of the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements
as of June 30, 2008 and Management Letter
We recommend that the City Council accept the attached financial statements and management
letter.
Discussion
The City Charter requires the City Council (through the City Auditor) to engage an independent
certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual external audit and report the results of that
audit in writing to the City Council. Maze & Associates, an accountancy corporation based in
Pleasant Hill, California, conducted the audit of the City’s financial statements as of June 30, 2008.
The Independent Auditor’s Report (the “opinion letter”) and Single Audit Report (the audit of federal
funds received by the City which includes the report on internal control over financial reporting and
the OMB Circular A-133 compliance requirements supplement) are included in the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.
Maze & Associates also completed the following reports for the City of Palo Alto, shown as
attachments:
• Attachment A: Memorandum on Internal Control and Required Communication for the year
ended June 30, 2008 (the “management letter”);
• Attachment B: Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with the Proposition 111 2007-
2008 Appropriation Limit Increment (the “Gann limit letter”);
• Attachment C: Public Improvement Corporation Basic Component Unit Financial Statements
for the year ended June 30, 2008;
• Attachment D: Regional Water Quality Control Plant Financial Statements for the year
ended June 30, 2008;
• Attachment E: Cable TV Franchise Statements of Revenues and Expenditures for the years
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006; and
• Attachment F: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto Basic Component Unit
Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2008.
Cory Biggs, from Maze & Associates, will be available at the December 16th Finance Committee
meeting to answer questions. I would like to express appreciation to Maze & Associates, and Trudy
Eikenberry and her staff in the Administrative Services Department for their hard work and
cooperation during the audit.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Attachments
CCCIIITTTYYY OOOFFF PPPAAALLLOOO AAALLLTTTOOO
OOOFFFFFFIIICCCEEE OOOFFF TTTHHHEEE CCCIIITTTYYY AAAUUUDDDIIITTTOOORRR
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
January 29, 2009
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2009 CMR: 127:09
SUBJECT: Review of the Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Stanford University
Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center Expansions.
Staff submitted this item to the City Council on January 22, 2009 to allow additional time for
review prior to the study session scheduled on February 2, 2009. This report has been included
in the January 29th packet for limited distribution.
This document is also available for review at the City Libraries, the Development Center at 285
Hamilton Avenue, Planning Dept., 5th Floor at 250 Hamilton and online at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs.asp
________________________________ ___________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS JAMES KEENE
Interim Director of Planning and City Manager
Community Environment
Stanford University Medical Center
and
Stanford Shopping Center
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation Analysis
DRAFT
Prepared by
2025 Gateway Place, Suite 190
San Jose, CA 95110
January 2009
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i January 13, 2009
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Applicable Plans and Policies......................................................................................1-1
1.2 Federal Agencies.........................................................................................................1-1
1.3 State Agencies............................................................................................................1-1
1.4 Regional Agencies.......................................................................................................1-3
1.5 Local Agencies............................................................................................................1-3
1.5.1 Santa Clara County.........................................................................................1-3
1.5.2 San Mateo City/County Association of Governments.......................................1-4
1.6 Existing Regional and Local Network...........................................................................1-4
1.7 Studied Intersections and Roadways...........................................................................1-7
1.8 Traffic Impact Significance Criteria...............................................................................1-9
1.8.1 City of Palo Alto..............................................................................................1-9
1.8.2 City of Menlo Park.........................................................................................1-10
1.9 Applicable Environmental Plans and Policies.............................................................1-11
1.9.1 City of Palo Alto............................................................................................1-11
1.9.2 City of Menlo Park.........................................................................................1-12
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Intersection and Roadway Analysis..............................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Intersection Analysis Methodology ..................................................................2-1
2.1.2 TRAFFIX.........................................................................................................2-3
2.1.3 Analysis Results..............................................................................................2-3
2.2 Transit Services.........................................................................................................2-14
2.2.1 Bus Service...................................................................................................2-14
2.2.2 Commuter Rail Service.................................................................................2-17
2.3 Bicycles and Pedestrians...........................................................................................2-18
2.4 Parking......................................................................................................................2-21
2.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM).............................................................2-22
2.5.1 Stanford University Medical Center ...............................................................2-22
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Analysis...........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Without Project............................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Project Trip Generation..............................................................................................3-27
3.3.1 SSC..............................................................................................................3-27
3.3.2 SUMC...........................................................................................................3-29
3.4 Project Impacts..........................................................................................................3-31
3.4.1 Impact of SSC only in 2015...........................................................................3-31
3.4.2 Impact of SUMC only in 2015........................................................................3-58
3.4.3 Impact of SSC + SUMC in 2015....................................................................3-65
3.4.4 Impact of SUMC only in 2025........................................................................3-73
3.4.5 Cumulative Impact of SUMC in 2025.............................................................3-82
3.4.6 Cumulative Impact of SSC in 2025................................................................3-92
3.4.7 2025 with SSC and SUMC – Cumulative of SSC + SUMC.............................3-95
3.5 Project Impact Analysis Summary............................................................................3-101
3.6 Freeway Analysis ....................................................................................................3-101
3.7 Residential Roadway Segment Analysis (TIRE Index)..............................................3-103
3.7.1 Menlo Park Roadway Analysis....................................................................3-104
3.8 Parking Analysis......................................................................................................3-106
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii January 13, 2009
3.8.1 SUMC.........................................................................................................3-106
3.8.2 SSC............................................................................................................3-111
3.9 Project Site Local Circulation Analysis.....................................................................3-111
3.10 Transit Impacts........................................................................................................3-115
3.11 Transportation Demand Management Impacts.........................................................3-115
3.12 Pedestrians and Bicycles Impacts............................................................................3-116
3.13 Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts ........................................................................3-118
3.14 Construction Impacts...............................................................................................3-119
4.0 PROJECT MITIGATION..........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Intersection Improvements...........................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Mitigation of SSC Only in 2015........................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Mitigation of SUMC Only in 2015.....................................................................4-5
4.1.3 Mitigation of SSC + SUMC in 2015..................................................................4-8
4.1.4 Mitigation of SUMC Only in 2025...................................................................4-12
4.1.5 Mitigation of SUMC Cumulative Impact in 2025.............................................4-17
4.1.6 Mitigation of SSC Cumulative Impact in 2025................................................4-24
4.1.7 Mitigation of SSC +SUMC in 2025.................................................................4-28
4.2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM).............................................................4-34
4.2.1 SUMC TDM Mitigation...................................................................................4-34
4.2.2 SSC TDM Mitigation......................................................................................4-35
4.2.3 Effect of SUMC and SSC TDM......................................................................4-37
4.2.4 TDM Transit Mitigation..................................................................................4-41
4.3 Transit Service Mitigation...........................................................................................4-42
4.4 Freeway Mitigation ....................................................................................................4-43
4.5 Traffic Adaptive Signal Technology Mitigation............................................................4-43
4.6 Parking Mitigation......................................................................................................4-45
4.6.1 SUMC...........................................................................................................4-45
4.6.2 SSC..............................................................................................................4-45
4.7 Local Circulation Mitigation........................................................................................4-45
4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Mitigation ..............................................................................4-45
4.9 Emergency Vehicle Access Mitigation........................................................................4-47
4.10 Residential Street Mitigation......................................................................................4-47
4.11 Construction Mitigation..............................................................................................4-49
APPENDIX A Menlo Park Evaluation of Study Intersections
APPENDIX B Trip Generation Rates/Equations used for SSC
APPENDIX C SUMC Trip Generation Evaluation
APPENDIX D SUMC Trip Generation Calculation
APPENDIX E SUMC Trip Distribution
APPENDIX F TRAFFIX Results for Study Intersections
APPENDIX G SUMC Parking Evaluation
APPENDIX H Signal Warrant Calculations
APPENDIX I GO Pass for SUMC
APPENDIX J SSC TDM Plan
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii January 13, 2009
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Study Area and Intersections.......................................................................................1-2
Figure 2-1 Existing Intersection Geometry....................................................................................2-5
Figure 2-2 Existing Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-3 Transit Route Network...............................................................................................2-15
Figure 2-4 Existing Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................2-19
Figure 2-5 Existing Pedestrian Facilities.....................................................................................2-20
Figure 3-1 2015 Intersection Geometry.........................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-2 2025 Intersection Geometry.........................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-3 2015 Background Without Project Volumes ...............................................................3-12
Figure 3-4 2025 Background Without Project Volumes ...............................................................3-16
Figure 3-5 Stanford University Medical Center Trip Distribution (Regional)..................................3-32
Figure 3-6 Stanford University Medical Center Trip Distribution (Local).......................................3-33
Figure 3-7 Stanford Shopping Center Trip Distribution (Regional)...............................................3-34
Figure 3-8 Stanford Shopping Center Trip Distribution (Local).....................................................3-35
Figure 3-9 2015 SSC Project Volumes .......................................................................................3-36
Figure 3-10 2015 SUMC Only Project Volumes............................................................................3-40
Figure 3-11 2025 SSC Only Project Volumes ...............................................................................3-44
Figure 3-12 2025 SUMC Only Project Volumes............................................................................3-48
Figure 3-13 2015 traffic volumes + SSC.......................................................................................3-52
Figure 3-14 2015 Traffic Volumes with SUMC only.......................................................................3-59
Figure 3-15 2015 Traffic Volumes with SSC and SUMC................................................................3-66
Figure 3-16 2025 Traffic Volumes with SUMC ..............................................................................3-74
Figure 3-17 2025 Traffic Volumes with SSC + SUMC...................................................................3-84
Figure 3-18 Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities...................................................................3-117
Figure 3-19 Stanford Area Truck Route......................................................................................3-121
Figure 4-1 Intersection Mitigation Geometry Modifications ............................................................4-2
List of Tables
Table 1-1 List of Study Intersections................................................................................................1-8
Table 2-1 CMP Signalized Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ................................................2-2
Table 2-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions......................................................2-2
Table 2-3 Level of Service Thresholds for Freeway Segments.........................................................2-2
Table 2-4 Existing Intersection Level Of Services.............................................................................2-3
Table 2-5 ADT for Residential Roadway Segments........................................................................2-13
Table 2-6 Freeway Segment Level of Service................................................................................2-13
Table 2-7 Bus Schedule ................................................................................................................2-16
Table 3-1 LOS of Study Intersections for 2015 – No Project...........................................................3-20
Table 3-2 LOS of Study Intersections for 2025 – No Project...........................................................3-23
Table 3-3 SSC Trip Generation......................................................................................................3-28
Table 3-4 SSC Trip Generation with Adjustments ..........................................................................3-29
Table 3-5 2015 Trip Generation for SUMC.....................................................................................3-30
Table 3-6 2025 Trip Generation for SUMC.....................................................................................3-30
Table 3-7 LOS Comparison with SSC only in 2015........................................................................3-56
Table 3-8 LOS Comparison with SUMC only in 2015.....................................................................3-63
Table 3-9 LOS Comparison with SSC & SUMC in 2015.................................................................3-70
Table 3-10 LOS Comparison with SUMC only in 2025 – SUMC Only Project Impact........................3-78
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv January 13, 2009
Table 3-11 SUMC Cumulative Impact.................................................................................................3-88
Table 3-12 Cumulative SSC Analysis ..............................................................................................3-93
Table 3-13 2025 with SSC and SUMC – Cumulative of SSC + SUMC..............................................3-96
Table 3-14 Project Impact Summary..............................................................................................3-102
Table 3-15 Freeway Volumes with Project.....................................................................................3-103
Table 3-16 2015 TIRE Index Comparison with Base Scenarios......................................................3-104
Table 3-17 2025 TIRE Index Comparison......................................................................................3-105
Table 3-18 2015 and 2025 Roadway ADT Analysis (Menlo Park)...................................................3-107
Table 3-19 2015 and 2025 TIRE Index Analysis for Menlo Park Roadway .....................................3-108
Table 3-20 SUMC 2015 Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply...........................3-109
Table 3-21 2025 SUMC Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply...........................3-110
Table 3-22 Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply for SSC..................................3-112
Table 3-23 List of Intersections at LOS E and F for 2015 and 2025................................................3-120
Table 4-1 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations – SSC Only in 2015 PM..................................4-3
Table 4-2 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations – SUMC Only in 2015 AM and PM..................4-6
Table 4-3 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations – SSC and SUMC in 2015 AM and PM...........4-9
Table 4-4 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations – SUMC in 2025 AM and PM........................4-13
Table 4-5 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations –
Cumulative SUMC Impact (Base A) in 2025 AM and PM................................................4-19
Table 4-6 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations –
Cumulative SSC Impact (Base B) in 2025 AM and PM...................................................4-25
Table 4-7 LOS Comparison for Roadway Mitigations – SSC + SUMC in 2025 AM and PM.............4-29
Table 4-8 Summary of Project Impact with TDM Measures (SUMC and SSC)................................4-38
Table 4-9 Summary of Project Impact with TDM and Traffic Adaptive Signals................................4-44
Table 4-10 2015 and 2025 Roadway ADT Analysis with TDM (Menlo Park).....................................4-48
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 January 13, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Two separate projects are being proposed simultaneously in the vicinity of Stanford University,
east of the City of Palo Alto. One would redevelop a portion of the Stanford University Medical
Center facilities and the other would expand Stanford Shopping Center. The operator of
Stanford Shopping Center (Simon Property Group) has applied to the City of Palo Alto for the
addition of 240,000 square feet of new retail stores and restaurants, a new 120-room hotel and
1,199 net new vehicular parking spaces. Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) has also
submitted an application to add a net of 1,311,469 square feet of hospital and medical office /
clinic facilities that includes the rezoning of land from ‘Public Facilities’ to a new hospital zone.
Buildings will be demolished and rebuilt in phases to meet the latest codes and standards.
The scope of work for the Traffic Impact Analysis will identify and evaluate existing and potential
future traffic conditions associated with the proposed projects. The potential impacts are
evaluated relative to the operation of public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian
transportation, arterial roadways, intersections, freeways, and transportation demand
management (TDM) strategies.
1.1 Applicable Plans and Policies
The study area, shown in Figure 1-1, is part of the City of Palo Alto and the adjacent cities of
Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. Transportation planning in Palo Alto and the surrounding area
is subject to the regulations of Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and programs.
Federal regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is
responsible for State roadways, and regional issues are addressed by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) of both Santa
Clara County and San Mateo County have developed regulations and policies with relevance to
the proposed projects at the local level.
1.2 Federal Agencies
MTC, which is a regional San Francisco Bay Area agency, implements polices by the FHWA
and the FTA. It oversees transportation improvements in the nine-county Bay Area. It is also
tasked with the development of the local State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In
addition, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) empowers the MTC to
determine the mix of transportation projects best suited for the region’s needs.
1.3 State Agencies
Caltrans is the State agency responsible for State transportation facilities. It has jurisdiction
over State highways in the study area, including El Camino Real (State Route 82), Bayshore
Freeway (U.S. 101), Interstate 280, and the Dumbarton Bridge (State Route 84). Plans to
provide new access or alterations to existing access to a State Route require Caltrans approval.
EAST
PALO
A
L
T
O
PALO
ALTO
WELC
H
RDRD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
San
Cre
e
k
Fra
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
AL
P
I
N
E
JU
N
I
P
E
R
O
SE
R
R
A
SERR
A
OLMS
T
E
D
OLMSTE
D
STA
N
F
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
DOIN
ST
OBERLI
N
ST
YALE
ST
WELLESLEYST
AV
MA
Y
F
I
E
L
D
ESCONDIDO
SANTA
T
E
R
E
S
AST
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
V
E
Z
ST
PAR
K
B
L
PA
L
M
QU
A
R
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
BLV
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
EL
ALM
A
AV
AVAVAV
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
ARBORE
T
U
M
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AV
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Caltrai
n
MIDDL
E
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CAMI
N
O
REAL
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OLIVE
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
O
W
WILLO
W
AV
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
OAK
D
E
L
L
AV
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SAN
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLEMAN
A
V
GILBERTAV
O’KEEFE
S
T
O’CONNOR
S
T
WOODLAND
AV
AV
CHANNING
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
PALO
R
D
VINEYARD
Palo
A
l
t
o
Caltrain
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
RD
CEDR
O
W
Y
RAIM
UND
O
WY
PETER
CO
U
T
T
S
RD
FRE
N
C
HMA
N
'
S
RD
SAN
T
A
MAR
I
A
AV
RD
GERONA
FARM
RD
OAK
SEARSVILLE RD
GOV
E
R
N
O
RS
AV
LOS
A
R
B
O
L
E
S
A
V
FRE
M
O
N
T
RD
RD
ELECTIONEER
ORE
G
O
N
EXP
W
Y
COLO
R
A
D
O
AV
AV
VER
D
E
LOM
A
MEAD
O
W
DR
RD
CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
RD
AN
T
O
N
I
O
SA
N
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
RD
AR
A
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
EXPWY
FOOTHILL
W.
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
RD
ST
AV
STA
N
F
O
R
D
ATHERTON
AV
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AV
101
LOS
ALT
O
S
AV
HAN
S
E
N
WY
HANO
V
E
R
ST
PORTE
R
D
R
HIL
L
V
I
E
W
AV
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
280
STANFORDUNIVERSITY
EMBA
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
AV
UNI
V
E
R
SIT
Y
EVE
R
E
T
T
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
LIN
C
O
L
N
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
LYT
T
O
N
ALM
A
EME
R
S
O
N
BRYA
N
T
HIG
H
RAM
O
N
WAV
E
R
L
Y
WEB
S
T
E
R
COW
P
E
R
EN
C
I
N
A
L
AV
AV
GLE
N
W
O
O
D
AV
VAL
P
A
R
I
S
O
AV
ALE
J
A
N
D
R
A
AV
ATH
E
R
T
O
N
TUS
C
A
L
O
O
S
A
ALM
E
N
D
R
A
L
STO
C
K
B
R
I
D
G
E
SEL
B
Y
AVAV
AVLN
MAR
S
H
RD
RD
BAY
BAYFRONT
EXPWY
5TH
A
V
2N
D
AV
AV
DO
U
G
L
A
S
WOO
D
S
I
D
E
RD
WIL
L
O
W
RD
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
AV
RD
BAY
AV
ALM
A
ST
RD
HILL
ALA
M
E
D
A
DE
L
A
S
PULGA
S
101
84
82
84
82
San Francisco Bay
ST
RD
SHAR
O
N
SHARON PARK
SAND
STOCK
PASTEUR
D
R
AV
AV
VINE
S
T
ST
DONOHOE
DUR
A
N
D
WY
STANFORD EIR
Study Intersections rev1.cdr
27
29
30
31
26
28
24
23
38
12
22
21
17
20
18
1
2 3
4
5
6
7 8
37
35
34
33
32
43
10a
13 14
15
19
25
10b
44
41
36
39
40
42
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 53
9
Figure 1-1
STUDY AREA AND INTERSECTIONS
Study Intersection
Location for ADT Count
11
16
54
55
5657
58
59
60
61
(I-280/Alpine
Interchange)
62
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-3 January 13, 2009
Roadway improvements within a State right-of-way also need Caltrans approval, and the
approval process usually includes the development of detailed roadway geometrics and design
plans.
1.4 Regional Agencies
MTC is the metropolitan planning agency in charge of transportation planning, coordinating and
financing for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC distributes Federal and State funds
to local projects and programs. MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
jointly develop land use projections that are critical inputs for travel demand projections used in
transportation analysis. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) is the tri-county
agency (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties) that has jurisdiction over the
Caltrain rail service. The Dumbarton Bridge Bus Service (Line DB) is operated by AC Transit
and funded by a consortium of several county transit districts, including the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), SamTrans and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) provides both policy guidance and
regulatory control over stationary and mobile air pollution sources. Under the California Clean
Air Act (CCAA) of 1988, the BAAQMD is required to prepare a Clean Air Plan (CAP) to achieve
State standards for ozone and CO. The 2007 Ozone Strategy, jointly prepared by the MTC and
ABAG, will show how the San Francisco Bay Area plans to comply with the State air quality
standards for ozone and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to
neighboring air basins. Control measures will be established and adopted in the 2007-2009
timeframe.
The CCAA states that strategies should emphasize reducing emission from transportation and
other area-wide sources. The Act requires air districts to adopt, implement and enforce
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). The MTC develops, maintains and updates a list of
TCMs and distributes this information to keep the BAAQMD informed of trends.
1.5 Local Agencies
The Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) of both Santa Clara County and San Mateo
County have regulations and policies that are relevant to the proposed project.
1.5.1 Santa Clara County
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the CMA for Santa Clara
County. It oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP) that defines
methodologies and procedures for determining the transportation impact of a potential
project. The most recent guidelines were updated in 2004. The following are CMP
facilities within the study area by functional classification.
x Freeways:
í US 101 and I-280
x Expressways and Arterials:
í Page Mill Road
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-4 January 13, 2009
í Oregon Expressway
í El Camino Real
x Intersections:
í El Camino Real/Sand Hill
í El Camino Real/Embarcadero/Galvez,
í El Camino Real/Page Mill/Oregon Expressway,
í El Camino Real/Palm Drive
í El Camino Real/University Avenue
í Junipero Serra Boulevard/Page Mill
VTA has jurisdiction over public transit in the County. VTA bus service includes several
local and intercity routes in Palo Alto, and the VTA is a member of the Caltrain JPB.
The Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports is responsible for County
roadways and airports, including the Palo Alto Airport, Page Mill Roadway, Foothill
Expressway, Oregon Expressway, Stanford Avenue, and Junipero Serra Boulevard.
1.5.2 San Mateo City/County Association of Governments
The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments has been designated as the
CMA for San Mateo County. Within the study area, the San Mateo County CMP network
includes US 101, I-280, SR 84, and El Camino Real. The intersections within the study
area included under the CMP network are:
x Marsh Road and Bay Road
x Willow Road and Bayfront Expressway
x Bayfront Expressway and University Avenue
Public transit service in San Mateo County is provided by SamTrans. SamTrans makes
connections to public transit services in Santa Clara County in Palo Alto.
1.6 Existing Regional and Local Network
The system of major roadways surrounding Stanford is part of the regional system serving
Stanford, its neighboring communities on the Peninsula and across the Bay. All roadways are
classified according to their primary functions, as described below.
Freeway. A major roadway with controlled access, devoted exclusively to traffic
movement, mainly of a through or regional nature.
Expressway. A major roadway with less controlled access than a freeway, linking
freeways with arterials, and providing access to major destinations.
Arterial. A major roadway mainly taking traffic to and from expressways and
freeways and providing access to major destinations and also adjacent properties.
Collector. A roadway that collects and distributes local traffic to and from arterials,
and provides access primarily to adjacent properties.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-5 January 13, 2009
Regional Roadway Facilities --Regional access to the area is provided by US 101 and
Interstate 280 that run the length of the San Francisco Peninsula from San Francisco to San
Jose and by the Dumbarton Bridge that provides access to / from the East Bay. Descriptions of
these routes are provided below.
US 101 (Bayshore Freeway) is an eight-lane facility in the project area under the
jurisdiction of the Caltrans. It has interchanges at Marsh Road, Willow Road,
University Avenue and Embarcadero Road/Oregon Expressway within the study
area. US 101 is classified as a freeway.
Interstate 280 (Junipero Serra Freeway) is an eight-lane facility in the project area
under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. In the study area, I-280 has interchanges serving
Palo Alto at Sand Hill Road, Alpine Road, and Page Mill Road / Arastradero Road.
Interstate 280 is classified as a freeway.
State Route 84 (Dumbarton Bridge)is a six-lane facility under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans. This facility connects Alameda County to San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties. It is classified as a freeway from I-880 to University Avenue in East Palo
Alto.
Local Access -- The primary streets that provide access within the study area are discussed
below. These streets provide access to the study area as well as the local roadway network.
For the purpose of this traffic and circulation discussion, roadways that parallel US 101 and I-
280 are considered to run in the north/south direction and roadways that generally traverse
toward the Santa Cruz Mountains or San Francisco Bay are considered to run in the east/west
direction.
El Camino Real (State Route 82) is an arterial that runs north-south from San
Francisco to San Jose, parallel and between US 101 and I-280. El Camino Real is a
six-lane road way south of Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo Park and a four-lane
divided road way north of Ravenswood Avenue to the Atherton border. The major
intersections along El Camino Real within the study area are controlled by traffic
signals with the exception of the El Camino Real/Palm/University Avenue
interchange. This interchange is grade-separated and diamond-configured. The on /
off ramps to El Camino Real are controlled by traffic signals. In the City of Palo
Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Real is classified as an arterial. It is
considered a primary arterial in the City of Menlo Park.
Middlefield Road is a two- to four-lane undivided road that runs north-south, parallel
to and between US 101 and El Camino Real. Middlefield Road runs from Redwood
City to the City of Mountain View. The major intersections along Middlefield Road
are signalized. Middlefield Road within Palo Alto is classified as an arterial. Under
the City of Menlo Park guidelines, it is considered as a minor arterial.
Alma Street is primarily a four-lane arterial that runs north-south, parallel to the
Caltrain railroad tracks. Alma Street runs from El Camino Real (near San
Francisquito Creek) to the San Antonio Road interchange in Mountain View, where it
becomes Central Expressway (Santa Clara County G6) and terminates at De La
Cruz Boulevard in the City of Santa Clara. In the study area, Alma Street has limited
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-6 January 13, 2009
access from the west side due to the immediate proximity of the Caltrain railroad
tracks. Alma Street is classified as an arterial.
Sand Hill Road is a two- to four-lane arterial that runs east-west from Portola Road
in the Town of Woodside to the Stanford Shopping Center in the City of Palo Alto. It
is a two lane road from Portola Road to the I-280 interchange and widens to four
lanes between I-280 and Arboretum Road. It narrows to a two lane road between
Arboretum Road and El Camino Real. Within the study area, Sand Hill Road
provides connections to the Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, as well as access to
Stanford University. Sand Hill Road within Palo Alto is classified as an arterial. It is
considered a primary arterial under the City of Menlo Park Guidelines.
Arboretum Road is primarily a two-lane road located within the Stanford University
campus. Arboretum Road is a four-lane road for a short distance from the Quarry
Road intersection to the intersection with Sand Hill Road. South of Quarry Road,
Arboretum Road is a two-lane campus road which provides access to the El Camino
Real/Embarcadero Road intersection via Galvez Street, where Arboretum Road
terminates. Except for the intersection at Galvez Street, all intersections on
Arboretum Road are signalized. Arboretum Road within Palo Alto is classified as an
arterial.
Embarcadero Road is a four-lane arterial that runs east-west from the intersection
of El Camino Real, through the US 101 interchange and terminates near the Palo
Alto Municipal Airport. West of El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road becomes
Galvez Street, which provides a link to Arboretum Road on the Stanford University
campus. A short segment of Embarcadero Road underneath the Caltrain tracks is
narrowed to three lanes. Embarcadero Road is classified by the City of Palo Alto as
a residential arterial.
Junipero Serra Boulevard is a two-lane undivided road that runs north-south and
parallels I-280. Junipero Serra Boulevard runs from Alpine Road to Page Mill Road,
at which point it widens to a four-lane divided facility south of Foothill Expressway.
Junipero Serra Boulevard forms a portion of the southwesterly boundary of the
Stanford University campus. Junipero Serra Boulevard is classified by the City of
Palo Alto as an arterial and is a County-maintained road. It is considered a minor
arterial by the City of Menlo Park.
University Avenue/Palm Drive is a two- to four-lane road that runs east-west from
the Dumbarton Bridge (SR 84) in the City of East Palo Alto to the El Camino Real
grade-separated interchange, where it becomes Palm Drive. From SR 84 to US 101,
University Avenue is a four-lane arterial. University Avenue narrows to two lanes
through the residential and downtown areas of the City of Palo Alto. Near the
Caltrain overcrossing, University Avenue widens to four lanes until it becomes Palm
Drive. Palm Drive remains four lanes until the intersection with Arboretum Road
where it narrows to three lanes. At Campus Drive West, Palm Drive narrows again
to two lanes until it terminates at the University Main Quad. University Avenue is
classified as an arterial by the City of Palo Alto.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-7 January 13, 2009
Page Mill Road / Oregon Expressway is a two- to four-lane roadway which runs
east-west from Skyline Boulevard (SR 35) to US 101. From Skyline Boulevard to the
I-280 interchange, Page Mill Road is a narrow winding two-lane road. From I-280 to
Alma Street, Page Mill Road is a four-lane divided road that is also designated as
Santa Clara County Road G3. From Alma Street where it interchanges to Oregon
Expressway to US 101, it is a four-lane divided road. Page Mill Road / Oregon
Expressway is classified as an arterial.
Alpine Road is a two-lane road that runs east-west from Junipero Serra Boulevard
to Portola Road. It has an interchange with I-280 west of Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Beyond Junipero Serra Boulevard, Alpine Road becomes four-lane Santa Cruz
Avenue for a short distance until it splits with the Alameda De Las Pulgas, where it
narrows again to two lanes. Santa Cruz Avenue turns east-west at Avy Avenue in a
residential neighborhood of Menlo Park and terminates at El Camino Real near
downtown Menlo Park. Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue is classified as a minor
arterial by the City of Menlo Park.
Stanford Avenue is a two-lane collector that runs east-west from Junipero Serra
Boulevard to Park Boulevard in the City of Palo Alto. In Palo Alto, on-street parallel
parking is provided south-side of the roadway. Stanford Avenue is a County-
maintained roadway west of El Camino Real.
Marsh Road is a two to four-lane arterial which runs east-west from Middlefield
Road in Menlo Park to Bayfront Expressway, east of US 101. The two-lane segment
of Marsh Road becomes four-lane near its intersection with Fair Oak Avenue and
continues as four-lanes across US 101 to Bayfront Expressway. In the City of Menlo
Park, Marsh Road is classified as primary arterial between Bay Road and Bohannon
Road and as a local street between Bay Road and Middlefield Road.
Willow Road is a two- to four-lane arterial which runs east-west from Alma Street in
Menlo Park to Bayfront Expressway (SR 84). Between Alma Street and US 101
interchange, Willow Road is two-lane and it becomes four-lane between US 101 and
SR 84. It is classified as minor arterial between Middlefield Road and US 101 and
from US 101 to Bayfront Expressway, it is considered a primary arterial.
1.7 Studied Intersections and Roadways
Intersections analyzed as part of this study are shown in Figure 1-1 and listed in Table 1-1. The
AM and PM peak hours generally occur between the periods of 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to
6:00 PM respectively. Turning movement volumes used in this study are obtained from the
most recent CMA monitoring as well as counts conducted in October 2007 and January 2008
specifically for this project.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-8 January 13, 2009
Table 1-1
List of Study Intersections
1 Menlo Park AECOM October 2007
2 Menlo Park MP October 2006
3 Menlo Park MP October 2006
4 Menlo Park MP October 2006
5 Menlo Park MP October 2006
6 Menlo Park MP October 2006
7 Sand Hill /Alma Palo Alto AECOM February 2008
8 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
9 Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
10 Palm /University Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
AECOM February 2008 (AM)
PA Monitoring October 2007 (PM)
12 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
13 Serra /Park Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
14 Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
15 Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
16 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
17 East Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
18 Menlo Park MP October 2006
19 Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
20 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
21 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
22 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
23 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
24 Santa Clara County AECOM October 2007
25 Campus Drive East Santa Clara County AECOM October 2007
26 Campus Drive West Santa Clara County PA Monitoring October 2006
27 Alpine /Santa Cruz Menlo Park MP October 2006
28 Sand Hill /I-280 Menlo Park AECOM October 2007
29 Menlo Park MP November 2006
30 Santa Cruz Avenue and Sand Hill Menlo Park MP October 2006
31 Menlo Park MP November 2006
32 Sand Hill /Oak Creek Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
33 Palo Alto AECOM October 2007
34 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
35 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
36 Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
37 Galvez Street and Arboretum Road Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
38 El Camino Real and Charleston Road /Arastradero Road Palo Alto AECOM February 2008
39 Alma Street and Charleston Road Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
40 Middlefield Road and Charleston Road Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2007
41 Hamilton Avenue and Middlefield Road Palo Alto AECOM February 2008
42 Hamilton Avenue and Alma Street Palo Alto AECOM February 2008
43 Santa Cruz Avenue and University Drive Menlo Park MP October 2006
44 El Camino Real and Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park MP October 2006
45 Middlefield Road and Ringwood Avenue Menlo Park MP October 2008
46 Middlefield Road and Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park MP October 2008
47 El Camino Real and Encinal Road Menlo Park MP October 2006
48 Marsh Road and Bay Road Menlo Park MP November 2006
49 Marsh Road and US 101 SB off Ramp Menlo Park MP November 2006
50 Marsh Road and US 101 NB off Ramp Menlo Park MP November 2006
51 Willow Road and Bay Road Menlo Park MP October 2006
52 Willow Road and Bayfront Expressway Menlo Park MP October 2006
53 Bayfront Expressway and University Avenue Menlo Park AECOM February 2008
54 University Ave and Bay Road East Palo Alto Fehr and Peers September 2007
55 University Ave and Donohoe Street East Palo Alto Fehr and Peers September 2007
56 Welch Road and Quarry Road Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
57 Durand Way and Sand Hill Road Palo Alto AECOM February 2008
58 Welch Road and Pasteur Drive (East)Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
59 Welch Road and Pasteur Drive (West)Palo Alto PA Monitoring October 2006
60 Durand Way Extension and Welch Road Palo Alto N/A
61 Stanford Road and Bowdoin Street Palo Alto AECOM February 2008
62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp and Alpine Road Palo Alto AECOM October 2008
63 Alpine Road Palo Alto AECOM October 2008
11
Source and Date of Count
I-280 SB Off-Ramp and
El Camino Real and Galvez /Embarcadero Palo Alto
Arboretum and Quarry
Arboretum and Palm
Stockfarm and
Pasteur and Sand Hill
Arboretum and Sand Hill
Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill
Oak and Sand Hill
Junipero Serra and
Junipero Serra and
Junipero Serra and
Sand Hill Circle and
Junipero Serra (Foothill Expressway) and Page Mill
Junipero Serra and Stanford
Middlefield and Embarcadero
Alma and Churchill
Middlefield and Lytton
Middlefield and University
Woodland and University
Middlefield and Willow
El Camino Real and California
El Camino Real and Page Mill
El Camino Real and Churchill
El Camino Real and
El Camino Real and Stanford
Alma and Lytton
*El Camino Real and
El Camino Real and Cambridge
El Camino Real and
El Camino Real and Quarry
El Camino Real and Roble
El Camino Real and Middle
El Camino Real and Santa Cruz
El Camino Real and Ravenswood
#Intersections City / Jurisdiction
El Camino Real and Valparaiso
*Two separate intersections analyzed as a single intersection because of their proximity to each other
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-9 January 13, 2009
Similarly, freeway peak hour volumes used in this study were obtained from the most recent
CMA monitoring and Caltrans. Freeway segments analyzed in this study are as follow:
US 101 North of University N/B & S/B
US 101 South of University N/B & S/B
US 101 South of Embarcadero / Oregon Expressway N/B & S/B
I-280 north of Sand Hill Road N/B & S/B
I-280 south of Alpine Road N/B & S/B
I-280 south of Page Mill Road N/B & S/B
In addition, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts were collected for eight segments of residential
streets in October 2007. These seven segments are:
Santa Cruz Avenue - North of Sand Hill Road
Sharon Road - North of Sharon Park Drive
Stanford Avenue - North of Sand Hill Road
Leland Avenue - North of Sand Hill Road
Vine Street - North of Sand Hill Road
Hawthorne Avenue - East of Alma Street
Everett Avenue - East of Alma Street
Hamilton Avenue – Between Chaucer Street and Lincoln Avenue
1.8 Traffic Impact Significance Criteria
Adverse impacts are defined by criteria listed below for Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
Project impact will be determined using both sets of criteria. Within the main body of this
transportation study, intersections are analyzed according to the City of Palo Alto’s criteria
regardless of the intersection’s location. Roadway segments in Menlo Park are analyzed
according to Menlo Park’s criteria. In Appendix A of this report, the Menlo Park intersections
are also analyzed according to Menlo Park’s criteria for informational purposes since the criteria
are different from those of City of Palo Alto.
1.8.1 City of Palo Alto
Traffic impact would be considered significant when the project results in the following:
x Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of
Service (LOS) D; or
x Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in
the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more,
and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more;
or
x Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from LOS E or better to LOS F; or
x Cause a regional intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the
average control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds
or more, and the critical v/c to increase by 0.01 or more; or
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-10 January 13, 2009
x An unsignalized intersection has increased traffic volumes and meets traffic
signal warrants; or
x Cause queuing impacts based on a comparison of the demand queue length
and the available queue storage capacity. Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations, queues at turn
lanes at intersections that block through traffic, queues at lane drops, queues
at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections and
spillback queues on ramps; or
x Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS F or
contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway
segment already operating at LOS F; or
x Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle
facilities; or
x Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion; or
x Result in inadequate on-site parking supply; or
x Create an operational safety hazard; or
x Result in inadequate emergency access; or
x Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on
Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector
residential street.
1.8.2 City of Menlo Park
Similarly, the City of Menlo considers a project has significant impact if it results in the
following:
x Project traffic causes an intersection on a collector street to operate at LOS D
or below or have an increase of 23 seconds or greater in average vehicle
delay, whichever comes first; or
x Project traffic causes an intersection on arterial streets or local approaches to
State controlled signalized intersection to operate at LOS E or below or have
an increase of 23 seconds or greater in average delay, whichever comes first;
or
x Project traffic causes an increase of more than 0.8 seconds of average delay
to vehicles on all critical movements for intersection on collector streets
operating at LOS D or below or LOS E or below for arterial streets.
x Project traffic causes an increase of more than 0.8 seconds of delay to
vehicles on the most critical movements for intersections on local approaches
to State controlled signalized intersections operating at LOS E or below; or
x On minor arterial streets, if the existing ADT is 1) greater than 18,000 (90
percent of capacity), and there is a net increase of 100 trips or more in ADT
due to project traffic; 2) the ADT is greater than 10,000 (50 percent of
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-11 January 13, 2009
capacity) but less than 18,000, and the project traffic increases the ADT by
12.5 percent or the ADT becomes 18,000 or more; 3) the ADT is less than
10,000, and the project traffic increases the ADT by 25 percent; or
x On collector streets, if the existing ADT is 1) greater than 9,000 (90 percent of
capacity), and there is a net increase of 50 trips or more in ADT due to
project traffic; 2) the ADT is greater than 5,000 (50 percent of capacity) but
less than 9,000 and the project traffic increases the ADT by 12.5 percent or
the ADT becomes 9,000 or more; 3) the ADT is less than 5,000 and the
project traffic increases the ADT by 25 percent; or
x On local streets, if the existing ADT is 1) greater than 1,350 (90 percent of
capacity), and there is a net increase of 25 trips or more in ADT due to
project traffic; 2) the ADT is greater than 750 (50 percent of capacity) but less
than 1,350, and the project traffic increases the ADT by 12.5 percent or the
ADT becomes 1,350 or 3) the ADT is less than 750 and the project traffic
increases the ADT by 25 percent.
1.9 Applicable Environmental Plans and Policies
The following are policies and goals drawn from relevant City Comprehensive Plans to assist in
determining significant impact of projects:
1.9.1 City of Palo Alto
x Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and
public transit use.
x Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive,
effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
x Policy T-5: Support continued development and improvement of the
University Avenue and California Avenue Transit Stations, and the San
Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the city.
x Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, school, parks, open space,
employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.
x Policy T-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and
pedestrian paths through new private developments.
x Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public
and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles,
in City parks, in private developments and at other community destinations.
x Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as
sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor
furniture, art and interesting architectural details.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-12 January 13, 2009
x Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the
roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
x Policy T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to
remedy severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems.
Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those
of pedestrians and bicyclists.
x Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s
major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and
bicyclists also using the network.
x Policy T-30: Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by
designating certain streets as residential arterials.
x Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and
collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion
management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among
these measures.
x Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first
priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and
automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections.
x Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that
encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of
auto trips for daily errands.
x Policy L-43: Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the
citywide bikeway systems within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities
to build sidewalks and paths in renovation and expansion projects.
1.9.2 City of Menlo Park
Roadway Network
x Goal II-A: Maintain a circulation system using the Roadway Classification
System that will provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and
goods throughout Menlo Park for residential and commercial purposes.
Bicycles
x Goal II-D: Promote the safe use of bicycles as a commute alternative and for
recreation.
Pedestrians
x Goal II-E: Promote walking as a commute alternative and for short trips.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-1 January 13, 2009
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section of the report presents the existing conditions for the different aspects of
transportation issues within the study area. It covers intersections and roadway analysis as well
as public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transportation demand management
programs relevant to the proposed projects.
2.1 Intersection and Roadway Analysis
A total of 60 signalized intersections and 3 unsignalized intersections were identified for analysis
in this study. Existing turning movement volumes during peak hours were obtained and
analyzed using TRAFFIX 7.9. 24-hour counts for eight roadway segments were conducted for
seven days to determine their ADT. In addition, volumes for six freeway segments were
obtained.
2.1.1 Intersection Analysis Methodology
The current procedures adopted for intersection operational analysis in Santa Clara
County are according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. HCM 2000 is
applied via the TRAFFIX 7.9 software package per the requirements of the CMA. Level
of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay. The definitions
of level of service A through F are noted in Table 2-1. Control delay includes initial
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay.
Average control delay weights the delay per movement according to the traffic volumes
for that movement. The critical volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is an approximate indicator
of the overall sufficiency of an intersection. The critical v/c ratio depends on the
conflicting critical lane flow rates and the signal phasing. V/C ranges from 1.0 when the
flow rate equals capacity to 0.0 when the flow rate is zero. Values above 1.0 indicate an
excess of demand over capacity. Average critical delay weights the delay for the critical
(conflicting) movements based on the traffic volume for that movement.
There is no specific methodology for analyzing unsignalized intersections in the CMP.
For this report, the HCM 2000 methodology for unsignalized intersection, supported by
TRAFFIX software, is used for unsignalized intersection LOS calculations. Table 2-2
lists the thresholds for the LOS for unsignalized intersections.
LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per
vehicle for all approaches. At two-way or side-street controlled intersections, LOS is
calculated for each controlled movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For single
approaches, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane.
The threshold values for unsignalized intersections are different than the threshold
values for signalized intersections due to different driver expectations of level of
performance. Higher delay for the same LOS is acceptable at a signalized intersection
as a signalized intersection is expected to serve larger traffic volumes.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-2 January 13, 2009
Table 2-1
CMP Signalized Intersection Level of Service Thresholds
LOS
Average Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A delay < 10.0
B+10.0 < delay < 12.0
B 12.0 < delay < 18.0
B-18.0 < delay < 20.0
C+20.0 < delay < 23.0
C 13.0 < delay < 32.0
C-32.0 < delay < 35.0
D+35.0 < delay < 39.0
D 39.0 < delay < 51.0
D-51.0 < delay < 55.0
E+55.0 < delay < 60.0
E 60.0 < delay < 75.0
E-75.0 < delay < 80.0
F delay > 80.0
Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, June2003.
Table 2-2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A Little or no delay delay 10.0
B Short traffic delays 10.0 < delay 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.0 < delay 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.0 < delay 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.0 < delay 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded delay > 50.0
Source: HCM 2000.
The adopted measure for freeway LOS evaluation in Santa Clara County is density,
expressed as passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpl). The analysis procedures are
outlined in HCM 2000 but LOS D/E and E/F density thresholds are modified to reflect
Santa Clara County conditions. The LOS thresholds for freeway segments are
presented in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3
Level of Service Thresholds for Freeway Segments
Level of Service Density
(passenger cars/miles/lane)
Speed
(miles/hour)
A density 11.0 67.0 speed
B 11.0 < density 18.0 66.5 speed < 67.0
C 18.0 < density 26.0 66.0 speed < 66.5
D 26.0 < density 46.0 46.0 speed < 66.0
E 46.0 < density 58.0 35.0 speed < 46.0
F 58.0 < density speed < 35.0
Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA, June 2003.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-3 January 13, 2009
2.1.2 TRAFFIX
TRAFFIX is a software program that simulates the HCM 2000 analysis methodology.
TRAFFIX evaluates intersection operations based on both average vehicle delay and
critical movement delay. The Santa Clara County CMA and the City of Palo Alto require
the use of TRAFFIX and the evaluation of operations using critical movement delay. In
addition to calculating expected vehicle delay on which level of service is based,
TRAFFIX also calculates the optimal signal cycle length and intersection queuing. The
current version used in this study is Version 7.9.
2.1.3 Analysis Results
Table 2-4 presents the TRAFFIX results for the 63 intersections under the existing
condition. Intersections that currently operate at LOS E or F are shaded in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4
Existing Intersection Level Of Services
AM PM
#Intersection LOS
Avg
Delay
Critical
V/C
Avg Crit
Delay LOS
Avg
Delay
Critical
V/C
Avg Crit
Delay
1 El Camino Real/Valparaiso Ave-Glenwood Ave D+35.2 0.715 36.2 D 42.2 0.789 44.8
2 El Camino Real/Santa Cruz Ave B 12.2 0.503 11.7 B 17.5 0.568 18.0
3 El Camino Real/Ravenswood Ave-Menlo Ave D+37.2 0.756 37.9 D 46.0 0.823 48.9
4 El Camino Real/Roble Ave B+10.4 0.427 9.4 B+11.5 0.454 9.3
5 El Camino Real/Middle Ave C 24.2 0.694 28.9 D+36.6 0.822 39.6
6 El Camino Real/Cambridge Ave B 13.5 0.562 14.8 B 12.4 0.507 6.7
7 El Camino Real/Sand Hill Rd-Alma St C 24.1 0.567 34.2 D+35.5 0.618 42.3
8 El Camino Real/Quarry Rd B 13.7 0.369 18.5 C 23.0 0.478 13.0
9 El Camino Real/Lytton Avenue B 16.7 0.517 16.8 C 25.5 0.848 30.4
10 El Camino Real /Palm Dr-University Ave C 29.4 0.734 33.2 D 43.6 0.850 49.2
11 El Camino Real/Embarcadero Rd-Galvez St D 43.3 0.723 46.9 D 49.3 0.816 52.7
12 El Camino Real/Churchill Ave C 26.4 0.572 32.3 C 26.9 0.729 38.3
13 El Camino Real/Serra St-Park Blvd B 17.2 0.473 21.7 C 25.9 0.664 30.1
14 El Camino Real/Stanford Ave C+22.5 0.449 17.0 C 22.3 0.608 25.8
15 El Camino Real/S. California Ave C+20.2 0.498 18.4 C 28.3 0.630 27.6
16 El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd-Oregon Expy E 60.4 0.987 70.5 E+57.3 0.959 65.7
17 Woodland Ave/University Ave C-33.4 0.673 35.8 D 41.3 0.844 48.0
18 Middlefield Rd/Willow Rd D+36.0 0.761 40.3 D 47.7 0.812 54.2
19 Middlefield Rd/Lytton Ave C 24.2 0.664 24.6 D+ 37.5 0.806 40.0
20 Middlefield Rd/University Ave C 27.0 0.446 27.8 C 29.0 0.565 30.5
21 Middlefield Rd/Embarcadero Rd C-34.2 0.526 35.9 D 40.1 0.652 42.5
22 Alma St /Churchill Ave B-19.1 0.657 16.6 C 27.2 0.769 30.6
23 Junipero Serra Blvd-Foothill Expy/Page Mill Rd F 103.4 1.128 135.0 F 123.5 1.182 168.7
24 Junipero Serra Blvd/Stanford Ave B 12.3 0.614 17.1 B 15.1 0.616 18.5
25 Junipero Serra Blvd/Campus Dr East B+11.5 0.489 16.4 B 12.7 0.463 15.4
26 Junipero Serra Blvd/Campus Dr West D+36.3 0.611 43.4 C-34.5 0.766 40.9
27 Junipero Serra Blvd/Alpine Rd-Santa Cruz Ave C 27.0 0.723 30.9 C 30.8 0.745 32.1
28 Sand Hill Rd/Sand Hill Cir- I-280* F 83.7 0.944 67.1 D+38.1 0.903 44.6
29 Sand Hill Rd/Sharon Park Dr C 23.5 0.644 19.9 C+20.6 0.625 22.7
30 Sand Hill Rd/Santa Cruz Ave C 28.4 0.774 31.5 D+38.3 0.712 38.5
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-4 January 13, 2009
AM PM
#Intersection LOS
Avg
Delay
Critical
V/C
Avg Crit
Delay LOS
Avg
Delay
Critical
V/C
Avg Crit
Delay
31 Sand Hill Rd/Oak Ave-Vine St A 9.2 0.651 10.0 A 6.8 0.675 8.1
32 Sand Hill Rd/Stock Farm Rd-Oak Creek Dr B 15.4 0.562 16.5 C 25.3 0.666 27.2
33 Sand Hill Rd/Pasteur Dr-Clark Way C+20.4 0.585 22.0 C+22.5 0.534 22.8
34 Sand Hill Rd/Arboretum Rd C+20.4 0.443 22.0 C 24.8 0.601 27.8
35 Arboretum Rd/Quarry Rd C-32.0 0.572 32.7 C 31.9 0.712 37.0
36 Arboretum Rd/Palm Dr C+22.6 0.822 27.4 C+20.6 0.723 21.9
37 Galvez / Arboretum Rd (unsignalized)D 25.6 0.64-25.6 F 54.6 0.94 54.6
38 EL Camino Real/Charleston Rd / Arastradero Rd D 39.2 0.739 39.3 D 42.0 0.853 44.6
39 Alma St/ Charleston Rd D+38.6 0.766 39.6 D 40.4 0.813 44.0
40 Middlefield Rd/ Charleston Rd D 39.7 0.644 42.2 D 40.4 0.700 42.5
41 Hamilton Ave/Middlefield Rd B-1835 0.336 18.7 B-18.3 0.375 19.0
42 Hamilton Ave/ Alma St B+11.3 0.503 12.8 C+20.5 0.618 21.8
43 Santa Cruz Ave/ University Dr C+21.8 0.449 26.9 C 27.7 0.520 30.1
44 El Camino Real/Oak Grove Ave C 27.5 0.600 25.8 C 28.5 0.651 26.4
45 Middlefield Rd/Ringwood Ave C 28.7 0.614 31.2 C 28.4 0.713 33.6
46 Middlefield Rd/ Ravenswood Ave C 27.2 0.807 35.8 D 47.6 0.964 62.0
47 El Camino Real/Encinal Rd B 17.7 0.627 14.9 B-18.5 0.656 19.1
48 Marsh Rd/Bay Rd B 12.4 0.510 13.6 B+11.9 0.451 13.0
49 Marsh Rd/US 101 SB Off-Ramp B 18.2 0.744 20.5 B-19.8 0.802 19.9
50 Marsh Rd/US 101 NB Off-Ramp B 14.0 0.514 14.7 B 14.1 0.783 15.9
51 Willow Rd/Bay Rd B-18.4 0.625 22.4 B 15.9 0.524 19.4
52 Willow Rd/Bayfront Expressway C 28.3 0.708 40.8 E 61.7 1.024 71.1
53 Bayfront Expressway/ University Ave C 25.7 0.921 49.5 C 27.7 0.885 32.9
54 University Ave and Bay Road C-34.5 0.713 36.4 E 71.5 1.065 89.9
55 University Ave and Donohoe Street D 49.9 0.874 52.5 D-52.1 0.946 60.9
56 Welch Road and Quarry Road C+20.8 0.552 23.9 C+21.4 0.539 23.1
57 Durand Way and Sand Hill Road A 6.1 0.315 9.1 A 5.8 0.398 7.4
58 Welch Road and Pasteur Drive (East)A 8.4 0.328 10.1 B+10.4 0.402 10.8
59 Welch Road and Pasteur Drive (West)B+10.6 0.351 8.9 A 7.7 0.240 8.2
60 Durand Way Extension and Welch Road (new
intersection in the future)NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
61 Stanford Road and Bowdoin Street (unsignalized)B 13.5 0.671 13.5 B 11.7 0.536 11.7
62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp/ Alpine Road (unsignalized)F 312.1 1.851 312.1 F 128.4 1.252 128.4
63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road (unsignalized)F 80.7 1.12 80.7 C 17.7 0.43 17.7
Source: City of Palo Alto, City of Menlo Park and AECOM Mar 08
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of
this report.
The existing geometry of these intersections, as well as the traffic volumes, are shown in
Figure 2-1a through Figure 2-1d and Figure 2-2a through Figure 2-2d, respectively.
Based on the CMP requirements, all intersections operate within satisfactory levels of
service (LOS D or better) during the AM peak hours except for the intersections of El
Camino Real/Page Mill Rd-Oregon Expressway (#16), Junipero Serra Boulevard-Foothill
Expressway/Page Mill Rd (#23), Sand Hill Circle / I-280 (#28), Alpine Road / I-280 NB
Off-Ramp (#62) and Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63). El Camino Real / Page
Mill Road-Oregon Expressway (#16) operates at LOS E while the other four
intersections operate at LOS F.
STANFORD EIRExisting Geometry.cdr
Figure 2-1a
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Alma
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
Sand Hill
10
Lytton
Alm
a
STANFORD EIRExisting Geometry.cdr
Figure 2-1b
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Santa Cruz
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
Alpine
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
Lytton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
STANFORD EIRExisting Geometry.cdr
Charleston
Al
m
a
39
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Al
m
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
Encinal
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
47
Marsh Rd
Ba
y
R
d
48
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
US 1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
B
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
Willow Rd
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
University Av
Figure 2-1c
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
Arastradero
Embarcadero
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
Galvez
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
STANFORD EIRExisting Geometry.cdr
Figure 2-1d
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Future Construction
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61 62
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Road
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Road
63
STANFORD EIRExisting Volumes.cdr
Figure 2-2a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
AM (PM) Peak Hour
24(27)
56(69)
51(65)
71
3
(
1
4
6
1
)
49
(
5
1
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
94
(
1
3
1
)
14
1
1
(
1
1
3
2
)
13
(
6
2
)
13
9
7
(
1
0
7
9
)
15
8
(
1
7
3
)
31 (88)
285(340)
471(448)
13 (29)
324(309)
53(109)96
(
2
3
7
)
72
4
(
1
3
1
0
)
33
2
(
5
9
4
)
84
(
1
3
0
)
18
5
2
(
1
5
0
5
)
0
(
3
)
0 (2)
5 (1)
4 (3)
175(203)
0 (0)
336(204)
18
2
(
3
8
8
)
88
4
(
1
9
6
5
)
0
(
1
)
22
(
1
5
)
21
4
2
(
1
7
0
3
)
39
(
4
3
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
13(19)
1 (0)
42(31)
17
6
(
2
4
4
)
10
5
7
(
2
3
4
0
)
1
(
3
)
42
4
(
2
9
2
)
15
1
4
(
8
1
0
)
59
1
(
3
5
6
)
656(416)
214(551)
201(191)14
7
(
9
4
)
68
1
(
1
1
4
2
)
25
(
5
6
)
96
(
7
5
)
12
4
5
(
1
0
7
9
)
128(315)
0 (0)
119(357)19
9
(
3
0
5
)
98
6
(
1
2
9
6
)
90(136)
1203(947)
258(188)
8 (49)
429(849)
31(101)86
(
5
2
)
24
9
(
3
6
4
)
81
(
5
1
)
21
5
(
2
9
6
)
15
1
(
8
6
)
10
3
5
(
1
3
3
1
)
20
4
(
3
3
5
)
258(171)
481(365)
234(275)
57(273)
168(479)
138(459)
37
4
(
2
5
0
)
11
7
2
(
1
3
4
6
)
74
(
2
7
7
)
11
8
0
(
1
8
6
2
)
13
2
(
2
9
8
)
156(173)
233(200)
13
3
8
(
1
6
8
1
)
13
5
(
1
5
9
)
172(289)
1402(865)
475(576)
356(512)
728(1056)
106(363)
23
6
(
1
7
2
)
73
3
(
1
4
5
0
)
45
2
(
6
1
3
)
44
6
(
2
4
9
)
10
3
7
(
9
2
4
)
15
3
(
1
6
4
)
519(333)
1078(718)
288(235)
65(29)
576(937)
16(13)29
(
1
5
)
12
1
(
9
0
)
29
9
(
3
6
0
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
560(574)
153(119)
906(466)
11(29)
159(170)
57(68)24
(
6
6
)
34
0
(
4
3
9
)
22
8
(
4
7
9
)
50
(
3
5
)
33
3
(
3
9
4
)
50
2
(
7
0
2
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
15
(
1
6
)
30
0
(
3
4
4
)
20
8
(
2
7
0
)
90 (210)
28 (9)
112(282)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
0
(
7
1
2
)
29
7
(
3
6
3
)
24
9
(
1
8
0
)
12
6
7
(
1
0
1
6
)
55
(
5
5
)
20 (20)
197(168)
62 (96)
222(404)
223(182)
90(155)
11
0
(
1
6
8
)
53
7
(
1
3
2
7
)
35
(
6
8
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (314)
22
2
(
1
8
4
)
15
6
7
(
1
6
6
5
)
14
(
1
6
)
12
5
(
1
0
3
)
13
0
6
(
1
7
6
2
)
33
(
2
6
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
207(198)
19
8
(
1
9
4
)
15
3
4
(
1
5
8
7
)
27
(
4
5
)
18
5
(
1
8
2
)
12
1
6
(
1
9
0
0
)
21
(
3
9
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
12
2
(
1
0
3
)
16
3
5
(
1
5
3
4
)
77
(
1
0
0
)
17
5
(
1
2
6
)
11
2
0
(
1
7
9
4
)
92
(
1
0
8
)
23
(
3
3
)
17
4
5
(
1
5
4
3
)
31
(
6
2
)
5 (25)
3 (26)
3 (50)
43 (43)
6 (6)
42 (18)
48
(
1
0
8
)
10
5
8
(
1
9
2
1
)
24
(
9
)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
STANFORD EIRExisting Volumes.cdr
Figure 2-2b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
50
(
4
2
)
22
1
(
3
8
8
)
98
(
1
0
8
)
65(151)
846(794)
59(101)
52(81)
641(851)
58(90)10
8
(
7
7
)
21
5
(
3
4
5
)
33
(
4
8
)
13
5
(
1
4
1
)
57
4
(
1
1
1
6
)
0
(
5
)
3 (5)
83(79)
99(69)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
26
4
(
1
6
9
)
12
7
7
(
8
9
4
)
15
(
2
8
)
12
4
(
4
3
1
)
55
7
(
7
9
4
)
27
1
(
1
4
3
)
97(137)
713(1872)
356(261)
433(176)
1900(768)
408(107)
10
2
(
4
3
0
)
49
5
(
4
0
4
)
13
5
(
1
4
5
)
23
(
5
)
78
5
(
3
2
3
)
42
8
(
1
1
1
)
42(444)
14 (5)
67(326)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)14
(
5
)
27
7
(
5
2
3
)
33
4
(
1
3
7
)
453(757)
582(327)
69
(
5
0
5
)
24
9
(
5
2
5
)
898(651)
557(87)
25
2
(
1
9
9
)
1
(
1
)
22
6
(
2
0
2
)
145(282)
873(1437)
39 (2)
174(153)
1569(1000)
33 (4)1
(
2
8
)
1
(
2
)
3
(
2
4
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
80
(
3
3
)
1903(939)
37(98)
742(1923)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
525(1016)
196(78)
39 (33)
1251(861)
478(96)90
(
4
3
1
)
2
(
1
7
)
58
(
2
0
0
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (15)
497(522)
29 (60)
10 (3)
484(615)
414(413)
26
9
(
4
5
4
)
7
(
4
)
28
(
8
0
)
27
(
3
9
)
33
1
(
3
5
8
)
55
(
9
6
)
47(76)
360(260)
10 (79)
19(74)
140(467)
271(563)
50
0
(
2
6
6
)
29
6
(
3
5
0
)
15
(
2
9
)
12
(
1
2
)
30
2
(
5
0
9
)
37
1
(
4
6
6
)
516(350)
455(372)
139(461)
7 (27)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
79(98)
501(420)
86(59)
30(46)
216(324)
11(16)
83
(
8
2
)
34
1
(
3
8
7
)
10
4
(
1
1
9
)
43
(
4
2
)
25
6
(
4
1
8
)
71
(
1
2
4
)
83(122)
166(357)54
8
(
5
8
2
)
18
3
(
1
0
5
)
61
3
(
4
9
4
)
40
3
(
3
0
9
)
74(202)
18 (83)
73
9
(
6
2
7
)
23
3
(
1
1
6
)
51
8
(
5
3
1
)
80
(
4
9
)
36
(
1
9
4
)
53
(
8
5
)
22 (3)
783(2032)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
25
0
(
5
5
)
10
2
(
2
7
)
61
2
(
2
2
3
)
53
(
8
6
)
160 (28)
1816(628)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (21)
634(1593)
105(58)
10 (19)
1581(962)
452(66)
35
(
4
2
5
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
28
3
(
2
9
5
)
55
7
(
5
3
9
)
24
5
(
1
2
1
)
52 (212)
595(1232)
226(325)
312(383)
1134(710)
282(194)
15
5
(
2
0
5
)
58
2
(
5
9
6
)
36
7
(
2
0
5
)
71
(
3
8
)
30
0
(
2
1
5
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(18)
104(70)
5 (7)
154(396)
28(152)
68(120)
12
0
(
1
1
0
)
25
8
(
4
4
4
)
6
(
1
6
)
44
5
(
2
0
1
)
49
8
(
5
4
0
)
8
(
1
9
)
STANFORD EIRExisting Volumes.cdr
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
0
(
7
6
7
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
321(358)
106(119)
135(187)
483(295)
170(169)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
5
(
7
2
8
)
37
(
4
7
)
83
(
9
5
)
38
2
(
4
1
4
)
6
(
1
9
)
39
(
4
6
)
30
1
(
3
7
4
)
9
(
2
9
)
9
(
1
8
)
45
0
(
6
5
4
)
44
(
6
2
)
6
(
3
)
99
4
(
8
2
4
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
18
(
6
)
72
1
(
6
8
9
)
20
6
(
4
4
6
)
442(246)
39 (3)
133(30)
20 (37)
55 (62)
20 (38)57
(
5
)
64
5
(
8
8
0
)
15
2
(
7
8
)
4
(
4
)
35
(
1
2
)
10
4
(
6
5
)
29 (54)
1025(867)
360(201)
1 (2)
660(827)
54 (82)85
(
5
9
)
6
(
1
1
)
20
2
(
1
8
8
)
95
(
8
3
)
36
7
(
2
7
2
)
66 (50)
1182(1328)
414(189)
1221(1120)
16
0
(
7
7
)
11
4
6
(
3
6
1
0
)
143(72)
406(1801)
19
6
1
(
5
5
3
)
38
0
8
(
7
8
4
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(134)
296(411)
69(59)
96(92)
434(379)
116(243)
69
(
7
1
)
65
8
(
1
2
7
3
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
5
9
(
1
1
5
8
)
22
(
6
2
)
382(454)
63(101)
424(332)
396(320)
26
8
(
4
2
0
)
99
(
1
1
7
)
22
8
(
1
7
7
)
82
3
(
1
9
8
0
)
76
(
8
)
19(86)
13(224)
7 (145)
98 (68)
302(68)
454(1548)
13
0
6
(
3
9
0
)
22
3
6
(
9
0
4
)
21
(
3
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
63
9
(
5
0
7
)
84
5
(
1
3
7
2
)
163 (293)
1228(943)
834(1117)
571(792)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
79
(
9
5
)
12
9
2
(
9
1
8
)
94
(
6
9
)
44(61)
209(169)
110(99)
48(122)
150(179)
49(111)
11
0
(
1
1
4
)
63
7
(
1
4
9
3
)
49
(
1
0
6
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
12
4
(
1
3
1
)
53
9
(
5
5
2
)
106(295)
477(633)
53
4
(
5
7
6
)
45
0
(
5
2
9
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
71
(
5
1
)
17
5
6
(
1
1
7
8
)
15
8
(
6
6
)
188(219)
21 (25)
78 (90)
13 (31)
20 (9)
1 (31)18
(
4
6
)
75
0
(
1
7
0
3
)
46
(
5
7
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
62
7
(
6
1
5
)
29
6
(
1
0
4
)
1688(1015)
747(631)
1051(2010)
617(444)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 2-2c
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
3
9
)
28
0
(
4
2
3
)
226(671)
369(247)
539(291)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
24
7
(
2
8
3
)
68
8
(
1
8
5
2
)
11
7
(
1
4
7
)
135(214)
567(458)
113(151)
209(217)
405(555)
178(459)
38
8
(
2
5
8
)
15
2
8
(
1
0
7
3
)
91
(
1
4
8
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
87
(
1
2
3
)
20
0
(
2
9
2
)
48
(
9
3
)
54(50)
1209(572)
106(135)
126(101)
532(1658)
98(98)
10
3
(
1
9
3
)
23
3
(
2
5
4
)
10
4
(
4
4
2
)
44
6
(
1
9
2
)
10
8
(
1
3
9
)
19
(
6
5
)
73(97)
909(664)
25(94)
152(212)
343(834)
257(551)
42
6
(
3
1
6
)
46
5
(
4
4
1
)
29
5
(
8
4
1
)
58(120)
65(303)
21 (47)
21 (21)
247(105)
38 (6)
119(212)
8 (8)
97(283)
STANFORD EIRExisting Volumes.cdr
Figure 2-2d
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Future Construction
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
151(95)
161(189)52
(
2
3
6
)
75
(
1
4
9
)
231(85)
278(130)
53
(
1
9
)
30
7
(
8
4
)
25
4
(
1
0
4
)
157(261)
153(90)
157(250)
114(40)
65(295)
254(247)
12 (65)
363(288)
49
(
1
0
0
)
11
2
(
2
9
2
)
11
8
(
1
8
9
)
49
(
6
1
)
13
(
4
)
19
6
(
6
7
4
)
561(212)
208(182)
12 (10)
72 (72)
96(306)
7 (2)2
(
6
)
5
(
2
8
)
1
(
1
8
)
15
(
1
3
)
0
(
0
)
45
(
1
6
)
8 (17)
842(1177)
0 (0)
23 (19)
1127(955)
0 (0)
I-2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
62
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f-R
a
m
p
34 (293)
575(1058)
29
9
(
1
8
0
)
0
(
0
)
85
0
(
3
7
2
)
328(289)
658(338)673(609)
167(219)
288(678)
592(600)45
3
(
2
1
5
)
33
7
(
5
5
)
Alpine Rd
63
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-13 January 13, 2009
During the PM peak period, El Camino Real / Page Mill Road-Oregon Expressway (#16)
and Bay Road/University Avenue (#54) operate at LOS E while Junipero Serra
Boulevard-Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road (#23), Galvez / Arboretum Road (#37),
Willow Road / Bayfront Expressway (#52) and Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62)
operate below the CMP threshold at LOS F. All other intersections are within acceptable
levels of service for the PM peak hour.
The ADT (total of both directions) for residential roads identified in the study is shown in
Table 2-5. Table 2-5 also notes the existing TIRE index. The TIRE index is a numerical
representation of a resident’s perception of the influence of traffic on daily life. Streets
with TIRE levels above 3.0 are considered traffic-dominated, while those with indexes
below 3.0 are better suited for residential activities. Santa Cruz Avenue, Sharon Road,
Hawthorne Avenue, Everett Avenue and Hamilton Avenue all have indexes above 3.0.
Table 2-5
ADT for Residential Roadway Segments
Residential Segment City/Jurisdiction ADT TIRE Index
Santa Cruz Avenue North of Sand Hill Road Menlo Park 20,505 4.3
Sharon Road North of Sharon Park Drive Menlo Park 4,046 3.6
Stanford Avenue North of Sand Hill Road Menlo Park 158 2.2
Leland Avenue North of Sand Hill Road Menlo Park 286 2.5
Vine Street North of Sand Hill Road Menlo Park 333 2.5
Hawthorne Avenue East of Alma Street Palo Alto 1,703 3.2
Everett Avenue East of Alma Street Palo Alto 1,366 3.1
Hamilton Avenue Between Chaucer Street
and Lincoln Avenue Palo Alto 2,454 3.4
Source: AECOM October 07 counts
In addition, the ADT for freeway segments included in the study area is presented in
Table 2-6. Several freeway segments operate at level of service F in one or both peak
periods. These include northbound and southbound US 101 north of University Avenue,
northbound and southbound US 101 south of University Avenue, southbound US 101
south of Embarcadero/Oregon Expressway and northbound I-280 south of Page Mill
Road.
Table 2-6
Freeway Segment Level of Service
Freeway Segment Direction ADT LOS (AM)LOS
(PM)
NBUS 101 North of University SB
225,400
235,500
F
F
F
F
NBUS 101 South of University SB
207,000
207,000
F
F
F
F
NBUS 101 South of Embarcadero / Oregon Expressway SB
222,350
202,950
D
F
E
E
NBI-280 north of Sand Hill Road SB
124,200
128,460
D
D
D
D
NBI-280 south of Alpine Road SB
107,900
104,500
C
C
C
C
NBI-280 south of Page Mill Road SB
117,800
127,150
C
D
F
C
Source: Caltrans 2006 Counts, 2007 San Mateo CMP & 2006 Santa Clara CMP
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-14 January 13, 2009
2.2 Transit Services
Figure 2-3 shows the public transit network within the study area. This area is currently served
by buses operated by VTA and SamTrans. In addition, there are free shuttles operated by
Stanford (the Marguerite) that bring students and employees to / from the transit centers (Palo
Alto Transit Center and San Antonio Transit Center in City of Mountain View). The City of Palo
Alto also offers free shuttle service within the City throughout the day. The AC Transit operated
Dumbarton Express connects this peninsula area to the East Bay via the Dumbarton Bridge.
Menlo Park Midday Shuttle ferries passengers between downtown Menlo Park, the Stanford
Shopping Center and Stanford hospital on weekdays. This service is funded by the City of
Menlo Park and the BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air. Rail service in the study area
consists of Caltrain operating between San Francisco and San Jose.
2.2.1 Bus Service
The Palo Alto Transit Center is a point of convergence for several bus lines operated by
Santa Clara VTA, SamTrans, Stanford University Marguerite Shuttle and the Dumbarton
Express. The Dumbarton Express is a joint BART/VTA/SamTrans/AC Transit/Union City
Transit line between Palo Alto and the Union City BART Station. Other concentrations
of bus lines exist at the Stanford Shopping Center, which is located one-quarter mile
northwest of the Palo Alto Transit Center, and at the intersections of Page Mill Road and
El Camino Real. Details of the different bus routes are presented in Table 2-7.
The table lists routes passing through the study area as well as routes that
originate/terminate in the study area.
SamTrans currently serves the Palo Alto Transit Center with local lines 280, 281,
express route KX, BART/Caltrain connector route 297 and 390. Connections to Stanford
Shopping Center are provided by local lines 280, 281, and express RX/PX. Three
SamTrans bus layover locations are adjacent to the Stanford Shopping Center.
Santa Clara VTA serves the Palo Alto Transit Center with local routes 22, and 35 and
the limited-stop route Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service 522. Route 35 also serves
Stanford Shopping Center. Route 89 provides service between the Palo Alto Veteran’s
Hospital and California Avenue Caltrain station along Hanover Street in the southeastern
corner of the study area.
AC Transit operates the Dumbarton Express, which provides service between the Union
City BART station and Palo Alto utilizing the Dumbarton Bridge. It also serves the
California Avenue Caltrain Station, North Santa Clara County Offices, Santa Clara
County Municipal Court and the Stanford Industrial Park.
Stanford University Marguerite Shuttle provides free service to the public accessing
many locations on the university main campus such as the Medical Center, Stanford
Shopping Center, Stanford Linear Accelerator, Palo Alto Transit Center, California
Avenue Caltrain Station and downtown Palo Alto. All of the shuttle lines, except for the
Downtown Express are wheelchair accessible. The shuttle operates weekdays from
6:00 am to 8:00 pm, except during university holidays. Marguerite's A and B lines meet
WELC
H
RD
RD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
SAN
CRE
E
K
FRA
N
C
I
S
Q
U
I
T
O
ALP
I
N
E
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
SERR
A
SERR
A
OLM
S
T
E
D
OLM
S
T
E
D
STA
N
F
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
D
O
I
N
S
T
OB
E
R
L
I
N
S
T
YA
L
E
S
T
WE
L
L
E
S
L
E
Y
ST
AV
M
A
Y
F
I
E
L
D
ESCO
N
D
I
D
O
SANTA
T
E
R
E
S
A
S
T
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
V
E
Z
ST
ST
PA
L
M
QU
A
R
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
B
L
V
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
E
L
AL
M
A
AL
M
A
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
EM
E
R
S
O
N
W
A
V
E
R
L
Y
WE
B
S
T
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
280
ARB
O
R
E
T
U
M
EMBARC
A
D
E
R
O
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
UNIV
E
R
SITYLYT
T
O
N
EVE
R
E
T
T
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OL
I
V
E
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
VAL
P
A
R
A
I
S
O
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
O
W
WILLOW
101
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
A
V
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
PALO
ALTOOAK
D
E
L
L
SHA
R
O
N
RD
DRSHAR
O
N
PARK
A
V
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLE
M
A
N
A
V
GILBERT
A
V
O’KEEFE
S
T
O’CONNO
R
S
T
WOODLAND
A
V
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
AV
CHANNING
LINC
O
L
N
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
ST
O
C
K
F
A
R
M
R
D
P
A
L
O
R
D
VIN
E
Y
A
R
D
Pal
o
A
l
t
o
Caltr
a
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
STANFORD EIR
Transit.cdr
Figure 2-3
TRANSIT ROUTE NETWORK
Santa Clara VTA Routes
Stanford Marguerite Shuttle
SamTrans Routes
Dumbarton Express
89
MS
280
DB
89
101
102
103
104
FX,
P
X
,
R
X
DB
DB
MS
MS
MS
MS
295
FX,
P
X
,
R
X
35
280
35
295
296
296
397
280
281
522
DB
295
28
1
Menlo Park Midday Shuttle
MP
MP
M
P
MP
MP
MP
522
CaltrainCaltrain
LEGEND
Palo Alto Shuttle
PA
PA
PA
297296
281
297
397
DB
22
22
89
182
89
DB
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-16 January 13, 2009
Table 2-7
Bus Schedule
Weekday Service Weekend
Headways
Routes Description Hours of
Operation Peak(5a – 9a)(3p – 6p)
Midday
(9a – 3p)
Night
(After 6p)
Hours of
Operation
VTA 22 Eastridge TC to Palo Alto/ Menlo Park Caltrain Station 24 hours 10-30 10 10-30 24 hours
VTA 35 Stanford Shopping Center to Downtown Mountain View 6:15a - 10:00p 30 30 30 7:45a - 8:10p
VTA 88 (until Jan13 2008)California Caltrain to PATC 6:15a - 7:00p 10 10 -9:30a - 5:20p
VTA 89 (start Jan13 2008)California Caltrain to PA Veteran’s Hospital 6:00a - 9:33a (SB)3:42p – 7:11p (NB)20-3324-35 --33-37 -
EXPRESS
VTA 101 Camden & Highway 85 to Palo Alto 5:45a - 8:40a 30 ---
VTA 102 South San Jose to Palo Alto 5:55a - 8:30a 30-60 ---
VTA 103 Eastridge TC to Palo Alto 2:40p - 6:20p 40-60 ---
VTA 104 Penitencia Creek TC to Palo Alto 3:15p - 5:50p 30-40 ---
VTA 182 Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey Ave 4:50p - 6:40p 40 ---
RAPID
VTA 522 Eastridge TC to Palo Alto TC 6:00a - 9:00p 15 15 15-30 6:45a - 8:30p
SHUTTLE
DB & DB1 971 Dumbarton Express Union City BART to Palo Alto 6:20a - 8:45p 30 30-60 30 -
CALTRAIN SITE SHUTTLES
VTA East Palo Alto to Palo Alto Caltrain 5:30a - 8:10p 60 -60 7:15a - 8:05p
VTA Deer Creek to California & Palo Alto Caltrain 7:33a - 6:59p 60 -60
SAMTRANS
SamTrans KX Express Service 5:05a - 9:46p 30 30 30-60 6:50a - 8:30p
SamTrans PX/RX Express Service 6:30a & 6:22p 1 leave and 1 Arrive
SamTrans 280 Caltrain Connection 6:00a - 10:00p 30 30 30 8:55a - 5:00p
SamTrans 281 Caltrain Connection 6:30a - 10:00p 60 60 -9:25a - 5:25pSamTrans295
SamTrans 296
SamTrans 297/397
300 Bart/Caltrain 12:45p - 5:20p 60 60 -12:45p -
11:45pSamTrans390 Bart/Caltrain 5:30a - 1:00a 20-30 30 30-60 5:50a - 2:35a
SamTrans 83 Community Service 7:15a & 2:48p -
SamTrans 85 Community Service 7:15a & 2:48p -
STANFORD MARGUERITE SHUTTLES
Line A To and From Palo Alto TC via Stanford Shop., Medical
Center Escondido Village 6:00a - 8:30p 15 15 15 -
Line B To and From Palo Alto TC via Stanford Shop., Medical
Center Town & Country Village 6:00a - 8:30p 15 15 15 -
Line C To and From California Caltrain Station TC via Stock Farm,
Stanford west apts, Hyatt Medical Center 6:00a - 8:30p 30 30 30 -
DT Downtown Express, Main Campus Medical Center toLytton Plaza, Downtown 11:20a - 2:20p -20 --
MC Medical Center Loop, around Medical Center 6:30-9:00a –
1:30-5:30p 7-8 15 15 -
VA Medical Center to Hillview/VA 7:00a - 6:00p 30 30 30 -
1050 A Medical Center to 1050 Arastradero 8:30a - 6:00p 30 30 30 -
M Midnight Express, To and From PATC, around Campusand Downtown 8:10p - 1:30a --20 20
PALM Palm Drive Commute Express, To and From PA Train
Station, OVAL 6:45-9:30a - 3:45-6:30p 5-7 ---
RP Research Park, To and From California Caltrain Station,Page Mill, Hanover, California 7:00-9:00a - 3:45-6:00p 20 ---
SE Shopping Center Express, Uni Res Area, Med Ctr &business district Mountain View 4:00p -10:00p 45 -45 10:00a -10:00p
SLAC Between SLAC, Rosewood Hotel and Hoover 7:30a - 9:00p 20 20 20 -
SLAC EMP.PATC Stan W Apt, Computer Building, SSRL 6:27 - 8:15a -
3:10-5:05p 5-10 10-15 --
U Line East Bay, Peninsula, Fremont BART, ACE Train/AmtrakStation 3:00p - 7:00p 60 ---
Menlo park Mid
Day Shuttle
Between Menlo Park Senior Center and Stanford Medical
Center / Blake Wilbur Clinic 9.30a – 3.30p 60 60 --
CITY OF PALO ALTO SHUTTLES
EmbarcaderoShuttle East Bayshore area – Embarcadero Road –Palo Alto High School
7.00 – 9.30a11.45a – 1.45p3.00 – 6.40p 15 15 --
Crosstown
Shuttle Between downtown Palo Alto to East Charleston Road 7.00a – 6.00p 30 30 --
Source: VTA, SamTrans, Stanford University, City of Palo Alto and City of Menlo Park websites
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-17 January 13, 2009
most trains at the Palo Alto Transit Center weekdays from 6:00 am to 8:30 pm to serve
area commuters. Line A connects Escondido Village and Rains (student housing) to the
main campus and Medical Center, while Line B serves Rains and the East Residences
as well as areas within the central campus such as Tresidder, Terman and the Law
School. Line B runs to and from the Palo Alto Transit Center by way of Town & Country
Village thereby serving shoppers throughout the day. Line C serves the California
Avenue Caltrain Station, the main campus, Medical Center and the Stanford West
Apartments. The SLAC shuttle operates Monday through Friday year round (except
campus holidays) between SLAC and Hoover Tower by way of the Oak Creek
Apartments located on Sand Hill Road, West Campus Residences, and the Science &
Engineering Quad, from 7:30 am - 9:00 pm., every 20 minutes. There is also the SLAC
Employee Shuttle that operates weekday mornings 6:27 am - 8:15 am and weekday
evenings 3:10 pm - 5:05 pm, year round (except campus holidays). Stops include
Stanford West Apartments, Palo Alto Transit Center, SLAC Fire Station, Computer
Building, SSRL Gate 17 and the Rosewood Hotel location near I-280. The Midnight
Express is an evening and weekend service that operates from September through
June, linking the campus to the Palo Alto Caltrain station. Shuttle frequency is 15 to 30
minutes.
City of Palo Alto Shuttle is a program with two routes: the Crosstown Shuttle and the
Embarcadero Shuttle. On weekdays, both routes serve the downtown Caltrain station
and transit center. The Palo Alto Shuttle is free and open to everyone. Bus stops are
marked with a "Palo Alto Shuttle" sign, a sticker on a regular VTA bus stop sign, or a
shuttle decal on a stop sign pole.The Crosstown Shuttle runs every half-hour from 7:00
am to 6:00 pm. It connects residential neighborhoods, senior residences and services,
libraries, recreation centers and commercial districts.The Embarcadero Shuttle runs
during the morning, noon and evening commute hours at 15-minute interval. It is
coordinated with the Caltrain schedule, serving employers in the East Bayshore area,
residents in the Embarcadero Road corridor and students at Palo Alto High School.
The Midday Shuttle Service operated by City of Menlo Park is a free community service
route open to the general public. It is especially popular with the seniors. Its key stops
include Menlo Park Library, Belle Haven Library, Menlo Park Senior Center, downtown
Menlo Park, Menlo Park Caltrain station, Menlo Medical Clinic, Stanford Shopping
Center and Stanford Medical Center. The shuttle operates hourly on weekdays between
9.30 am to 3.30 pm. This service is being funded by the city and the BAAQMD
Transportation Fund for Clean Air.
2.2.2 Commuter Rail Service
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board rail service, Caltrain, runs north-south along
the Peninsula from San Francisco to San Jose with some service extending to Gilroy.
Caltrain is managed by SamTrans, and operates under the jurisdiction of the JPB.
Within the study area, Caltrain stations are at the Palo Alto Transit Center (east of El
Camino Real at University Avenue) and at the California Avenue Station. The current
weekday schedule consists of frequent train intervals (5 to 30 minutes) during commute
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-18 January 13, 2009
hours, with hourly service provided during non-commute times. The earliest northbound
train leaves Palo Alto at 5:01am. The last northbound train departs Palo Alto at 11:04
pm. The first southbound train is at 5:51am while the last southbound train departs Palo
Alto at 12:57am. On weekends, the earliest hourly northbound train leaves Palo Alto at
7:31am (Saturday), the last northbound train departs Palo Alto at 11:01pm (Saturday).
The first southbound leaves Palo Alto 9:02am and the last southbound train departs Palo
Alto at 1:03am (Saturday). Caltrain provides Baby Bullet Express Service that allows
under 1-hour travel between San Jose and San Francisco. This service runs during both
the AM and PM peak hours in both directions, a total of 22 trips each day. In addition,
Caltrain runs Limited-stop Service that serves fewer stations than local service
throughout the day between San Jose and San Francisco.
2.3 Bicycles and Pedestrians
Bicycle travel is an important component of the transportation system connecting Menlo Park,
Palo Alto, Stanford University and Mountain View. In 1972, Palo Alto became one of the first
communities in California to establish a dedicated bicycle system. Since then, Menlo Park, Palo
Alto and Stanford University have made progress in developing a system of bicycle and
pedestrian routes and facilities to accommodate a growing demand for non-motorized travel.
The existing system consists of three classifications of bicycle facilities:
Class I (bike path) provides an exclusive right-of-way for bicyclists and pedestrians
separate from vehicular traffic and with a minimum number of vehicular crossings.
Class II (bike lane) provides a designated section of the roadway for the exclusive or
semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians
prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross flows by pedestrians and motorists
permitted.
Class III (bike route) provides bicyclists with facility designated by signs or
permanent markings that is shared by pedestrians and motorists.
Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 illustrate the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project study area
respectively. There are portions of the Stanford University campus that are bike/pedestrian
access only, which are also identified.
Signalized crossings of El Camino Real, which have pedestrian signals to provide safe
pedestrian/bicycle crossings, are provided at numerous locations in the study area including
Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, University Avenue, and Embarcadero Road. Bicycles are legal
on all streets in Palo Alto, except freeways, though there are some major streets with narrow
lanes that are not easily shared by bicyclists and motor vehicles.
The City maintains a system of on- and off-road bicycle lanes, routes and paths, which include
14 underpasses or bridges. Palo Alto was the first community to develop the concept of a
bicycle boulevard, which is a low-volume through street where bicycles have priority over
WELC
H
RD
RD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
San
Cree
k
Fra
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
ALP
I
N
E
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
O
SERR
A
SERR
A
OLM
S
T
E
D
OLM
S
T
E
D
STA
N
F
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
D
O
I
N
S
T
OB
E
R
L
I
N
S
T
YA
L
E
S
T
WE
L
L
E
S
L
E
Y
ST
AV
M
A
Y
F
I
E
L
D
ESCO
N
D
I
D
O
SANTA
T
E
R
E
S
A
S
T
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
V
E
Z
ST
ST
PA
L
MQUA
R
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
B
L
V
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
E
L
AL
M
A
AL
M
A
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
EM
E
R
S
O
N
W
A
V
E
R
L
Y
WE
B
S
T
E
R
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
280
ARB
O
R
E
T
U
M
EMBARC
A
D
E
R
O
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
UNIV
E
R
SITYLYT
T
O
N
EVE
R
E
T
T
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Cal
t
r
a
i
n
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OL
I
V
E
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
VAL
P
A
R
A
I
S
O
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
O
W
WILLOW
101
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
A
V
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
PALO
ALTOOAK
D
E
L
L
SHA
R
O
N
RD
DRSHAR
O
N
PARK
A
V
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SA
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLE
M
A
N
A
V
GILBERT
A
V
O’KEEFE
S
T
O’CONNO
R
S
T
WOODLAND
A
V
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
AV
CHANNING
LINC
O
L
N
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
BR
Y
A
N
T
ST
O
C
K
F
A
R
M
R
D
P
A
L
O
R
D
VIN
E
Y
A
R
D
Pal
o
A
l
t
o
Caltr
a
i
n
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
STANFORD EIR
Bicycles.cdr
PROJECT
AREA1 PROJECT
AREA2
PROJECT
AREA3
Figure 2-4
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIESClass II
Class III
Bike BoulevardClass I
Bike Bridge / Underpass
Pedestrian/Bike Only
(Central Campus is
Ped/Bike Only)
280
SAND HILL ROAD
SA
N
D
H
I
L
L
C
I
R
Se
e
I
n
s
e
t
Inset
Skilling
South
HEPL Green
Earth
Sciences
Mitchell
Durand
Roble
Pool
Roble Modules
Godzilla
Bambi
Roble
Gym Terman 260
250
300
320 310
360
540
530550 School of
Education
Cl
k
Bing
Wing
Cumming
Ar
Art Ga
Gr
Sc
Bu
S
Little
Ce
School of
Medicine
Carnegie
Institution
Bleeker/
rnes Labs
pport Services
Area
hon
80
70 60
50 40 30
20
10
240
200
M
e
morial Ch ur ch
160
170
Parking
Struct. 5
McCullough
Geology
Corner
Language
Corner
History
Corner
Arboretu
Childen's
Center
Barnes
Stanford
West
Apartments
StanfordShoppingCenter
Lyman Sterling Quad
StanfordHospital
JordanQuad
GL
Ad
Schiff
1
Dohrm
Gro
Rodin
Sculpture
Garden
Angel of
Grief
Roble
Field
Main Quad
K
B
A
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
P
A
N
A
M
A
S
T
ESCON
D
I
D
O
M
A
L
L
ROTH W
Y
OAK RD
SERRA
M
A
L
L
WELCH RD
SANTA TERES
LA
S
U
E
N
M
A
L
L
SEARSVI
L
L
E
R
D
ARB
O
R
E
T
U
M
R
D
PASTEU
R
D
R
CK FARM RD
MUSEU
VIA
O
R
T
E
G
A
PA
L
O
U
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
L
N
LO
M
I
T
A
M
A
L
L
LO
S
A
R
B
O
L
E
S
A
V
E
CROTH
WE L C H RD
CAMPUS D R W E S T
LO
M
I
T
A
D
R
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
R
D
PASTEU
R
D
R
CAMPUS
D
R
W
E
S
T
IONEER
R
D
VIA PUE
B
L
O
IS W
Y
ROTH
W
Y
PA
L
M
D
R
M
O
S
H
E
R
W
Y
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
M
A
R
X
W
Y
D
U
R
A
N
D
W
Y
CLAR
K
W
Y
VINEYA
R
D
L
N
PANAM
A
M
A
L
L
BLA
K
E
W
I
L
L
B
U
R
D
R
S
W
A
I
N
W
Y
JO
R
D
A
N
W
Y
NO
R
T
H
-
S
O
U
T
H
A
X
I
S
TERESA LN
SANTA
SEARSVILL
E
R
D
N SVC R
D
EAST-WE
S
T
A
X
I
S
VIA
CA
M
P
U
S
D
R
WE
S
T
QU
A
R
R
Y
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
route to M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
Bike route to Menlo Park Bike Bridge
M
Pedestrian Only (off road)
LEGEND
Pedestrian & Bicycle (off road)
Pedestrian & Bicycle (in street ROW))
?
STANFORD EIRped facilities.ai
Map Source: Stanford University Figure 2-5
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-21 January 13, 2009
automobiles. Conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time
is reduced by removing stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. The bicycle
boulevard is located on Bryant Street. In order to ensure areas of roadways used by bicyclists
are maintained at or above those used by motorists, the City is adjusting its street evaluation
criteria for its Pavement Management Program. In addition, there are several bicycle/
pedestrian/transit only routes in the Stanford University campus, such as Serra Mall.
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and many of the facilities for bicycles
discussed above. With some exceptions, the regional connections described for bicyclists also
exist for pedestrians. All Class I bicycle paths and bridges are available to and used by
pedestrians. Sidewalks are present in most parts of Palo Alto although there are some gaps;
Stanford University provides a comprehensive pedestrian/bicycle circulation system that
contributes to the ease of moving to, from, and throughout the campus without the need for an
automobile. There are several policies that the University implements to discourage the use of
vehicles and encourage the use of other travel modes. Some of the policies include:
Financial incentives such as commuter cash, Eco-Pass and Go Pass
Provide academic and residential land uses in close proximity to one another;
Apply campus design concepts and site development standards that facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle use;
Maintain/improve the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that connect places
of living and work; and
Provide a safe and easily understood system of pedestrian pathways and bikeways.
2.4 Parking
Off-street parking is currently provided for both the Stanford Medical Center and the Stanford
Shopping Center. A total of 5,801 parking spaces are currently provided at the Stanford
Shopping Center for 1,412,368 square feet of commercial area. This is in excess of the city’s
parking code that that requires a minimum of one parking space per 275 square feet of retail
space at a shopping center.
Based on the recent parking survey (Fehr & Peers, September 2007), SUMC (including both the
hospitals and medical offices) currently has about 8,900 parking spaces available including
about 190 on-street parking spaces. Some of these parking spaces are located in areas /
parking structures that serve both SUMC and the university. Approximately 625 of these
spaces are dedicated to the three medical office buildings at 703, 900 and 1101 Welch Road.
The survey was conducted during mid-morning and mid-afternoon. About 6,400 spaces were
occupied during both periods; of which about 4,200 (65 percent) belong to hospital employees
and visitors. The survey also noted that the mid-morning period has a higher parking demand
compared to the mid-afternoon period. The demand at the dedicated medical office parking
area is between 70 percent and 80 percent during the mid-morning peak.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2-22 January 13, 2009
2.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Transportation demand management refers to actions that reduce work-related drive-alone
vehicle trips. Although a state law was passed in 1995 that prohibited agencies and cities from
requiring mandatory TDM, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University still voluntarily provide
TDM programs for their employees. Key components of the current TDM program administered
by Stanford are summarized below.
2.5.1 Stanford University Medical Center
SUMC’s TDM program for students, staff, and faculty consists of several elements. The
program is designed to reduce ‘drive-alone’ by encouraging the use of transit, walking and
cycling in order to help meet the “no net new commute trips” goal. This is required by the 1989
and 2000 Santa Clara County General Use Permits.
The TDM program consists of the following elements:
Commute Club:Incentives or perks for those who choose not to drive to work,
e.g.:
í Clean Air Cash or Carpool Credit
í Reserved parking spaces for all carpools/vanpools
í Vanpool subsidies
í Members-only commuter gifts
Marguerite:Free, comprehensive campus shuttle system, open to the public
that connects with local transit and Caltrain. New buses run on
biodiesel fuel and real-time schedules can be viewed on the
web under the Automated Transportation Management System.
VTA Eco-Pass Available free to eligible hospital and university employees,
allows unlimited travel on VTA buses (including express
services), VTA light rail, Dumbarton Express, Highway 17
Express and Monterey-San Jose Express
Line U Stanford
Express:
Free use of East Bay express bus that connects BART, ACE
train and remote park and ride lots (e.g. Ardenwood Farms) to
Stanford.
Bicycle Program Programs that promote and encourage the safe use of bicycles
in and around the campus e.g. bike light giveaways, safety
education programs, bike safety road show, commute planning
/ cycling information, etc.
Vehicle Rental:Hourly, half-day and full-day car rental (through on-campus
Enterprise Rent-a-Car office) available to faculty, staff and
students 18 years and older.
Charter Bus
Services:
Group transportation services are provided during events like
conferences or student activities to allow for alternative forms of
commuting.
Parking Program:Programs to manage parking and discourage driving to and in
campus e.g. no freshman cars, parking permit fees, short-term
parking options etc.
Others:Flexible work options (staggered work hours, compressed work
week etc.), alternative transportation promotional events, one-
on-one commute planning assistance, etc.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-1 January 13, 2009
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section of the TIA provides an evaluation of potential transportation impacts in the Palo
Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto areas associated with the proposed expansion of Stanford
Shopping Center (SSC) and Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC). The impacts are
evaluated relative to the operation of intersections, arterial roadways, freeways, bicycle and
pedestrian transportation, public transportation and transportation demand management (TDM)
strategies.Mitigation measures are recommended which, if implemented, would reduce
impacts of the proposed projects to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed expansion of both the SSC and SUMC would take place in two phases:
x By 2015, SSC and the medical office buildings (MOB) of SUMC at the Hoover Pavilion
site would be fully built-out while the hospital and clinic / medical office portion of the
main SUMC site would be occupied and operated at equivalent to approximately 60
percent build-out. The increase in employees and patients would be 60% of the full
SUMC project build-out.
x By 2025, both SSC and the all of SUMC would be at their full build-out and occupancy
condition.
Project analysis would focus on these two stages of development as well as analysis of the
study intersections, roadway and transportation facilities if only one of these projects is
constructed.
3.1 Project Analysis
Two horizon years, 2015 and 2025, are being used for the future conditions analysis. The
baseline traffic volumes were obtained from the recently updated City of Palo Alto travel
demand forecasting model. This model was developed based on Santa Clara County regional
VTA forecasting model, with ABAG projections of housing and employment data. This model is
consistent with the CMA and MTC models. In 2015, the traffic projections from the travel
demand model result in six intersections operating at LOS E and an additional seven
intersections operating at LOS F without the addition of traffic from either projects. In 2025, the
traffic projections from the travel demand model result in three intersections operating at LOS E
and 12 intersections operating at LOS F in the AM peak hour and five intersections operating at
LOS E and 18 intersections operating at LOS F in the PM peak hour without traffic from either
projects. Traffic congestion prior to the addition of project traffic tends to magnify the project
impacts. For this report, the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County CMP
guidelines/significance criteria are used for determining project impacts on all study
intersections; regardless of which agency operates the intersections (City of Palo Alto or other
adjoining jurisdictions). Project impacts are determined by comparing the ‘no project’ scenario
during the different horizon years with the ‘with project’ scenarios. Project impacts for study
intersections within the City of Menlo Park are also determined by using the City of Menlo Park
guidelines and are presented in Appendix A for reference. A total of 63 intersections are
analyzed under the future conditions. The SUMC project would include extending Durand Way
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-2 January 13, 2009
from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road by 2025. Therefore, this new intersection is included in the
2025 analysis. Improvements required for this extension will be privately funded.
The following project scenarios are evaluated for both the typical AM and PM peak hours:
1. Impact of SSC only in 2015 – No Build 2015 traffic volumes + SSC at 100 percent
build-out compared with No Build 2015 traffic volumes
2. Impact of SUMC only in 2015 – No Build 2015 traffic volumes + SUMC at 60 percent
growth compared with No Build 2015 traffic volumes
3. Impact of SSC + SUMC in 2015 – No Build 2015 traffic volumes + SSC at 100
percent build-out + SUMC at 60 percent growth compared with No Build 2015 traffic
volumes
4. Impact of SUMC only in 2025 - No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100
percent build-out compared with No Build 2025 traffic volumes
5. Cumulative Impact of SUMC in 2025 - No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100
percent + SSC at 100 percent build-out compared with No Build 2025 traffic volumes
+ SSC at 100 percent
6. Cumulative Impact of SSC in 2025 - No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100
percent + SSC at 100 percent build-out compared with No Build 2025 traffic volumes
+ SUMC at 100 percent
7. Cumulative Impact of SSC + SUMC in 2025 – No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC
at 100 percent + SSC at 100 percent build-out compared with No Build 2025 traffic
volumes
3.2 Without Project
Traffic volumes from the Palo Alto Citywide forecasting model are used as the future
background volumes. The geometry of the 63 study intersections are presented in Figures 3-1a
through 3-1d and 3-2a through 3-2d for 2015 and 2025 respectively. The intersection numbers
were previously noted in Figure 1-1. The Durand Way extension to Welch Road is reflected in
Figure 3-2 only, as it would not be completed by 2015. With the exception of Durand / Sand Hill
Road (#57) and Durand / Welch (#60), all other intersection geometrics are assumed to remain
consistent between 2015 and 2025. Figures 3-3a through 3-3d and 3-4a through 3-4d show the
traffic volumes at the 63 study intersection in year 2015 and 2025 without the proposed project,
respectively. The intersection performance is tabulated in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. A total of 16
intersections were expected to perform at LOS E or F in 2015 and a total of 25 such
intersections in 2025 without the addition of any traffic from the SUMC or SSC projects. These
intersections are highlighted as well.
During the AM peak hour in 2015, no intersections would operate at LOS E. However, the
following six intersections would perform at LOS F:
El Camino Real / Page Mill – Oregon Expressway (#16) (Palo Alto)
Junipero Serra Boulevard – Foothill Expressway / Page Mill Road (#23) (Palo Alto)
Sand Hill Circle – I-280 / Sand Hill Road (#28) (Menlo Park)
Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) (Menlo Park)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-3 January 13, 2009
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (Palo Alto)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#63) (Palo Alto)
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2015 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Figure 3-1a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Alma
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Palm
Galvez
Willow
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
Sand Hill
10
Lytton
Alm
a
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2015 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Figure 3-1b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Santa Cruz
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
Alpine
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
Lytton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2015 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Charleston
Al
m
a
39
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Al
m
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
Encinal
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
47
Marsh Rd
Ba
y
R
d
48
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
US 1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
B
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
Willow Rd
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
University Av
Figure 3-1c
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
Arastradero
Embarcadero
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
Galvez
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2015 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Figure 3-1d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Future Construction
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
Alpine Road
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f-
R
a
m
p
62
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Road
63
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2025 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Figure 3-2a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Alma
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
Sand Hill
10
Lytton
Alm
a
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2025 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Figure 3-2b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Santa Cruz
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
Alpine
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
Lytton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2025 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Charleston
Al
m
a
39
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Al
m
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
Encinal
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
47
Marsh Rd
Ba
y
R
d
48
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
US 1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
B
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
Willow Rd
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
University Av
Figure 3-2c
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
Arastradero
Embarcadero
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
Galvez
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
STANFORD EIR2015 Geometry.cdr
2025 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY
Figure 3-2d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
Alpine Road
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
62
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Road
63
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes wo Project rev2.cdr
Figure 3-3a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
AM (PM) Peak Hour
24(38)
56(97)
51(91)
87
2
(
1
5
9
5
)
60
(
5
6
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
10
9
(
1
6
3
)
18
7
5
(
1
6
2
7
)
15
(
7
6
)
18
5
0
(
1
5
5
1
)
18
2
(
2
1
3
)
38 (100)
349(387)
577(510)
15 (33)
371(353)
61(125)
11
3
(
2
4
5
)
85
4
(
1
3
5
7
)
39
2
(
6
1
5
)
95
(
1
5
4
)
23
4
7
(
2
0
0
8
)
0
(
4
)
0 (2)
6 (1)
5 (3)
177(203)
0 (0)
339(204)
21
8
(
4
2
6
)
10
5
8
(
2
0
1
5
)
0
(
1
)
25
(
1
8
)
26
4
5
(
2
2
2
1
)
44
(
5
1
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
14(21)
1 (0)
46(34)
20
6
(
2
6
6
)
12
3
7
(
2
4
0
6
)
1
(
3
)
45
4
(
3
3
4
)
15
1
4
(
1
1
1
8
)
63
3
(
4
0
7
)
277(551)
260(191)17
2
(
1
1
6
)
79
8
(
1
2
8
2
)
29
(
6
9
)
13
3
(
9
6
)
19
7
6
(
1
6
0
3
)
128(315)
0 (0)
119(357)19
9
(
4
1
0
)
98
6
(
1
5
9
9
)
22
4
(
1
1
3
)
17
8
3
(
1
9
6
5
)
30
3
(
4
3
9
)
258(198)
481(424)
234(319)
57(273)
168(479)
138(459)
45
3
(
3
5
4
)
14
1
9
(
1
7
1
6
)
90
(
3
9
2
)
19
3
8
(
2
4
4
1
)
19
1
(
3
5
8
)
156(173)
233(198)
16
4
0
(
2
0
5
2
)
16
5
(
2
0
7
)
172(289)
1402(865)
475(576)
440(612)
900(1262)
131(434)
34
8
(
2
0
2
)
13
2
5
(
1
9
2
7
)
66
6
(
7
2
1
)
45
5
(
3
5
4
)
10
5
7
(
1
1
6
8
)
15
6
(
2
3
3
)
594(394)
1233(849)
329(278)
81(34)
721(1088)
20(15)36
(
2
2
)
15
2
(
1
3
3
)
37
5
(
5
3
3
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
7
)
31
1
(
3
4
6
)
21
6
(
2
8
9
)
113(230)
35 (10)
140(309)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
0
(
7
1
2
)
29
7
(
3
6
3
)
28
2
(
2
1
9
)
16
6
5
(
1
4
4
4
)
62
(
6
7
)
23 (23)
222(190)
70 (108)
250(456)
252(205)
102(175)
13
4
(
1
8
1
)
65
6
(
1
4
3
2
)
43
(
7
3
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (314)
22
4
(
2
4
6
)
15
8
9
(
2
0
9
2
)
14
(
2
1
)
18
1
(
1
2
3
)
21
1
6
(
2
3
0
4
)
48
(
3
1
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
207(198)
20
0
(
2
6
4
)
15
5
2
(
2
0
2
3
)
27
(
6
1
)
26
7
(
2
1
1
)
19
8
6
(
2
4
1
1
)
30
(
4
5
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
15
1
(
1
3
9
)
16
5
0
(
1
9
4
2
)
96
(
1
3
6
)
25
3
(
1
4
7
)
18
4
8
(
2
3
0
2
)
13
3
(
1
2
6
)
26
(
3
9
)
22
4
3
(
2
0
5
3
)
35
(
7
4
)
6 (29)
3 (30)
3 (57)
49 (49)
7 (7)
48 (21)
57
(
1
2
0
)
12
5
2
(
1
9
8
5
)
28
(
1
0
)
2015 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
589(670)
161(139)
953(544)
22(57)
320(332)
115(133)30
(
6
7
)
42
8
(
4
4
6
)
28
7
(
4
8
7
)
52
(
5
2
)
34
8
(
4
6
6
)
52
4
(
1
0
3
4
)
656(429)
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Palm
103(159)
1372(1108)
299 (220)
9 (49)
716(1091)
31 (101)12
5
(
6
2
)
36
3
(
4
3
4
)
10
2
(
5
3
)
27
0
(
3
0
9
)
10
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes wo Project rev2.cdr
Figure 3-3b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
74
(
4
2
)
32
7
(
3
8
8
)
14
5
(
1
0
8
)
65(166)
846(875)
59(111)
56(81)
689(851)
62(90)15
1
(
7
7
)
21
7
(
3
4
5
)
46
(
4
8
)
17
5
(
1
6
4
)
78
2
(
1
2
7
4
)
0
(
6
)
3 (6)
83(101)
99(88)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
29
9
(
2
3
7
)
14
4
7
(
9
1
4
)
17
(
3
9
)
12
4
(
5
2
6
)
55
7
(
9
6
8
)
27
1
(
1
7
4
)
97(137)
713(1872)
356(261)
433(225)
1900(982)
408(137)
22
2
(
7
7
8
)
10
7
6
(
7
3
1
)
29
4
(
2
6
2
)
23
(
8
)
78
5
(
5
4
2
)
42
8
(
1
8
6
)
42(444)
14 (5)
67(326)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)18
(
7
)
36
0
(
7
0
3
)
43
3
(
1
8
4
)
699(1120)
898(484)
10
8
(
6
1
8
)
39
0
(
6
4
3
)
1010(886)
627(118)
31
7
(
2
8
2
)
1
(
1
)
28
4
(
2
8
7
)
192(350)
1158(1785)
52 (2)
201(172)
1809(1123)
38 (4)1
(
3
1
)
1
(
2
)
3
(
2
6
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
80
(
3
3
)
2177(1058)
43(109)
869(2145)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
525(1048)
196(80)
45 (37)
1445(965)
552(108)
14
1
(
5
5
9
)
3
(
2
2
)
91
(
2
5
9
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (18)
495(627)
29 (72)
12 (3)
581(615)
497(413)
26
9
(
4
5
4
)
7
(
4
)
28
(
8
0
)
27
(
3
9
)
33
1
(
3
5
8
)
55
(
9
6
)
47(76)
360(260)
10 (79)
19(74)
140(467)
271(563)
50
0
(
2
6
6
)
29
6
(
3
5
0
)
15
(
2
9
)
12
(
1
2
)
30
2
(
5
0
9
)
37
1
(
4
6
6
)
516(350)
455(372)
128(534)
6 (31)
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
88(98)
556(420)
95(59)
38(76)
275(533)
14(26)
12
9
(
1
0
7
)
53
0
(
5
0
5
)
16
2
(
1
5
5
)
49
(
5
8
)
29
1
(
4
6
0
)
81
(
1
7
1
)
83(122)
166(357)54
8
(
8
1
5
)
18
3
(
1
4
7
)
77
6
(
6
9
2
)
51
0
(
4
3
3
)
74(202)
18 (83)
73
9
(
8
7
8
)
23
3
(
1
6
2
)
65
6
(
7
1
5
)
10
1
(
6
7
)
41
(
2
1
9
)
60
(
9
6
)
22 (3)
783(2032)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
27
5
(
5
9
)
11
5
(
3
0
)
69
0
(
2
5
2
)
58
(
9
6
)
160 (29)
1816(642)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (21)
634(1643)
105(60)
11 (21)
1792(1073)
512(74)
35
(
4
2
5
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
40
4
(
4
3
4
)
79
6
(
7
9
3
)
35
0
(
1
7
8
)
60 (240)
686(1394)
261(368)
383(475)
1392(881)
346(241)
20
8
(
3
0
2
)
78
3
(
8
7
8
)
49
4
(
3
0
2
)
71
(
3
8
)
30
0
(
2
1
5
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(22)
104(86)
5 (9)
186(405)
34(156)
82(123)
13
8
(
1
8
6
)
29
6
(
6
4
2
)
7
(
2
7
)
61
4
(
2
8
1
)
68
7
(
7
5
5
)
11
(
2
7
)
2015 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes wo Project rev2.cdr
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
0
(
7
6
7
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
321(358)
106(119)
175(231)
625(364)
220(209)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
5
(
7
2
8
)
37
(
4
7
)
12
3
(
1
1
6
)
56
6
(
5
0
5
)
9
(
2
3
)
43
(
6
0
)
33
2
(
3
8
9
)
10
(
3
8
)
10
(
2
0
)
53
4
(
7
0
9
)
49
(
6
9
)
6
(
3
)
99
4
(
8
2
4
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
25
(
7
)
98
5
(
8
0
6
)
28
1
(
5
2
2
)
506(281)
45 (3)
152(34)
23 (42)
63 (71)
23 (43)57
(
6
)
64
5
(
9
8
4
)
15
2
(
9
7
)
5
(
5
)
40
(
1
4
)
11
9
(
7
4
)
33 (62)
1173(992)
412(230)
1 (2)
755(946)
62 (94)97
(
6
7
)
7
(
1
3
)
23
1
(
2
1
5
)
10
9
(
9
5
)
42
0
(
3
1
1
)
70 (58)
1256(1548)
491(224)
1448(1330)
17
9
(
8
0
)
12
8
4
(
3
7
4
9
)
161(77)
456(1933)
20
5
5
(
6
5
2
)
39
9
0
(
9
2
4
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(160)
296(491)
69(70)
128(110)
579(454)
155(291)
69
(
7
1
)
65
8
(
1
2
7
3
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
5
9
(
1
1
5
8
)
22
(
6
2
)
527(603)
87(134)
556(487)
519(470)
30
7
(
4
8
0
)
11
3
(
1
3
4
)
26
1
(
2
0
2
)
94
2
(
2
2
6
5
)
87
(
9
)
22(98)
15(256)
8 (166)
121(75)
373(75)
561(1716)
13
8
8
(
4
4
0
)
23
7
7
(
1
0
2
1
)
22
(
3
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
73
1
(
5
8
0
)
96
7
(
1
5
7
0
)
186 (335)
1405(1079)
954(1278)
653(906)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
92
(
1
2
2
)
17
4
3
(
1
3
9
8
)
10
9
(
8
9
)
50(70)
239(193)
126(113)
55(140)
172(205)
56(127)
13
3
(
1
2
3
)
77
3
(
1
6
1
4
)
59
(
1
1
5
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
18
9
(
1
6
8
)
82
1
(
7
0
9
)
138(354)
619(760)
65
0
(
8
3
4
)
46
4
(
6
5
1
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
79
(
6
3
)
22
0
8
(
1
6
7
7
)
17
7
(
8
2
)
215(251)
24 (29)
89 (103)
15 (35)
23 (10)
1 (35)22
(
5
0
)
90
7
(
1
8
3
4
)
56
(
6
1
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
71
7
(
7
0
4
)
33
9
(
1
1
9
)
1931(1161)
855(722)
1202(2299)
706(508)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-3c
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
3
9
)
28
0
(
4
2
3
)
282(717)
369(290)
539(342)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
33
0
(
2
3
1
1
)
11
3
2
(
2
2
2
5
)
15
6
(
1
6
1
)
135(235)
567(503)
113(166)
219(235)
424(602)
186(498)
39
3
(
3
2
1
)
15
5
1
(
1
2
1
1
)
92
(
1
8
4
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
98
(
1
3
9
)
22
6
(
3
2
9
)
54
(
1
0
5
)
60(61)
1348(694)
118(164)
147(111)
619(1817)
114(107)
11
6
(
2
1
8
)
26
3
(
2
8
7
)
11
7
(
4
9
9
)
50
3
(
2
1
7
)
12
2
(
1
5
7
)
21
(
7
3
)
84(111)
1041(762)
29(108)
169(233)
380(916)
285(605)
48
1
(
3
5
6
)
52
5
(
4
9
7
)
33
3
(
9
4
9
)
58(120)
65(303)
21 (47)
21 (25)
247(126)
38 (7)
119(212)
8 (8)
97(283)
2015 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes wo Project rev2.cdr
Figure 3-3d
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Future Construction
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
176(111)
187(220)61
(
2
7
5
)
87
(
1
7
4
)
268(99)
323(151)
46
(
2
5
)
26
9
(
1
0
9
)
22
2
(
1
3
4
)
157(261)
153(90)
157(250)
114(40)
65(295)
254(247)
12 (65)
363(288)
49
(
1
0
6
)
11
2
(
3
0
9
)
11
8
(
2
0
0
)
49
(
6
1
)
13
(
4
)
19
6
(
6
7
4
)
477(179)
177(154)
11 (8)
66 (61)
86(261)
7 (2)2
(
6
)
5
(
2
6
)
1
(
1
7
)
16
(
1
3
)
48
(
1
6
)
8 (18)
842(1261)
26 (19)
1287(955)
2015 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
62
53(404)
889(1457)
369(393)
771(460)
33
6
(
2
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
95
6
(
5
0
7
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
1
(
2
8
1
)
38
0
(
7
2
)
403(912)
827(808)
760(801)
189(288)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes wo Project rev1.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
Figure 3-4a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
24(50)
56(127)
51(120)
10
4
9
(
1
7
4
4
)
72
(
6
1
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
12
5
(
1
9
8
)
23
9
1
(
2
1
7
7
)
17
(
9
2
)
23
5
4
(
2
0
7
5
)
20
8
(
2
5
8
)
46 (114)
420(439)
695(578)
17 (38)
422(403)
69(142)
13
3
(
2
5
4
)
99
9
(
1
4
0
9
)
45
8
(
6
3
9
)
10
8
(
1
8
1
)
28
9
6
(
2
5
6
6
)
0
(
4
)
0 (3)
7 (1)
5 (4)
178(204)
0 (0)
343(205)
25
8
(
4
6
9
)
12
5
1
(
2
0
7
0
)
0
(
1
)
28
(
2
1
)
32
0
4
(
2
7
9
8
)
49
(
5
9
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (4)
15(23)
1 (0)
50(37)
23
9
(
2
9
0
)
14
3
6
(
2
4
7
9
)
1
(
4
)
49
7
(
3
9
3
)
15
1
4
(
1
5
5
7
)
69
3
(
4
8
0
)
366(551)
344(191)20
9
(
1
4
7
)
96
6
(
1
4
8
3
)
35
(
8
8
)
17
5
(
1
2
0
)
27
8
8
(
2
1
8
5
)
128(315)
0 (0)
119(357)19
9
(
5
2
7
)
98
6
(
1
9
3
5
)
30
6
(
1
4
2
)
26
1
5
(
2
6
7
0
)
41
3
(
5
5
5
)
258(229)
481(489)
234(368)
57(273)
168(479)
138(459)
54
1
(
4
6
9
)
16
9
4
(
2
2
2
1
)
10
7
(
5
1
9
)
28
8
5
(
3
1
6
6
)
26
5
(
4
3
2
)
156(173)
233(196)
20
1
8
(
2
5
1
7
)
20
4
(
2
6
7
)
172(289)
1402(865)
475(576)
534(723)
1092(1490)
159(512)
47
2
(
2
3
6
)
19
8
2
(
2
4
5
7
)
90
4
(
8
4
2
)
46
5
(
4
7
0
)
10
7
9
(
1
4
4
0
)
15
8
(
3
0
9
)
677(461)
1406(994)
376(325)
100(39)
882(1257)
24(17)45
(
3
0
)
18
6
(
1
8
1
)
46
0
(
7
2
5
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
9
)
32
4
(
3
4
8
)
22
5
(
3
1
3
)
141(255)
44 (11)
175(342)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
0
(
7
1
2
)
29
7
(
3
6
3
)
32
3
(
2
6
8
)
21
6
1
(
1
9
7
9
)
71
(
8
2
)
26 (26)
254(216)
80 (124)
286(520)
287(234)
116(200)
16
5
(
1
9
8
)
80
5
(
1
5
6
3
)
52
(
8
0
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (314)
22
7
(
3
2
4
)
16
1
6
(
2
6
2
6
)
14
(
2
7
)
25
0
(
1
4
7
)
31
2
9
(
2
9
8
1
)
66
(
3
8
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
207(198)
20
3
(
3
5
1
)
15
7
5
(
2
5
6
8
)
28
(
8
1
)
37
0
(
2
4
8
)
29
4
9
(
3
0
5
0
)
42
(
5
3
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
18
8
(
1
8
4
)
16
6
8
(
2
4
5
2
)
11
9
(
1
8
0
)
35
0
(
1
7
4
)
27
5
7
(
2
9
3
7
)
18
4
(
1
4
8
)
30
(
4
6
)
27
9
6
(
2
6
1
9
)
40
(
8
7
)
7 (33)
4 (34)
4 (65)
56 (56)
8 (8)
55 (23)
67
(
1
3
3
)
14
6
8
(
2
0
5
5
)
33
(
1
1
)
621(776)
170(161)
1005(630)
35(87)
499(513)
179(205)37
(
6
8
)
52
7
(
4
5
4
)
35
3
(
4
9
5
)
55
(
7
0
)
36
4
(
5
4
5
)
54
9
(
1
4
0
3
)
656(449)
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Palm
118(188)
1583(1310)
351 (260)
10 (49)
816(1090)
31 (101)17
5
(
7
5
)
50
6
(
5
2
2
)
12
7
(
5
6
)
33
8
(
3
2
5
)
10
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes wo Project rev1.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
Figure b3-4
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
10
1
(
4
2
)
44
5
(
3
8
8
)
19
7
(
1
0
8
)
65(184)
846(966)
59(123)
60(81)
743(851)
67(90)19
9
(
7
7
)
22
0
(
3
4
5
)
61
(
4
8
)
21
9
(
1
9
0
)
10
1
3
(
1
4
5
1
)
0
(
7
)
3 (8)
83(125)
99(109)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
33
8
(
3
1
3
)
16
3
6
(
9
3
7
)
19
(
5
2
)
12
4
(
6
3
1
)
55
7
(
1
1
6
2
)
27
1
(
2
0
9
)
97(137)
713(1872)
356(261)
433(280)
1900(1220)
408(170)
35
5
(
1
1
6
5
)
17
2
2
(
1
0
9
4
)
47
0
(
3
9
3
)
23
(
1
2
)
78
5
(
7
8
5
)
42
8
(
2
7
0
)
42(444)
14 (5)
67(326)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)23
(
9
)
45
1
(
9
0
2
)
54
4
(
2
3
6
)
972(1524)
1248(658)
15
1
(
7
4
4
)
54
7
(
7
7
3
)
1135(1148)
704(153)
38
9
(
3
7
5
)
2
(
2
)
34
9
(
3
8
1
)
245(426)
1474(2171)
66 (3)
230(193)
2075(1260)
44 (5)1
(
3
3
)
1
(
2
)
4
(
2
9
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
80
(
3
3
)
2482(1190)
50(122)
1011(2392)
17
(
1
0
)
5
(
5
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
525(1520)
166(50)
52 (41)
1957(1140)
337(60)74
(
2
3
7
)
1
(
9
)
8(
1
1
5
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (21)
492(744)
29 (86)
14 (3)
689(615)
590(413)
26
9
(
4
5
4
)
7
(
4
)
28
(
8
0
)
27
(
3
9
)
33
1
(
3
5
8
)
55
(
9
6
)
47(76)
360(260)
10 (79)
19(74)
140(467)
271(563)
50
0
(
2
6
6
)
29
6
(
3
5
0
)
15
(
2
9
)
12
(
1
2
)
30
2
(
5
0
9
)
37
1
(
4
6
6
)
516(350)
455(372)
115(615)
6 (36)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
97(98)
618(420)
106(59)
47(109)
340(765)
17(38)
18
0
(
1
3
5
)
73
9
(
6
3
6
)
22
6
(
1
9
6
)
55
(
7
5
)
33
0
(
5
0
7
)
92
(
2
2
2
)
83(122)
166(357)54
8
(
1
1
0
6
)
18
3
(
2
0
0
)
98
1
(
9
3
9
)
64
5
(
5
8
7
)
74(202)
18 (83)
73
9
(
1
1
9
1
)
23
3
(
2
2
0
)
82
9
(
9
4
5
)
12
8
(
9
0
)
46
(
2
5
0
)
68
(
1
0
9
)
22 (3)
783(2032)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
29
1
(
6
4
)
13
1
(
3
5
)
78
8
(
2
8
7
)
66
(
1
0
9
)
160 (29)
1816(661)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (22)
634(1705)
105(62)
13 (24)
2055(1212)
588(83)35
(
4
2
5
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
53
9
(
5
8
9
)
10
6
1
(
1
0
7
6
)
46
7
(
2
4
1
)
69 (271)
787(1574)
299(415)
462(577)
1679(1070)
417(292)
26
8
(
4
1
0
)
10
0
6
(
1
1
9
1
)
63
4
(
4
1
0
)
71
(
3
8
)
30
0
(
2
1
5
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(27)
104(107)
5 (11)
226(417)
41(160)
100(126)
15
9
(
2
8
1
)
34
3
(
8
9
0
)
8
(
4
1
)
82
6
(
3
8
1
)
92
4
(
1
0
2
4
)
15
(
3
6
)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes wo Project rev1.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
0
(
7
6
7
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
321(358)
106(119)
219(280)
782(441)
275(253)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
5
(
7
2
8
)
37
(
4
7
)
18
0
(
1
4
6
)
82
9
(
6
3
6
)
13
(
2
9
)
49
(
8
0
)
37
6
(
4
0
9
)
11
(
5
1
)
11
(
2
3
)
65
4
(
7
8
8
)
56
(
8
0
)
6
(
3
)
99
4
(
8
2
4
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
32
(
8
)
12
7
9
(
9
3
6
)
36
5
(
6
0
6
)
576(321)
51 (4)
173(39)
26 (48)
72 (81)
26 (50)57
(
8
)
64
5
(
1
1
0
0
)
15
2
(
1
1
9
)
5
(
5
)
46
(
1
6
)
13
6
(
8
5
)
38 (70)
1337(1131)
469(262)
1 (3)
861(1078)
70(107)11
1
(
7
7
)
8
(
1
4
)
26
3
(
2
4
5
)
12
4
(
1
0
8
)
47
9
(
3
5
5
)
75 (67)
1339(1792)
576(264)
1700(1563)
20
7
(
8
4
)
14
8
0
(
3
9
4
7
)
186(85)
528(2123)
21
8
9
(
7
9
4
)
42
5
1
(
1
1
2
5
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(189)
296(580)
69(83)
164(130)
740(537)
198(344)
69
(
7
1
)
65
8
(
1
2
7
3
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
5
9
(
1
1
5
8
)
22
(
6
2
)
688(768)
113(171)
703(660)
656(636)
34
9
(
5
4
8
)
12
9
(
1
5
3
)
29
7
(
2
3
1
)
10
7
3
(
2
5
8
2
)
99
(
1
0
)
25(112)
17(292)
9 (189)
147(84)
453(84)
680(1902)
14
7
9
(
4
9
6
)
25
3
3
(
1
1
5
0
)
24
(
4
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
83
3
(
6
6
1
)
11
0
2
(
1
7
8
9
)
213(382)
1601(1230)
1088(1457)
745(1033)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
10
6
(
1
5
2
)
22
4
5
(
1
9
3
2
)
12
6
(
1
1
0
)
57(80)
273(220)
143(129)
63(159)
196(233)
64(145)
16
0
(
1
3
3
)
92
4
(
1
7
4
8
)
71
(
1
2
4
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
26
1
(
2
0
9
)
11
3
3
(
8
8
3
)
173(420)
776(902)
77
9
(
1
1
2
1
)
47
9
(
7
8
7
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
89
(
7
6
)
27
1
0
(
2
2
3
2
)
19
7
(
9
9
)
245(286)
27 (33)
102(117)
17 (40)
26 (12)
1 (40)26
(
5
3
)
10
8
1
(
1
9
7
9
)
66
(
6
6
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
81
8
(
8
0
2
)
38
6
(
1
3
6
)
2201(1324)
974(823)
1371(2621)
805(579)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure c3-4
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
3
9
)
28
0
(
4
2
3
)
344(769)
369(339)
539(399)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
44
9
(
3
5
0
)
17
6
7
(
2
7
5
7
)
21
2
(
1
8
2
)
135(265)
567(567)
113(187)
233(261)
451(669)
198(553)
40
1
(
4
1
1
)
15
8
4
(
1
4
0
7
)
94
(
2
3
6
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
11
2
(
1
5
8
)
25
8
(
3
7
6
)
62
(
1
2
0
)
68(74)
1521(846)
133(200)
172(123)
728(2016)
134(119)
13
3
(
2
4
9
)
30
0
(
3
2
7
)
13
4
(
5
6
9
)
57
4
(
2
4
7
)
13
9
(
1
7
9
)
24
(
8
4
)
97(129)
1207(885)
33(125)
189(259)
427(1018)
320(672)
54
9
(
4
0
7
)
59
9
(
5
6
8
)
38
0
(
1
0
8
3
)
58(120)
65(303)
21 (47)
21 (31)
247(156)
38 (9)
119(212)
8 (8)
97(283)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes wo Project rev1.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUMES
Figure d3-4
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
211(133)
225(265)73
(
3
3
0
)
10
5
(
2
0
9
)
322(119)
388(182)
40
(
1
1
)
29
1
(
5
4
)
17
7
(
7
0
)
169(261)
97(50)
208(250)
63(22)
35(150)
228(259)
8 (35)
380(318)
31
(
6
0
)
72
(
1
7
6
)
76
(
1
1
4
)
49
(
6
1
)
13
(
4
)
19
6
(
6
7
4
)
383(142)
142(122)
9 (6)
59 (49)
74(210)
6 (2)2
(
5
)
5
(
2
4
)
1
(
1
5
)
17
(
1
3
)
5
(
4
)
51
(
1
6
)
8 (20)
773(1534)
69 (40)
30 (24)
1488(1194)
297 (60)42
(
2
1
4
)
1
(
8
)
27
(
1
0
4
)
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
30
(
1
1
)
18
1
(
4
3
)
16
0
(
5
0
)
30(145)
215(346)
56(40)
8 (30)
393(384)
63 (18)18
(
3
0
)
40
(
3
8
4
)
42
(
1
8
)
62
73(473)
1237(1709)
415(567)
866(663)
37
8
(
3
5
3
)
0
(
0
)
10
7
4
(
7
3
0
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
4
(
3
9
9
)
42
7
(
1
0
2
)
529(1094)
1086(968)
854(1128)
212(406)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-20 January 13, 2009
Table 3-1
LOS of Study Intersections for 2015 – No Project
Existing AM 2015AM Existing PM 2015PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
#1 ECR/Valparaiso D+ 35.2 0.715 36.2 D 41 0.882 45.3 D 42.2 0.789 44.8 D- 52.6 0.95 65
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B 12.2 0.503 11.7 B+ 11.6 0.635 11.6 B 17.5 0.568 18 B- 19.1 0.638 20
#3 ECR/Ravenswood D+ 37.2 0.756 37.9 D 50.2 0.955 55.5 D 46 0.823 48.9 E+59 0.985 73
#4 ECR/Roble B+ 10.4 0.427 9.4 B+10 0.537 9.5 B+ 11.5 0.454 9.3 B 12.4 0.527 13.2
#5 ECR/Middle C 24.2 0.694 28.9 C 25.7 0.816 31.3 D+ 36.6 0.822 39.6 D 43.1 0.935 47.8
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 13.5 0.562 14.8 B 14.5 0.68 16.6 B 12.4 0.507 6.7 B 14.3 0.627 20.5
#7 ECR/Sand Hill-Alma C 24.1 0.567 34.2 C 27 0.636 36.6 D+ 35.5 0.618 42.3 D+ 35.4 0.676 43.6
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B 13.7 0.369 18.5 B+12 0.516 14.4 C 23 0.478 13 C+ 22.8 0.569 31.5
#9 Alma/Lytton B 16.7 0.517 16.8 B 17.4 0.545 17.8 C 25.5 0.848 30.4 C 28 0.879 34.3
#10 ECR/University-Palm
(Single Int)C 29.4 0.734 33.2 C- 34.1 0.851 39.9 D 43.6 0.85 49.2 D-54 0.922 63.2
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-
Galvez D 43.3 0.723 46.9 D- 53.3 0.927 61.8 D 49.3 0.816 52.7 E 69.1 0.989 75.5
#12 ECR/Churchill C 26.4 0.572 32.3 C 25.7 0.665 34.1 C 26.9 0.729 38.3 C 27.8 0.834 41.7
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B 17.2 0.473 21.7 B 15.8 0.642 18.4 C 25.9 0.664 30.1 C 26.7 0.809 33.3
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 22.5 0.449 17 C+ 21.3 0.635 24.4 C 22.3 0.608 25.8 C+ 22.9 0.747 28.4
#15 ECR/California C+ 20.2 0.498 18.4 C+ 20.5 0.613 20.9 C 28.3 0.63 27.6 C 29.2 0.757 29.5
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon E 60.4 0.987 70.5 F 83.4 1.096 106.3 E+57.3 0.959 65.7 F 94.3 1.105 108.4
#17 Woodland/University C- 33.4 0.673 35.8 D+ 37.7 0.78 41.7 D 41.3 0.844 48 E 63.8 1.03 83.7
#18 Middlefield/Willow D 36.0 0.761 40.3 D 48.5 0.919 56.2 D 47.7 0.812 54.2 E 74 1.028 89.8
#19 Middlefield/Lytton C 24.2 0.664 24.6 D 45.2 0.831 46.1 D+ 37.5 0.806 40 F 82 1.027 92.1
#20 Middlefield/University C 27 0.446 27.8 C 28.8 0.57 28.8 C 29 0.565 30.5 C- 33.2 0.786 37.2
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero C- 34.2 0.526 35.9 D+ 38.2 0.6 39.6 D 40.1 0.652 42.5 D 40 0.669 41.6
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-21 January 13, 2009
Existing AM 2015AM Existing PM 2015PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
#22 Alma/Churchill B- 19.1 0.657 16.6 C+ 21.1 0.714 17.9 C 27.2 0.769 30.6 C- 33.5 0.892 41.1
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page
Mill Road F 103.4 1.128 135 F 143.6 1.292 205.4 F 123.5 1.182 168.7 F 178.7 1.415 268.4
#24 Junipero/Stanford B 12.3 0.614 17.1 B 13.6 0.715 19.2 B 15.1 0.616 18.5 B 17.3 0.767 23.2
#25 Junipero/Campus East B+ 11.5 0.489 16.4 B 12.6 0.575 18.2 B 12.7 0.463 15.4 B 14 0.607 17.4
#26 Junipero/Campus West D+ 36.3 0.611 43.4 D 39.9 0.614 43.3 C- 34.5 0.766 40.9 E 61.8 0.932 83.2
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa
Cruz C 27 0.723 30.9 D 45 0.972 52.9 C 30.8 0.745 32.1 D- 54.5 0.995 57.7
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand
Hill*F 83.7 0.944 67.1 F 90.4 0.998 70.3 D+ 38.1 0.903 44.6 D 41.9 0.938 49.3
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C 23.5 0.644 19.9 C 27.1 0.763 24.7 C+ 20.6 0.625 22.7 C 25.2 0.787 28.6
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill C 28.4 0.774 31.5 D 41.6 0.991 60 D+ 38.3 0.712 38.5 D 48.1 0.914 55.4
#31 Oak/Sand Hill A 9.2 0.651 10 A 9.4 0.73 10.5 A 6.8 0.675 8.1 A 7.2 0.74 8.7
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 15.4 0.562 16.5 B 16 0.625 17.4 C 25.3 0.666 27.2 C 25.3 0.683 27.6
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill C+ 20.4 0.585 22 C+ 22.6 0.666 25.1 C+ 22.5 0.534 22.8 C 25.5 0.596 26.2
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill C+ 20.4 0.443 22 B- 19.7 0.487 22.3 C 24.8 0.601 27.8 C 26.1 0.603 29.8
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C-32 0.572 32.7 C- 33.1 0.613 34 C 31.9 0.712 37 C 31.9 0.712 37
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+ 22.6 0.822 27.4 C+ 22.7 0.822 27.4 C+ 20.6 0.723 21.9 C+ 20.7 0.723 21.9
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 25.6 0.64- 25.6 D 29.2 0.67 29.2 F 54.6 0.94 54.6 F 86.6 1.04 86.6
#38 ECR/Charleston D 39.2 0.739 39.3 D 48.9 0.758 49.7 D 42 0.853 44.6 E+58.7 0.962 66
#39 Alma/Charleston D+ 38.6 0.766 39.6 D 42.4 0.833 43.9 D 40.4 0.813 44 D 46.6 0.884 50.4
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 39.7 0.644 42.2 D 41 0.701 42.9 D 40.4 0.7 42.5 D 41.6 0.728 44.3
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B- 1835 0.336 18.7 B 17.2 0.405 17.9 B- 18.3 0.375 19 B- 18.2 0.41 18.8
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+ 11.3 0.503 12.8 B+ 11.1 0.503 12.8 C+ 20.5 0.618 21.8 C+ 21.2 0.618 21.8
#43 University/Santa Cruz C+ 21.8 0.449 26.9 C+ 22.5 0.564 28.9 C 27.7 0.52 30.1 C 30 0.67 35
#44 ECR/Oak Grove C 27.5 0.6 25.8 C 30.3 0.769 29.7 C 28.5 0.651 26.4 C 30.8 0.724 30.4
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-22 January 13, 2009
Existing AM 2015AM Existing PM 2015PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C 28.7 0.614 31.2 C 30.8 0.704 34.6 C 28.4 0.713 33.6 C 31.3 0.816 38.7
#46 Middlefield/Ravenswood C 27.2 0.807 35.8 F 86.9 1.111 108.7 D 47.6 0.964 62 F 132.9 1.281 173.3
#47 ECR/Encinal B 17.7 0.627 14.9 B- 19.9 0.775 18.6 B- 18.5 0.656 19.1 C+ 20.4 0.723 22.2
#48 Bay/Marsh B 12.4 0.51 13.6 B 13.1 0.583 14.5 B+ 11.9 0.451 13 B 12.4 0.516 13.6
#49 US 101SB/Marsh B 18.2 0.744 20.5 B- 18.5 0.78 20.2 B- 19.8 0.802 19.9 C 24.8 0.917 26.7
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 14 0.514 14.7 B 14.8 0.588 15.7 B 14.1 0.783 15.9 B- 18.5 0.896 21.5
#51 Bay/Willow B- 18.4 0.625 22.4 B- 19.9 0.726 24.8 B 15.9 0.524 19.4 B 16.9 0.613 20.7
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow C 28.3 0.708 40.8 C 31.5 0.781 46 E 61.7 1.024 71.1 F 95.8 1.152 117.8
#53 Bayfront Expy/University C 25.7 0.921 49.5 C- 32.5 0.984 63.1 C 27.7 0.885 32.9 D+ 37.6 0.946 45.6
#54 Bay/University C- 34.5 0.713 36.4 D+ 37.5 0.802 41.1 E 71.5 1.065 89.9 F 102.8 1.191 139.2
#55 Donohoe/University D 49.9 0.874 52.5 D- 53.1 0.924 57.8 D- 52.1 0.946 60.9 D 44 0.892 51.3
#56 Welch/Quarry C+ 20.8 0.552 23.9 B- 19.8 0.49 22.5 C+ 21.4 0.539 23.1 C+ 20.7 0.505 22.4
#57 Durand/Sand Hill A 6.1 0.315 9.1 A 7.9 0.426 5.6 A 5.8 0.398 7.4 A 6 0.424 7.9
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 8.4 0.328 10.1 A 8.4 0.328 10.1 B+ 10.4 0.402 10.8 B+ 10.6 0.414 10.7
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.6 0.351 8.9 B+ 10.6 0.32 9.2 A 7.7 0.24 8.2 A 8.6 0.261 9.1
#60 Durand/Welch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford
Ave B 13.5 0.671 13.5 C 18.2 0.803 18.2 B 11.7 0.536 11.7 B 14.2 0.653 14.2
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp /
Alpine Road F 312.1 1.851 312.1 F 251.7 2.13 251.7 F 128.4 1.252 128.4 F 260.5 2.026 260.5
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp /
Alpine Road F 80.7 1.12 80.7 F 444.1 1.86 444.1 C 17.7 0.43 17.7 E 36 0.73 36
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-23 January 13, 2009
Table 3-2
LOS of Study Intersections for 2025 – No Project
Existing AM 2025AM Existing PM 2025PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
#1 ECR/Valparaiso D+ 35.2 0.715 36.2 E 73.5 1.091 93.7 D 42.2 0.789 44.8 F 90.4 1.174 134.5
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B 12.2 0.503 11.7 B 13.3 0.782 14.6 B 17.5 0.568 18 C+ 21.5 0.819 24.2
#3 ECR/Ravenswood D+ 37.2 0.756 37.9 F 101 1.175 127 D 46 0.823 48.9 F 99.7 1.194 143.1
#4 ECR/Roble B+ 10.4 0.427 9.4 B+ 10.4 0.66 10.7 B+ 11.5 0.454 9.3 B 13 0.652 13.8
#5 ECR/Middle C 24.2 0.694 28.9 C- 32.6 0.951 41.2 D+ 36.6 0.822 39.6 D 50.4 0.951 46.4
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 13.5 0.562 14.8 B 17.3 0.812 20.7 B 12.4 0.507 6.7 B 16.1 0.756 22.5
#7 ECR/Sand Hill-Alma C 24.1 0.567 34.2 C 30.8 0.735 40.4 D+ 35.5 0.618 42.3 D+ 35.9 0.758 45.9
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B 13.7 0.369 18.5 B 12 0.68 13.7 C 23 0.478 13 C 23.7 0.725 32.8
#9 Alma/Lytton B 16.7 0.517 16.8 B- 18.3 0.58 19 C 25.5 0.848 30.4 C 31.8 0.917 40.5
#10 ECR/University-Palm
(Single Int)C 29.4 0.734 33.2 D 51 0.997 63.5 D 43.6 0.85 49.2 E 73.6 1.011 89.6
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-
Galvez D 43.3 0.723 46.9 F 105.4 1.156 141.8 D 49.3 0.816 52.7 F 137.5 1.238 160.6
#12 ECR/Churchill C 26.4 0.572 32.3 C 26.9 0.783 21.5 C 26.9 0.729 38.3 C- 33.9 0.966 54.6
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B 17.2 0.473 21.7 B- 18.5 0.853 21.5 C 25.9 0.664 30.1 D+ 36.7 0.992 52.1
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 22.5 0.449 17 C+ 21.6 0.82 24.8 C 22.3 0.608 25.8 C 27.8 0.921 37.9
#15 ECR/California C+ 20.2 0.498 18.4 C 24.7 0.836 26.4 C 28.3 0.63 27.6 D+ 35.4 0.916 39.3
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon E 60.4 0.987 70.5 F 128.4 1.217 156 E+57.3 0.959 65.7 F 169.4 1.276 178.7
#17 Woodland/University C- 33.4 0.673 35.8 D 48.3 0.901 55.5 D 41.3 0.844 48 F 111.5 1.236 160
#18 Middlefield/Willow D 36.0 0.761 40.3 F 83.3 1.096 105.1 D 47.7 0.812 54.2 F 138.5 1.285 188.4
#19 Middlefield/Lytton C 24.2 0.664 24.6 F 142.4 1.041 145 D+ 37.5 0.806 40 F 180.6 1.284 201.6
#20 Middlefield/University C 27 0.446 27.8 C 31.5 0.713 30.7 C 29 0.565 30.5 E 62.5 1.031 74.3
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-24 January 13, 2009
Existing AM 2025AM Existing PM 2025PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero C- 34.2 0.526 35.9 D 42 0.683 42.8 D 40.1 0.652 42.5 D 39.9 0.702 41.7
#22 Alma/Churchill B- 19.1 0.657 16.6 C 27 0.793 35.5 C 27.2 0.769 30.6 D- 52.2 1.029 70.6
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page
Mill Road F 103.4 1.128 135 F 191.8 1.474 284.4 F 123.5 1.182 168.7 F 251 1.675 382.3
#24 Junipero/Stanford B 12.3 0.614 17.1 B- 18.9 0.842 28.8 B 15.1 0.616 18.5 C 29.8 0.956 44.6
#25 Junipero/Campus East B+ 11.5 0.489 16.4 B 16 0.682 23.7 B 12.7 0.463 15.4 C 24.5 0.789 30.5
#26 Junipero/Campus West D+ 36.3 0.611 43.4 D 50 0.729 63.2 C- 34.5 0.766 40.9 F 124.9 1.116 164.9
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa
Cruz C 27 0.723 30.9 F 120.9 1.247 151 C 30.8 0.745 32.1 F 150.2 1.272 161.3
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand
Hill* F 83.7 0.944 67.1 F 107.1 1.064 86.3 D+ 38.1 0.903 44.6 D-52 0.979 62.1
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C 23.5 0.644 19.9 C- 34.1 0.895 34.3 C+ 20.6 0.625 22.7 D+ 38.7 0.967 47.2
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill C 28.4 0.774 31.5 F 82 1.232 147.4 D+ 38.3 0.712 38.5 F 84.5 1.123 114.2
#31 Oak/Sand Hill A 9.2 0.651 10 B+ 10.3 0.817 12.1 A 6.8 0.675 8.1 A 8.2 0.82 10.3
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 15.4 0.562 16.5 B 17.5 0.702 19.8 C 25.3 0.666 27.2 C 25.6 0.704 28.4
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill C+ 20.4 0.585 22 D 45.2 0.777 58.3 C+ 22.5 0.534 22.8 C+ 20.8 0.627 22.8
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill C+ 20.4 0.443 22 C+ 20.4 0.554 23.7 C 24.8 0.601 27.8 C 29.9 0.681 38.1
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C-32 0.572 32.7 C-32 0.572 32.7 C 31.9 0.712 37 C 31.9 0.712 37
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+ 22.6 0.822 27.4 C+ 22.7 0.822 27.4 C+ 20.6 0.723 21.9 C+ 20.9 0.723 21.9
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 25.6 0.64- 25.6 D 32 0.7 32 F 54.6 0.94 54.6 F 130.8 1.16 130.8
#38 ECR/Charleston D 39.2 0.739 39.3 D- 51.3 0.826 55 D 42 0.853 44.6 F 96.5 1.143 124.2
#39 Alma/Charleston D+ 38.6 0.766 39.6 D 48.2 0.907 50.8 D 40.4 0.813 44 E+57.9 0.963 62.9
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 39.7 0.644 42.2 D 42.5 0.765 44 D 40.4 0.7 42.5 D 42.9 0.759 46.3
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B- 1835 0.336 18.7 B 15.7 0.504 16.5 B- 18.3 0.375 19 B 17.6 0.461 18.3
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+ 11.3 0.503 12.8 B+11 0.503 12.8 C+ 20.5 0.618 21.8 C+ 21.5 0.618 21.8
#43 University/Santa Cruz C+ 21.8 0.449 26.9 C 24.8 0.685 32 C 27.7 0.52 30.1 D+ 36.1 0.837 45.3
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-25 January 13, 2009
Existing AM 2025AM Existing PM 2025PM
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
#44 ECR/Oak Grove C 27.5 0.6 25.8 D 44.3 0.958 49.4 C 28.5 0.651 26.4 D+ 36.5 0.872 39.9
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C 28.7 0.614 31.2 C- 33.8 0.794 31.8 C 28.4 0.713 33.6 D+ 38.8 0.931 51.4
#46 Middlefield/Ravenwood C 27.2 0.807 35.8 F 209.4 1.449 251.6 D 47.6 0.964 62 F 252.6 1.634 326.6
#47 ECR/Encinal B 17.7 0.627 14.9 C 31.1 0.938 35.9 B- 18.5 0.656 19.1 C 23.5 0.839 25.3
#48 Bay/Marsh B 12.4 0.51 13.6 B 14.1 0.665 16 B+ 11.9 0.451 13 B 13.2 0.588 14.6
#49 US 101SB/Marsh B 18.2 0.744 20.5 C+ 21.9 0.889 25.1 B- 19.8 0.802 19.9 D 43.6 1.045 54.2
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 14 0.514 14.7 B 15.9 0.671 17.1 B 14.1 0.783 15.9 D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6
#51 Bay/Willow B- 18.4 0.625 22.4 C 23.1 0.839 29.9 B 15.9 0.524 19.4 B- 18.8 0.714 23
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow C 28.3 0.708 40.8 D+37 0.862 56.1 E 61.7 1.024 71.1 F 140.1 1.294 177.8
#53 Bayfront Expy/University C 25.7 0.921 49.5 D 46.7 1.074 91.4 C 27.7 0.885 32.9 E 61.9 1.034 76.8
#54 Bay/University C- 34.5 0.713 36.4 D 44.3 0.913 51.9 E 71.5 1.065 89.9 F 145.2 1.349 206.9
#55 Donohoe/University D 49.9 0.874 52.5 E-79.3 1.059 90.8 D- 52.1 0.946 60.9 E+55.2 1.007 72.2
#56 Welch/Quarry C+ 20.8 0.552 23.9 B- 19.7 0.421 21.6 C+ 21.4 0.539 23.1 C+ 20.3 0.466 22.1
#57 Durand/Sand Hill A 6.1 0.315 9.1 B 12.5 0.641 11.7 A 5.8 0.398 7.4 B 17.1 0.577 16.7
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 8.4 0.328 10.1 A 7.1 0.305 8.6 B+ 10.4 0.402 10.8 A 9 0.323 10.6
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.6 0.351 8.9 B+ 10.4 0.358 10 A 7.7 0.24 8.2 A 6.6 0.216 7
#60 Durand/Welch NA NA NA NA C 29.6 0.665 33.6 NA NA NA NA C 30.0 0.642 34.1
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford
Ave B 13.5 0.671 13.5 E 37.7 1.007 37.7 B 11.7 0.536 11.7 C 21.7 0.831 21.7
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp /
Alpine Road F 312.1 1.851 312.1 F 383.2 2.395 383.2 F 128.4 1.252 128.4 F 478.6 2.809 478.6
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp /
Alpine Road F 80.7 1.12 80.7 F 1061 3.2 1061 C 17.7 0.43 17.7 F 184.4 1.28 184.4
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-26 January 13, 2009
For the PM peak hour in 2015, seven intersections were expected to perform at LOS E:
El Camino Real / Ravenswood Avenue (#3) (Menlo Park)
El Camino Real / Embarcadero – Galvez (#11) (Palo Alto)
Woodland Avenue / University Avenue (#17) ( East Palo Alto)
Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) (Menlo Park)
Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) (Santa Clara County)
El Camino Real / Charleston Road (#38)(Palo Alto)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#63) (Palo Alto)
Seven other signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection would operate at LOS F
during the PM peak hour in 2015:
El Camino Real / Page Mill – Oregon Expressway (#16) (Palo Alto
Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) (Palo Alto)
Junipero Serra Boulevard – Foothill Expressway / Page Mill Road (#23) (Palo Alto)
Arboretum Road / Galvez Street (#37) (unsignalized, Palo Alto)
Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) (Menlo Park)
Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road (#52) (San Mateo County)
Bay Road / University Avenue (#54) (East Palo Alto)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (Palo Alto)
For 2025, three intersections were expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour:
El Camino Real / Valparaiso Avenue (#1) (Menlo Park),
Donohoe Street / University Avenue (#55) (East Palo Alto)
Bowdoin Street / Stanford Ave (#61) (Santa Clara County)
Twelve intersections operating at LOS F during the AM peak hour in 2025 are:
El Camino Real / Ravenswood Avenue (#3) (Menlo Park)
El Camino Real / Embarcadero – Galvez (#11) (Palo Alto)
El Camino Real / Page Mill – Oregon Expressway (#16) (Palo Alto)
Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) (Menlo Park)
Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) (Palo Alto)
Junipero Serra Boulevard – Foothill Expressway / Page Mill Road (#23) (Palo Alto)
Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine Road – Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) (Menlo Park)
Sand Hill Circle – I-280 / Sand Hill Road (#28) (Menlo Park)
Santa Cruz Avenue / Sand Hill Road (#30) (Menlo Park)
Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) (Menlo Park)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (Palo Alto)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#63) (Palo Alto)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-27 January 13, 2009
During the PM peak hour, five intersections would operate at LOS E in 2025:
El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) (Palo Alto)
Middlefield Road / University Avenue (#20) (Palo Alto)
Alma Street / Charleston Road (#39) (Palo Alto)
Bayfront Expressway / University Avenue (#53) (San Mateo County)
Donohoe Street / University Avenue (#55) (East Palo Alto)
In 2025, 18 intersections would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour:
El Camino Real / Valparaiso Avenue (#1) (Menlo Park)
El Camino Real / Ravenswood Avenue (#3) (Menlo Park)
El Camino Real / Embarcadero – Galvez (#11) (Palo Alto)
El Camino Real / Page Mill – Oregon Expressway (#16)(Palo Alto)
Woodland Road / University Avenue (#17) (East Palo Alto)
Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) (Menlo Park)
Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) (Palo Alto)
Junipero Serra Boulevard – Foothill Expressway / Page Mill Road (#23) (Palo Alto)
Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) (Santa Clara County)
Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine Road – Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) (Menlo Park)
Santa Cruz Avenue / Sand Hill Road (#30) (Menlo Park)
Arboretum Road / Galvez Street (#37) (unsignalized, Palo Alto)
El Camino Real / Charleston Road (#38)(Palo Alto)
Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) (Menlo Park)
Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road (#52) (San Mateo County)
Bay Road / University Avenue (#54) (East Palo Alto)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (Palo Alto)
Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#63) (Palo Alto)
3.3 Project Trip Generation
In order to determine project impacts, the number of trips generated by each project needs to be
calculated. The following sections presents the trip generation for the two projects. The
discussion will focus on the SSC and the SUMC separately.
3.3.1 SSC
The trip generation rates used for SSC are obtained from the ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition
(ITE, 2000). The SSC would consist of retail (1,592,000 square feet), high-turnover restaurants
(19,200 square feet), high quality restaurants (28,800 square feet) and a 120-room hotel. This
expansion is expected to be fully completed by 2015.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-28 January 13, 2009
The retail area of 1,592,000 square feet includes the existing area of 1,400,000 square feet.
Table 3-3 presents the trip generation calculated for each of the land uses. Regression
equations are used to estimate project traffic volumes. Appendix B lists the regression
equations and trip rates used. Regression equations indicate that shopping centers generate
traffic at a decreasing rate as the facility size expands. Newly generated project traffic is the net
difference between the projected trips for the new total area and the projected trips for the
existing area. For this study, high-turnover restaurants are included in the shopping center area
for the trip generation rate calculations whereas high-quality restaurants and the hotel are
calculated separately. The assumption is that traffic to a high-quality restaurant is independent
of the surroundings of that facility.
Table 3-3
SSC Trip Generation
AM Peak PM PeakLand Use Size Daily
Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Shopping Center (consists of retail and high turnover restaurants)1
Existing 1,400,000 s.f.37,750 465 297 762 1,715 1,858 3,573
Proposed*1,611,200 s.f.41,360 506 324 830 1,882 2,038 3,920
Net Increase 211,200 s.f.3610 41 27 68 167 180 347
Hotel2 120 rooms 701 31 20 51 38 33 71
High
Quality
Restaurant3
28,800 s.f.2,591 18 5 23 145 71 216
Total Project Trips 6902 90 52 142 350 284 634
Source: AECOM, September 2008
Notes: s.f. = square feet.1.Trip generation based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) for Shopping Center
(Land Use Code 820).2. Trip generation based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) for Hotel (Land Use Code 310). This use includes supporting
facilities such as banquet/meeting rooms.3 Trip generation based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) for Quality Restaurant (Land Use Code 931). For AM
directional distribution, assumed 80 percent inbound directional flow to represent employees arriving for work.
*Includes 1,400,000 square feet of existing area, 192,000 square feet of new retail and 19,200 square feet of high-turnover
restaurant.
Adjustments were made to the trips generated to account for pass-by and diverted trips to the
shopping center during the PM peak hour. Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the
way from an origin to a primary destination without a route diversion. They are trips attracted to
the shopping center from traffic already passing the project site on an adjacent street with direct
access to the project site. Based on the pass-by trip regression equation from the Trip
Generation Handbook (ITE, 2001), it is estimated that about 10 percent of the expected trips
generated from the retail portion (including high-turnover restaurants) would be pass-by trips.
Another approximately 15 percent of the expected SSC retail trips would be diverted trips.
Diverted trips are trips that are attracted from roadways within the vicinity of the generator (the
shopping center) but that require a diversion from that roadway to another to gain access to the
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-29 January 13, 2009
site. Diverted trips consist of traffic that is already on the roadway network. Therefore, it was
removed from trip generation. However, since it travels through intersections adjacent to the
project area, it was assigned to intersections surrounding the project. The revised trips
generated by SSC are presented in Table 3-4. The SSC project trips were further adjusted for
‘Hotel/Retail Mixed-Use’ reduction of 10% (hotel trips) according to the CMP recommendation.
Table 3-4
SSC Trip Generation with Adjustments
AM Peak PM PeakLand Use Size Daily
Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Shopping Center (consists of retail and high turnover restaurants)
Existing 1,400,000 s.f.36,666 465 297 762 1,195 1,294 2,489
Proposed 1,611,200 s.f.40,195 506 324 830 1,322 1,432 2,755
Net Increase 211,200 s.f.3,529 41 27 68 128 138 266
Hotel 120 rooms 689 28 18 46 34 30 64
High Quality
Restaurant 28,800 s.f.2,591 18 5 23 114 102 216
Total Project Trips 6,809 87 50 137 276 270 546
Source: AECOM, December 2008
Notes: s.f. = square feet.
3.3.2 SUMC
The SUMC consists of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital and Clinics,
the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and medical office buildings (MOB). As part of the
proposed expansion, several existing MOB (119,900 square feet) would be demolished. This
would be taken into account when calculating the trips generated by the project. Hoover
Pavilion would be renovated and square footage would be added to this site for the MOBs
(144,000 square feet). In addition, adjustment, or ‘right-sizing’ space credit, is applied to the
proposed expansion area for the hospitals to better reflect the facilities practical use. The
hospitals are currently undersized relative to the services they provide. Part of the proposed
expansion is needed to better accommodate the existing uses which would have no impact on
the trips generation. This is ‘right-sizing’ adjustment. Net proposed expansion for Stanford
Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital is 854,970 square feet.
Trip generation rates for SUMC were determined using data collected from existing facilities.
Driveway counts were conducted at 20 parking areas serving the SUMC during the AM (7:00-
9:00) and PM (4:00-6:00) peak hours. Trip generation rates were then calculated based on the
traffic volumes and the size of existing buildings. The hospitals would be operating 60 percent
of the full build-out in 2015 and the trips generated are presented in Table 3-5. Trips generated
for a full build-out (100 percent) of the SUMC in 2025 are shown in Table 3-6. Appendix C and
D contains details of the review and validation of the hospital trip generation statistics.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-30 January 13, 2009
Table 3-5
2015 Trip Generation for SUMC
AM Peak PM PeakLand Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Stanford Hospitals and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital:
Trip Rates 0.62 0.2 0.82 0.23 0.58 0.81
Hospitals 512,982 s.f.1 318 103 421 118 298 416
Hospitals Subtotal 5630 318 103 421 118 298 416
Medical Office Buildings:
Trip Rates 2.02 0.62 2.64 0.55 1.64 2.19
701 Welch (56,300 s.f.)(114)(35)(149)(31)(92)(123)
703 Welch (23,500 s.f.)(47)(15)(62)(13)(38)(51)
1101 Welch (40,100 s.f.)(80)(24)(104)(22)(66)(88)
Hoover
Pavilion 144,230 s.f.291 89 380 79 236 315
MOB Subtotal 661 50 15 65 13 40 53
TOTALS 6291 368 118 486 131 338 469
Notes: s.f. = square feet.Source: AECOM, May 2008
1. Trip generation for hospitals and clinics are at 60% of growth and occupancy during transition period as
per Fehr and Peers Trip Generation methodology, Nov 14 2007 memo (Appendix C).
Table 3-6
2025 Trip Generation for SUMC
AM Peak PM PeakLand Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Stanford Hospitals and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital:
TripRate1 0.62 0.2 0.82 0.23 0.58 0.81
Hospitals 854,970 s.f.530 171 701 197 496 693
Hospitals Subtotal 9400 530 171 701 197 496 693
Medical Office Buildings:
TripRate1 2.02 0.62 2.64 0.55 1.64 2.19
701 Welch (56,300 s.f.)(114)(35)(149)(31)(92)(123)
703 Welch (23,500 s.f.)(47)(15)(62)(13)(38)(51)
1101 Welch (40,100 s.f.)(80)(24)(104)(22)(66)(88)
Hoover Pavilion 144,230s.f.291 89 380 79 236 315
MOB Subtotal 661 50 15 65 13 40 53
TOTALS 10061 580 186 766 210 536 746
Notes: s.f. = square feet.Source: AECOM, May 2008
1. Trip generation based on survey data from Fehr and Peers, 2007, adjusted by AECOM according to
white paper analysis contained in Appendix C
After determining the number of trips generated by the project, they are distributed and
assigned to all study intersections. Distribution is divided into regional and local patterns to
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-31 January 13, 2009
more accurately reflect the origins of the trips. Appendix E presents the details of this trip
distribution. SUMC trips are divided into 75 percent regional and 25 percent local. These
percentages were derived from existing employee zip code data. A majority of peak hour traffic
is associated with employee travel. However, some hospital related peak hour travel will be
made by patients or visitors. The travel pattern of patients and visitors is expected to be similar
to that of employees during the peak hour analysis periods. SSC trips are divided into 30
percent regional and 70 percent local; determined from the Palo Alto Citywide travel demand
forecasting model. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the percentage distribution for SUMC and Figures
3-7 and 3-8 show the percentage distribution for SSC. The project trips were then assigned to
each study intersection based on the distribution percentages. Figures 3-9a through 3-9d to 3-
12a through 3-12d present the ‘project only’ volumes at each intersection under the different
project scenarios.
3.4 Project Impacts
Project impacts on study intersections are presented in the LOS comparisons Tables 3-7 to 3-
13 where the adversely affected intersections have been highlighted. All intersections are
evaluated based of City of Palo Alto criteria. Project impacts on freeway segments and
residential roadways are also discussed. In particular, project impacts on several roadways in
Menlo Park are evaluated based on ADT according to the City of Menlo Park significance
criteria. The significance criteria were previously presented in Section 1.8.
3.4.1 Impact of SSC only in 2015
No Build 2015 traffic volumes + SSC at 100 percent build-out compared with No Build
2015 traffic volumes
The traffic volumes for this scenario are shown in Figures 3-13a through 3-13d. The
results of the analysis are included in Table 3-7.
The SSC is assumed to be fully built in this scenario. As presented in Table 3-7, during
the AM peak, no intersections would be adversely impacted by the project. This scenario
is expected to have the least impact as it generates the smallest number of trips. As a
retail center, it is not expected to generate many trips early in the day. Most retail
employees would not start work until after the highway peak and shoppers would not
arrive during the AM peak hour. Six intersections would be adversely impacted by the
proposed SSC expansion in the PM peak:
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO
ALTO
WELC
H
RDRD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
San
Creek
Fra
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
AL
P
I
N
E
JUN
I
P
E
R
O
SER
R
A
SERR
A
OLMS
T
E
D
OLM
S
T
E
D
STANF
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
D
O
I
N
S
T
OBERLIN
S
T
YALE S
T
WELLES
L
E
Y
ST
AV
MAYFIEL
D
ESCONDIDO
SANTA TERESA ST
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
VE
Z
ST
PARK
B
L
PAL
M
QU
AR
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
BLV
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
EL
ALMA
AV
AVAVAV
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
ARBORET
U
M
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Caltr
a
i
n
MIDDLE
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CAMIN
O
REAL
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OLIVE
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
OW
WILLOW
AV
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
OAK
D
E
L
L
AV
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SAN
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLEMAN AV
GILBERT AV
O’KEEFE ST
O’CONNOR ST
WOODLAND
AV
AV
CHANNING
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
PALO RD
VINEYARD
Palo AltoCaltrain
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
RD
CEDRO
W
Y
RAIM
U
N
D
O
WY
PETER
CO
U
T
TS
RD
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
'
S
RD
SAN
T
A
MAR
I
A
AV
RD
GERONA
FARM
RD
OAK
SEARSVILLE RD
GOV
E
R
N
O
R
S
AV
LOS
A
R
B
O
L
E
S
A
V
FRE
M
O
N
T
R
D
RD
ELECTIONEER
ORE
G
O
N
EXP
W
Y
COLO
R
ADO
AV
AV
VERD
E
LOMA
MEAD
O
W
DR
RD
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
RD
AN
T
O
N
I
O
SA
N
EL
CA
M
I
N
O
REA
L
RD
ARAST
R
A
D
E
R
O
EXPWY
FOOTHILL
W. BA
YSHO
R
E
RD
ST
AV
STANF
O
R
D
ATHERTON
AV
N. C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AV
LOS
ALT
O
S
AV
HANS
E
N
WY
HANOV
E
R
ST
PORTER D
R
HIL
L
V
I
E
W
AV
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
280
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
EMBA
R
CADER
O
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
AV
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
EVE
R
E
T
T
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
LINC
O
L
N
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
HAWTH
O
R
N
E
LYTTON
ALM
A
EMER
S
O
N
BRYANT
HIGH
RAMO
N
WAVERL
Y
WEBS
T
E
R
COW
P
E
R
ENC
I
N
A
L
AV
AV
GLE
N
W
O
O
D
AV
VAL
P
A
R
I
S
O
AV
ALE
J
A
N
D
R
A
AV
ATHE
R
T
O
N
TUS
C
A
L
OOS
A
ALM
E
N
D
R
A
L
STO
C
K
B
R
I
D
G
E
SEL
B
Y
AVAV
AVLN
MAR
S
H
RD
RD
BAY
BAYFRONT
EXPWY
5TH
A
V
2ND
AV
AV
DOU
G
L
A
S
WOO
D
S
I
D
E
RD
WIL
L
OW
RD
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
AV
RD
BAY
AV
ALM
A
ST
RD
HILL
ALAM
E
D
A
DE L
AS
PULGAS
84
84 San Francisco Bay
ST
RD
SHARO
N
SHARON PARK
SAND
STOCK
PASTEUR DR
AV
AV
VINE ST
STDONOHOE
DUR
A
N
D
WY
STANFORD EIRTrip Distribution.cdr
Figure 3-5
SUMC TRIP DISTRIBUTION (REGIONAL)
11%(on SR84)
21%
15%
14%
4%
7%
4%11%
13%
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO
ALTO
WELC
H
RDRD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
San
Creek
Fra
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
AL
P
I
N
E
JUN
I
P
E
R
O
SER
R
A
SERR
A
OLMS
T
E
D
OLM
S
T
E
D
STANF
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
D
O
I
N
S
T
OBERLIN
S
T
YALE S
T
WELLES
L
E
Y
ST
AV
MAYFIEL
D
ESCONDIDO
SANTA TERESA ST
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
VE
Z
ST
PARK
B
L
PAL
M
QU
AR
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
BLV
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
EL
ALMA
AV
AVAVAV
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
ARBORET
U
M
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Caltr
a
i
n
MIDDLE
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CAMIN
O
REAL
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OLIVE
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
OW
WILLOW
AV
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
OAK
D
E
L
L
AV
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SAN
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLEMAN AV
GILBERT AV
O’KEEFE ST
O’CONNOR ST
WOODLAND
AV
AV
CHANNING
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
PALO RD
VINEYARD
Palo AltoCaltrain
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
RD
CEDRO
W
Y
RAIM
U
N
D
O
WY
PETER
CO
U
T
TS
RD
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
'
S
RD
SAN
T
A
MAR
I
A
AV
RD
GERONA
FARM
RD
OAK
SEARSVILLE RD
GOV
E
R
N
O
R
S
AV
LOS
A
R
B
O
L
E
S
A
V
FRE
M
O
N
T
R
D
RD
ELECTIONEER
ORE
G
O
N
EXP
W
Y
COLO
R
ADO
AV
AV
VERD
E
LOMA
MEAD
O
W
DR
RD
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
RD
AN
T
O
N
I
O
SA
N
EL
CA
M
I
N
O
REA
L
RD
ARAST
R
A
D
E
R
O
EXPWY
FOOTHILL
W. BA
YSHO
R
E
RD
ST
AV
STANF
O
R
D
ATHERTON
AV
N. C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AV
LOS
ALT
O
S
AV
HANS
E
N
WY
HANOV
E
R
ST
PORTER D
R
HIL
L
V
I
E
W
AV
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
280
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
EMBA
R
CADER
O
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
AV
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
EVE
R
E
T
T
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
LINC
O
L
N
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
HAWTH
O
R
N
E
LYTTON
ALM
A
EMER
S
O
N
BRYANT
HIGH
RAMO
N
WAVERL
Y
WEBS
T
E
R
COW
P
E
R
ENC
I
N
A
L
AV
AV
GLE
N
W
O
O
D
AV
VAL
P
A
R
I
S
O
AV
ALE
J
A
N
D
R
A
AV
ATHE
R
T
O
N
TUS
C
A
L
OOS
A
ALM
E
N
D
R
A
L
STO
C
K
B
R
I
D
G
E
SEL
B
Y
AVAV
AVLN
MAR
S
H
RD
RD
BAY
BAYFRONT
EXPWY
5TH
A
V
2ND
AV
AV
DOU
G
L
A
S
WOO
D
S
I
D
E
RD
WIL
L
OW
RD
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
AV
RD
BAY
AV
ALM
A
ST
RD
HILL
ALAM
E
D
A
DE L
AS
PULGAS
84
84 San Francisco Bay
ST
RD
SHARO
N
SHARON PARK
SAND
STOCK
PASTEUR DR
AV
AV
VINE ST
STDONOHOE
DUR
A
N
D
WY
STANFORD EIRTrip Distribution.cdr
Figure 3-6
SUMC TRIP DISTRIBUTION (LOCAL)
15%
5%
10%
5%
6%
4%
8%
15%
3%
6%5%
1.5%
5%
1.5%
3%
7%
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO
ALTO
WELC
H
RDRD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
San
Creek
Fra
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
AL
P
I
N
E
JUN
I
P
E
R
O
SER
R
A
SERR
A
OLMS
T
E
D
OLM
S
T
E
D
STANF
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
D
O
I
N
S
T
OBERLIN
S
T
YALE S
T
WELLES
L
E
Y
ST
AV
MAYFIEL
D
ESCONDIDO
SANTA TERESA ST
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
VE
Z
ST
PARK
B
L
PAL
M
QU
AR
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
BLV
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
EL
ALMA
AV
AVAVAV
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
ARBORET
U
M
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Caltr
a
i
n
MIDDLE
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CAMIN
O
REAL
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OLIVE
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
OW
WILLOW
AV
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
OAK
D
E
L
L
AV
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SAN
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLEMAN AV
GILBERT AV
O’KEEFE ST
O’CONNOR ST
WOODLAND
AV
AV
CHANNING
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
PALO RD
VINEYARD
Palo AltoCaltrain
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
RD
CEDRO
W
Y
RAIM
U
N
D
O
WY
PETER
CO
U
T
TS
RD
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
'
S
RD
SAN
T
A
MAR
I
A
AV
RD
GERONA
FARM
RD
OAK
SEARSVILLE RD
GOV
E
R
N
O
R
S
AV
LOS
A
R
B
O
L
E
S
A
V
FRE
M
O
N
T
R
D
RD
ELECTIONEER
ORE
G
O
N
EXP
W
Y
COLO
R
ADO
AV
AV
VERD
E
LOMA
MEAD
O
W
DR
RD
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
RD
AN
T
O
N
I
O
SA
N
EL
CA
M
I
N
O
REA
L
RD
ARAST
R
A
D
E
R
O
EXPWY
FOOTHILL
W. BA
YSHO
R
E
RD
ST
AV
STANF
O
R
D
ATHERTON
AV
N. C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AV
LOS
ALT
O
S
AV
HANS
E
N
WY
HANOV
E
R
ST
PORTER D
R
HIL
L
V
I
E
W
AV
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
280
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
EMBA
R
CADER
O
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
AV
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
EVE
R
E
T
T
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
LINC
O
L
N
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
HAWTH
O
R
N
E
LYTTON
ALM
A
EMER
S
O
N
BRYANT
HIGH
RAMO
N
WAVERL
Y
WEBS
T
E
R
COW
P
E
R
ENC
I
N
A
L
AV
AV
GLE
N
W
O
O
D
AV
VAL
P
A
R
I
S
O
AV
ALE
J
A
N
D
R
A
AV
ATHE
R
T
O
N
TUS
C
A
L
OOS
A
ALM
E
N
D
R
A
L
STO
C
K
B
R
I
D
G
E
SEL
B
Y
AVAV
AVLN
MAR
S
H
RD
RD
BAY
BAYFRONT
EXPWY
5TH
A
V
2ND
AV
AV
DOU
G
L
A
S
WOO
D
S
I
D
E
RD
WIL
L
OW
RD
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
AV
RD
BAY
AV
ALM
A
ST
RD
HILL
ALAM
E
D
A
DE L
AS
PULGAS
84
84 San Francisco Bay
ST
RD
SHARO
N
SHARON PARK
SAND
STOCK
PASTEUR DR
AV
AV
VINE ST
STDONOHOE
DUR
A
N
D
WY
STANFORD EIRTrip Distribution.cdr
Figure 3-7
SSC TRIP DISTRIBUTION (REGIONAL)
5%(on SR84)
6%
15%
1%
3%
6%
3%15%
46%
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO
ALTO
WELC
H
RDRD
RD
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
San
Creek
Fra
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
AL
P
I
N
E
JUN
I
P
E
R
O
SER
R
A
SERR
A
OLMS
T
E
D
OLM
S
T
E
D
STANF
O
R
D
AV
AV
RD
RD
RD
BO
W
D
O
I
N
S
T
OBERLIN
S
T
YALE S
T
WELLES
L
E
Y
ST
AV
MAYFIEL
D
ESCONDIDO
SANTA TERESA ST
CAM
P
U
S
CA
M
P
U
S
DR
DR
EAST
WEST
GA
L
VE
Z
ST
PARK
B
L
PAL
M
QU
AR
R
Y
DR
RD
RD
RD
RD
BLV
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
HAN
O
V
E
R
ST
ROA
D
EL
ALMA
AV
AVAVAV
ST
ST
ST
ST
RD
RD
CA
M
I
N
O
RE
A
L
ARBORET
U
M
N.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
RAV
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
RIN
G
W
O
O
D
Caltr
a
i
n
MIDDLE
F
I
E
L
D
EL
CAMIN
O
REAL
RD
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
AV
DR
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
DR
OLIVE
ST
CRU
Z
SAN
T
A
OAK
MEN
L
O
MID
D
L
E
ROB
L
E
COL
L
E
G
E
CAM
B
R
I
D
G
E
GRO
V
E
WIL
L
OW
WILLOW
AV
AV
OAK
MENLO
PARK
OAK
D
E
L
L
AV
CR
U
Z
SA
N
T
A
SAN
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
A
V
COLEMAN AV
GILBERT AV
O’KEEFE ST
O’CONNOR ST
WOODLAND
AV
AV
CHANNING
AV
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
HAMILTON
PALO RD
VINEYARD
Palo AltoCaltrain
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
RD
CEDRO
W
Y
RAIM
U
N
D
O
WY
PETER
CO
U
T
TS
RD
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
'
S
RD
SAN
T
A
MAR
I
A
AV
RD
GERONA
FARM
RD
OAK
SEARSVILLE RD
GOV
E
R
N
O
R
S
AV
LOS
A
R
B
O
L
E
S
A
V
FRE
M
O
N
T
R
D
RD
ELECTIONEER
ORE
G
O
N
EXP
W
Y
COLO
R
ADO
AV
AV
VERD
E
LOMA
MEAD
O
W
DR
RD
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
RD
AN
T
O
N
I
O
SA
N
EL
CA
M
I
N
O
REA
L
RD
ARAST
R
A
D
E
R
O
EXPWY
FOOTHILL
W. BA
YSHO
R
E
RD
ST
AV
STANF
O
R
D
ATHERTON
AV
N. C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
AV
LOS
ALT
O
S
AV
HANS
E
N
WY
HANOV
E
R
ST
PORTER D
R
HIL
L
V
I
E
W
AV
CHU
R
C
H
I
L
L
280
STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
EMBA
R
CADER
O
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
AV
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
EVE
R
E
T
T
CHA
N
N
I
N
G
LINC
O
L
N
HAM
I
L
T
O
N
HAWTH
O
R
N
E
LYTTON
ALM
A
EMER
S
O
N
BRYANT
HIGH
RAMO
N
WAVERL
Y
WEBS
T
E
R
COW
P
E
R
ENC
I
N
A
L
AV
AV
GLE
N
W
O
O
D
AV
VAL
P
A
R
I
S
O
AV
ALE
J
A
N
D
R
A
AV
ATHE
R
T
O
N
TUS
C
A
L
OOS
A
ALM
E
N
D
R
A
L
STO
C
K
B
R
I
D
G
E
SEL
B
Y
AVAV
AVLN
MAR
S
H
RD
RD
BAY
BAYFRONT
EXPWY
5TH
A
V
2ND
AV
AV
DOU
G
L
A
S
WOO
D
S
I
D
E
RD
WIL
L
OW
RD
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
AV
RD
BAY
AV
ALM
A
ST
RD
HILL
ALAM
E
D
A
DE L
AS
PULGAS
84
84 San Francisco Bay
ST
RD
SHARO
N
SHARON PARK
SAND
STOCK
PASTEUR DR
AV
AV
VINE ST
STDONOHOE
DUR
A
N
D
WY
STANFORD EIRTrip Distribution.cdr
Figure 3-8
4%
8%
1%
3%
6%
3%1%
4%
7%
10%
2%
1%
25%
20%
SSC TRIP DISTRIBUTION (LOCAL)
4%
0.5%
0.5%
STANFORD EIR2015 SSC Project Volumes.cdr
2015 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-9a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
0
)
5
(
3
1
)
2
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
14
(
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (10)1
(
1
0
)
6
(
4
2
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
17
(
5
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
2
)
8
(
5
2
)
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
5
)
7
(
2
6
)
0
(
0
)
0 (2)
5 (36)
0 (0)
4 (27)8
(
2
9
)
3
(
2
0
)
0
(
1
)
9
(
3
0
)
5
(
3
3
)
4 (26)
0 (0)
6 (40)8
(
2
8
)
14
(
5
0
)
0
(
0
)
13
(
4
7
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
6
(
4
4
)
4
(
3
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
3
3
)
1
(
1
0
)
3 (11)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
0 (3)1
(
4
)
10
(
3
6
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
3
2
)
0
(
2
)
1 (2)
0 (0)
10
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
3 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1
(
7
)
3
(
1
8
)
1
(
9
)
0
(
0
)
6
(
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (1)
0 (0)
3 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
3
)
2
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0
(
1
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0 (2)
0 (0)
3 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (23)3
(
2
2
)
0
(
3
)
1
(
7
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
10
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
3
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)1
(
2
)
10
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
3
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
14
(
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
6
(
4
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (16)
0 (0)
9 (32)
5 (17)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
11
(
3
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2015 SSC Project Volumes.cdr
2015 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-9b
Embarcadero
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Alm
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
4 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (11)
0 (1)0
(
2
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)1
(
2
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
6
)
1
(
6
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (3)
1 (4)
2 (7)
1 (3)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
2
(
6
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
9
)
9
(
3
0
)
4 (28)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
3
(
1
0
)
1
(
2
)
1 (5)
10 (37)
0
(
2
)
7
(
3
7
)
2 (6)
1 (2)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
4
)
2 (13)
7 (39)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (43)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
5
)
26 (86)
1 (5)
14 (79)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
14 (84)
0 (0)
0 (0)
28 (91)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
8 (54)
6 (21)
0 (0)
16 (58)
12 (42)
(
3
9
)
0
(
0
)
3
(
2
3
)
6
9
(
3
0
)
3
(
2
0
)
4
(
9
)
2 (10)
1 (4)
1 (5)
11 (35)
1 (4)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
6
(
2
2
)
1
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
1
0
)
2
(
1
6
)
5 (17)
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
0 (0)
0 (1)2
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
2
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
7 (39)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
13 (41)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
14 (84)
0 (0)
0 (0)
28 (91)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
0
(
0
)
9
(
2
8
)
4
(
1
4
)
1 (5)
9 (52)
3 (15)
0 (0)
17 (56)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
4
(
2
6
)
5
(
1
6
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
7
)
0
(
0
)
Page Mill
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
0 (0)
0 (0)2
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
Lytton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (4)
0 (3)
0 (0)
0 (2)0
(
1
)
1
(
5
)
1
(
4
)
2
(
8
)
1
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
0 (0)
3 (11)
0 (0)
1 (10)
2 (10)
0 (1)
3
(
1
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2015 SSC Project Volumes.cdr
2015 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Al
m
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
13
5
(
1
4
1
)
57
4
(
1
1
1
6
)
0
(
5
)
3 (5)
83(79)
99(69)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
26
4
(
1
6
9
)
12
7
7
(
8
9
4
)
15
(
2
8
)
87
(
3
6
1
)
24
3
(
5
0
6
)
10
0
(
7
6
)
44(69)
406(2006)
170(174)
321(138)
1338(594)
270(68)53
(
4
1
5
)
26
9
(
3
2
9
)
89
(
1
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (9)
0 (0)
3 (10)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
39 (33)
1251(861)
478(96)90
(
4
3
1
)
2
(
1
7
)
58
(
2
0
0
)
1 (10)
0 (0)
3 (10)
7 (35)
9
(
3
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (3)1
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
2
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (0)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
5
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
3
(
1
1
)
1
(
3
)
2 (10)
0 (1)
0
(
1
)
0
(
3
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-9c
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (6)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
1
(
6
)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (1)
0 (0)
1 (4)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0 (0)
0 (1)0
(
1
)
1
(
3
)
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (1)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Embarcadero
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
0
(
3
)
1
(
7
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
0
(
0
)
2
(
1
5
)
0
(
2
)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
5
(
1
7
)
0
(
0
)
Arastradero
Charleston
Alm
a
39
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
1
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
3
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2015 SSC Project Volumes.cdr
2015 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-9d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Future Construction
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
3 (1)
6 (31)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10 (34)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
14 (84)
0 (0)
28 (91)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0
(
1
)
0
(
2
)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)
62
0 (0)
1 (7)
0 (0)
1 (4)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1 (4)
1 (4)
1 (4)
0 (0)
1 (2)
2 (1)
STANFORD EIR2015 SUMC Only Vols.cdr
Figure 3-10a
2015 SUMC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
18
AM (PM) Peak Hour
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
19
(
5
6
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
60
(
2
0
)
0
(
0
)
60
(
2
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
12 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
0
)
19
(
5
6
)
4
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
72
(
2
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0)0
(
1
)
22
(
6
7
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
73
(
2
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)1
(
0
)
23
(
6
8
)
0
(
0
)
39
(
1
3
)
35
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
1 (0)
12 (36)
0 (0)
18 (49)76
(
2
7
)
11
(
3
2
)
0
(
1
)
36
(
1
2
)
17
(
4
9
)
11 (34)
19 (58)38
(
1
3
)
76
(
2
6
)
0
(
0
)
17
(
5
1
)
2
(
5
)
5 (2)
22 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (20)
2 (5)5
(
2
)
55
(
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
17
(
5
1
)
2
(
5
)
6 (2)
0 (0)
55
(
1
8
)
0
(
0
)
25 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
10
(
2
9
)
8
(
2
4
)
0
(
0
)
31
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
33 (11)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10 (31)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
40 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
12
(
3
7
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
Alma
Lytton
Alm
a
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
1 (0)
0 (0)
31 (11)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
5
(
1
6
)
4
(
1
3
)
0
(
0
)
49
(
1
7
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (1)1
(
2
)
15
(
4
5
)
3
(
8
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (1)1
(
0
)
55
(
1
8
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
17
(
5
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (2)2
(
1
)
55
(
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
17
(
5
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
57
(
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
18
(
5
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
72
(
2
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
22
(
6
7
)
0
(
0
)
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Palm
54 (18)
40 (14)
0 (0)
0 (0)
12 (37)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
60
(
2
0
)
0
(
0
)
19
(
5
6
)
17
(
5
0
)
10
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2015 SUMC Only Vols.cdr
Figure 3-10b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
26 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (24)
0 (1)1
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
7
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (5)6
(
2
)
8
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
1
6
)
5
(
1
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
17 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
15
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
5
)
6
(
2
)
2 (5)
0 (0)
8 (24)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
5
(
2
)
26
(
9
)
5 (15)
5 (6)
1
(
2
)
6
(
5
)
16 (6)
3 (1)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
0 (1)
14 (43)
0 (0)
0 (0)
46 (15)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
71 (24)
0 (0)
22 (66)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
7 (21)
51 (18)
0 (0)
22 (7)
26 (9)8
(
2
4
)
0
(
0
)
16
(
4
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
63 (24)
52 (16)
0 (0)
21 (57)
16 (5)5
(
1
6
)
0
(
0
)
9
(
2
8
)
6
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
69
(
2
2
)
14 (44)
41 (42)
7 (23)
2 (6)
43 (39)
14 (40)44
(
1
6
)
0
(
0
)
24
(
7
)
0
(
1
)
8
(
2
5
)
13
(
3
7
)
40 (14)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
0 (0)
0 (1)
10
(
2
9
)
0
(
0
)
32
(
1
1
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
14 (43)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
3
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
43 (14)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
15 (45)
0 (0)
0 (0)
48 (16)
23 (8)7
(
2
2
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
0
(
0
)
3
(
1
)
3
(
1
)
1 (2)
15 (43)
7 (20)
0 (0)
47 (16)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
22
(
7
)
0
(
0
)
7
(
9
)
0
(
0
)
2
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR SUMC ONLY
0 (0)
0 (0)10
(
2
9
)
0
(
0
)
32
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
Page Mill
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
5 (13)
0 (0)
1 (0)0
(
1
)
3
(
9
)
1
(
2
)
31
(
1
1
)
10
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
0 (0)
15 (5)
0 (0)
4 (12)
5 (14)
0 (0)
13
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2015 SUMC Only Vols.cdr
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
0
(
0
)
1
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
7 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (6)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
3
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
13
5
(
1
4
1
)
57
4
(
1
1
1
6
)
0
(
5
)
3 (5)
83(79)
99(69)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
26
4
(
1
6
9
)
12
7
7
(
8
9
4
)
15
(
2
8
)
87
(
3
6
1
)
24
3
(
5
0
6
)
10
0
(
7
6
)
44(69)
406(2006)
170(174)
321(138)
1338(594)
270(68)53
(
4
1
5
)
26
9
(
3
2
9
)
89
(
1
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
12 (37)
0 (0)
40 (13)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
39 (33)
1251(861)
478(96)90
(
4
3
1
)
2
(
1
7
)
58
(
2
0
0
)
0 (1)
0 (0)
1 (0)
2 (4)
4
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (20)21
(
7
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
17
(
6
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (15)
0 (0)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
0
(
0
)
60
(
2
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
19
(
5
6
)
0
(
0
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
10
(
4
)
1
(
0
)
3 (10)
0 (1)
1
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
0
(
0
)
49
(
1
7
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
15
(
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
U
S
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (15)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-10c
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR SUMC ONLY
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
24 (8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (22)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
7
)
7
(
2
2
)
24 (8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
8
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
1 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
16 (5)
1 (0)
0 (0)
5 (14)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
7
(
2
0
)
0 (0)
3 (9)9
(
3
)
21
(
7
)
Embarcadero
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
0
(
0
)
8
(
2
5
)
0 (0)
27 (9)
0 (0)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
0
(
0
)
8
(
2
3
)
2
(
6
)
7 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
25
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
Arastradero
Charleston
Alm
a
39
0 (0)
7 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (6)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
5
(
1
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
15
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
9 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (9)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
9 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (9)
0 (0)
STANFORD EIR2015 SUMC Only Vols.cdr
Figure 3-10d
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR SUMC ONLY
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
0
(
0
)
56
(
2
0
)
21
(
7
)
12 (35)
5 (2)
28 (10)
10 (4)
7 (19)
14 (28)
0 (0)
49 (17)3
(
9
)
18
(
5
1
)
2
(
5
)
1
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
38
(
8
5
)
93 (41)
8 (18)
0 (0)
2 (1)
19 (8)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
57 (39)
0 (0)
38 (53)
0
(
1
)
1
(
2
)
2 (1)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0 (0)
34 (37)
3(1)
39 (33)
3 (1)
62
0 (0)
6 (18)
0 (0)
5 (2)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
14
(
5
)
Alpine Rd
I-2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4 (13)
2 (5)
5 (2)
0 (0)1
(
2
)
1
(
3
)
STANFORD EIR2025 SSC Only Volumes.cdr
2025 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-11a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4
(
3
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
2
)
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
0
)
4
(
3
0
)
2
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
13
(
4
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (10)1
(
1
0
)
5
(
4
2
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
16
(
5
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
1
)
6
(
5
2
)
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
4
)
7
(
2
6
)
0
(
0
)
0 (1)
4 (35)
0 (0)
4 (26)9
(
3
6
)
2
(
2
0
)
0
(
1
)
8
(
2
9
)
4
(
3
3
)
3 (26)
0 (0)
5 (40)8
(
2
8
)
14
(
4
9
)
0
(
0
)
13
(
4
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
4
4
)
4
(
3
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
3
3
)
1
(
1
0
)
3 (11)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
0 (3)1
(
4
)
10
(
3
5
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
3
2
)
0
(
2
)
1 (2)
0 (0)
10
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
3 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1
(
6
)
2
(
1
8
)
1
(
9
)
0
(
0
)
6
(
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (6)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (1)
0 (0)
3 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
3
)
2
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0
(
1
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0 (1)
0 (0)
3 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (22)2
(
2
1
)
0
(
3
)
1
(
7
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
10
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
3
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)1
(
2
)
10
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
13
(
4
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
5
(
4
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (15)
0 (0)
9 (31)
5 (16)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
11
(
3
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2025 SSC Only Volumes.cdr
2025 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-11b
Embarcadero
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Alm
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
3 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (11)
0 (1)0
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)1
(
2
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
6
)
1
(
6
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (3)
1 (4)
2 (7)
1 (3)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
2
(
6
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
9
)
9
(
2
9
)
3 (28)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
3
(
1
0
)
1
(
2
)
1 (5)
10 (37)
0
(
2
)
6
(
3
6
)
2 (6)
1 (2)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
3
)
1 (13)
7 (39)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (43)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
5
)
26 (85)
1 (5)
12 (79)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
13 (84)
0 (0)
0 (0)
27 (90)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
7 (54)
6 (21)
0 (0)
16 (57)
11 (42)
(
3
9
)
0
(
0
)
3
(
2
3
)
6
13
(
3
2
)
2
(
2
0
)
4
(
1
0
)
2 (10)
0 (4)
1 (5)
11 (38)
1 (4)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
6
(
2
1
)
1
(
5
)
0
(
1
)
1
(
9
)
2
(
1
5
)
5 (16)
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
0 (0)
0 (1)2
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
2
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
7 (39)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
13 (41)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
13 (84)
0 (0)
0 (0)
27 (90)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
0
(
0
)
8
(
2
7
)
4
(
1
3
)
1 (5)
9 (51)
2 (15)
0 (0)
17 (56)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
3
(
2
6
)
5
(
1
6
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
7
)
0
(
0
)
Page Mill
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
0 (0)
0 (0)2
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
Lytton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (4)
0 (3)
0 (0)
0 (1)0
(
1
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
4
)
2
(
8
)
1
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
0 (0)
3 (10)
0 (0)
1 (9)
1 (10)
0 (1)
3
(
1
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2025 SSC Only Volumes.cdr
2025 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Al
m
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
0
(
0
)
0
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
13
5
(
1
4
1
)
57
4
(
1
1
1
6
)
0
(
5
)
3 (5)
83(79)
99(69)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
26
4
(
1
6
9
)
12
7
7
(
8
9
4
)
15
(
2
8
)
87
(
3
6
1
)
24
3
(
5
0
6
)
10
0
(
7
6
)
44(69)
406(2006)
170(174)
321(138)
1338(594)
270(68)53
(
4
1
5
)
26
9
(
3
2
9
)
89
(
1
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (9)
0 (0)
3 (10)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
39 (33)
1251(861)
478(96)90
(
4
3
1
)
2
(
1
7
)
58
(
2
0
0
)
1 (10)
0 (0)
3 (10)
6 (34)
9
(
3
5
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (3)1
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
2
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (0)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
0
(
0
)
10
(
3
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
4
(
3
0
)
0
(
0
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
3
(
1
1
)
1
(
3
)
1 (10)
0 (1)
0
(
1
)
0
(
3
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (5)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-11c
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (6)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
1
(
6
)
2 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (5)
0 (1)
0 (0)
1 (4)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
3
)
0 (0)
0 (1)0
(
1
)
1
(
3
)
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (1)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Embarcadero
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
0
(
2
)
1
(
6
)
0 (0)
2 (7)
0 (0)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
0
(
0
)
2
(
1
5
)
0
(
2
)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
5
(
1
6
)
0
(
0
)
Arastradero
Charleston
Alm
a
39
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
1
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2025 SSC Only Volumes.cdr
2025 SSC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-11d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
5
)
6 (2)
7 (31)
0 (0)
0 (0)
10 (34)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
13 (84)
0 (0)
0 (0)
27 (90)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
2
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
0
(
1
)
0
(
2
)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
3 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (3)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
62
0 (0)
1 (7)
0 (0)
1 (4)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1 (4)
0 (4)
1 (4)
0 (0)
STANFORD EIR2025 SUMC Only Volumes.cdr
Figure 3-12a
2025 SUMC ONLY PROJECT VOLUMES
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
AM (PM) Peak Hour
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
30
(
8
8
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
94
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
94
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
19 (7)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
0
)
30
(
8
8
)
6
(
1
8
)
0
(
0
)
11
3
(
3
9
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)1
(
2
)
36
(
1
0
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
11
5
(
4
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)1
(
0
)
36
(
1
0
8
)
0
(
0
)
59
(
2
1
)
56
(
2
0
)
0
(
0
)
1 (0)
19 (55)
0 (0)
24 (67)98
(
3
5
)
18
(
5
3
)
0
(
1
)
58
(
2
0
)
23
(
6
6
)
18 (55)
33 (101)81
(
2
8
)
97
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
28
(
8
3
)
2
(
7
)
7 (3)
35 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (33)
2 (6)6
(
2
)
89
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
28
(
8
2
)
2
(
8
)
8 (3)
0 (0)
87
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
40 (14)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
16
(
4
6
)
13
(
3
8
)
0
(
0
)
49
(
1
7
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
52 (18)
0 (0)
0 (0)
17 (49)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
62 (22)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
20
(
5
8
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
Alma
Lytton
Alm
a
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
1 (0)
0 (0)
52 (18)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
9
(
2
7
)
7
(
2
1
)
0
(
0
)
77
(
2
7
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (1)1
(
4
)
24
(
7
2
)
4
(
1
2
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (1)1
(
0
)
87
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
28
(
8
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (2)2
(
1
)
88
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
28
(
8
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
90
(
3
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
28
(
8
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
11
3
(
3
9
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
36
(
1
0
6
)
0
(
0
)
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Palm
82 (28)
65 (23)
0 (0)
0 (0)
21 (61)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
97
(
3
4
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
30
(
9
0
)
26
(
7
7
)
10
STANFORD EIR2025 SUMC Only Volumes.cdr
Figure 3-12b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
41 (14)
0 (0)
0 (0)
13 (38)
0 (1)2
(
1
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (8)8
(
3
)
12
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
8
(
2
5
)
8
(
2
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
27 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
24
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
3
(
9
)
9
(
3
)
3 (8)
0 (0)
12 (37)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
10
(
4
)
40
(
1
4
)
8 (25)
8 (11)
1
(
4
)
12
(
8
)
26 (9)
4 (1)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
2
(
1
)
1 (1)
23 (68)
0 (0)
0 (0)
72 (25)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
114 (40)
0 (0)
36 (107)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
12 (35)
45 (16)
0 (0)
37 (12)
24 (9)8
(
2
2
)
0
(
0
)
14
(
4
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
80 (31)
77 (25)
0 (0)
27 (74)
19 (6)
(
1
8
)
0
(
0
)
16
(
4
8
)
6
29
(
1
1
)
0
(
0
)
79
(
2
5
)
16 (51)
101 (69)
8 (26)
9 (26)
66 (96)
10 (30)32
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
27
(
8
)
0
(
1
)
4
(
1
1
)
15
(
4
3
)
46 (16)
19 (7)
1 (0)
6 (18)
0 (0)
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
0 (0)
0 (1)
16
(
4
7
)
0
(
0
)
50
(
1
7
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
23 (68)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
5
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
67 (23)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
19 (57)
0 (0)
0 (0)
62 (21)
53 (19)17
(
5
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
0
(
0
)
5
(
2
)
4
(
1
)
1 (3)
23 (69)
12 (34)
0 (0)
74 (26)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
2
(
5
)
36
(
1
3
)
0
(
0
)
12
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR SUMC ONLY
0 (0)
0 (0)16
(
4
7
)
0
(
0
)
50
(
1
7
)
0
(
0
)
Page Mill
Lytton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (1)
7 (20)
0 (0)
2 (1)1
(
2
)
4
(
1
2
)
1
(
2
)
51
(
1
8
)
13
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
0 (0)
22 (8)
0 (0)
5 (17)
7 (21)
0 (1)
18
(
6
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2025 SUMC Only Volumes.cdr
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Al
m
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
0
(
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
11 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (10)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
4
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
13
5
(
1
4
1
)
57
4
(
1
1
1
6
)
0
(
5
)
3 (5)
83(79)
99(69)
76(118)
78(98)
134(304)
26
4
(
1
6
9
)
12
7
7
(
8
9
4
)
15
(
2
8
)
87
(
3
6
1
)
24
3
(
5
0
6
)
10
0
(
7
6
)
44(69)
406(2006)
170(174)
321(138)
1338(594)
270(68)53
(
4
1
5
)
26
9
(
3
2
9
)
89
(
1
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
20 (58)
0 (0)
62 (22)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
39 (33)
1251(861)
478(96)90
(
4
3
1
)
2
(
1
7
)
58
(
2
0
0
)
1 (2)
0 (0)
2 (1)
3 (6)
6
(
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (31)34
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
26
(
9
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (25)
0 (0)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
0
(
0
)
94
(
3
3
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
30
(
8
8
)
0
(
0
)
Ravenswood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
16
(
6
)
1
(
0
)
5 (15)
1 (2)
2
(
1
)
0
(
1
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
0
(
0
)
77
(
2
7
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
24
(
7
2
)
0
(
0
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8 (25)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-12c
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR SUMC ONLY
0
(
0
)
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
38 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
12 (36)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
1
)
12
(
3
6
)
38 (13)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
12
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
2 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
1
)
1
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
24 (8)
2 (1)
0 (0)
8 (23)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
1
(
2
)
0
(
0
)
11
(
3
1
)
0 (0)
5 (13)
14
(
5
)
34
(
1
2
)
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
0
(
1
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
14 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (13)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
14 (5)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (13)
0 (0)
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
0
(
0
)
4
(
1
1
)
9 (27)
12 (4)
29 (11)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
0
(
0
)
12
(
3
6
)
3
(
1
0
)
11 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
38
(
1
3
)
0
(
0
)
Arastradero
Charleston
Alm
a
39
0 (0)
11 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (10)
0 (0)
0
(
0
)
8
(
2
3
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
24
(
8
)
0
(
0
)
STANFORD EIR2025 SUMC Only Volumes.cdr
Figure 3-12d
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR SUMC ONLY
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
0
(
0
)
57
(
2
1
)
12
(
4
)
11 (32)
10 (4)
24 (8)
10 (4)
4 (10)
18 (26)
0 (0)
35 (12)3
(
9
)
18
(
5
3
)
3
(
1
0
)
1
(
4
)
0
(
0
)
44
(
9
8
)
99 (46)
68 (43)
0 (0)
4 (2)
39 (58)
0 (0)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
0 (0)
52 (40)
28 (10)
0 (0)
39 (49)
12 (5)4
(
1
2
)
0
(
0
)
9
(
2
6
)
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
23
(
8
)
4
(
1
)
14
(
5
)
5 (13)
23 (26)
5 (2)
7 (21)
27 (22)
3 (1)1
(
3
)
1
(
3
)
2
(
4
)
0
(
1
)
1
(
2
)
2 (1)
0 (0)
1 (0)
0 (0)
62
0 (0)
10 (28)
0 (0)
8 (3)0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
22
(
8
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
0
(
0
)
0
(
0
)
7 (21)
2 (7)
8 (3)
0 (0)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC rev2.cdr
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-13a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
24(38)
56(97)
51(91)
87
7
(
1
6
2
6
)
60
(
5
6
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
10
9
(
1
6
3
)
18
8
5
(
1
6
6
0
)
15
(
7
6
)
18
6
0
(
1
5
8
4
)
18
2
(
2
1
3
)
38 (100)
349(387)
581(522)
15 (33)
371(353)
61(125)
11
3
(
2
4
5
)
85
9
(
1
3
8
8
)
39
4
(
6
2
7
)
95
(
1
5
4
)
23
6
1
(
2
0
5
3
)
0
(
4
)
0 (2)
6 (1)
5 (3)
177(203)
0 (0)
342(214)
21
9
(
4
3
6
)
10
6
4
(
2
0
5
7
)
0
(
1
)
25
(
1
8
)
26
6
2
(
2
2
7
6
)
44
(
5
1
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
14(21)
1 (0)
46(34)
20
6
(
2
6
8
)
12
4
5
(
2
4
5
8
)
1
(
3
)
46
4
(
3
6
9
)
15
2
1
(
1
1
4
4
)
63
3
(
4
0
7
)
282(587)
264(218)18
0
(
1
4
5
)
80
1
(
1
3
0
2
)
29
(
7
0
)
14
2
(
1
2
6
)
19
8
1
(
1
6
3
6
)
132(341)
125(397)20
7
(
4
3
8
)
10
0
0
(
1
6
4
9
)
112(191)
1377(1125)
299(220)
9 (49)
431(864)
31(101)12
5
(
6
2
)
36
3
(
4
3
4
)
10
2
(
5
3
)
27
4
(
3
3
9
)
22
4
(
1
1
3
)
17
8
8
(
1
9
9
8
)
30
4
(
4
4
9
)
261(209)
482(427)
234(319)
57(273)
168(482)
138(462)
45
4
(
3
5
8
)
14
2
9
(
1
7
9
7
)
90
(
3
9
2
)
19
4
3
(
2
4
7
3
)
19
1
(
3
6
0
)
157(175)
233(198)
16
5
0
(
2
0
8
6
)
16
5
(
2
0
7
)
175(299)
1402(865)
475(576)
442(619)
900(1262)
131(434)
34
9
(
2
0
9
)
13
2
8
(
1
9
4
5
)
66
7
(
7
3
0
)
45
5
(
3
5
4
)
10
6
3
(
1
1
8
7
)
15
6
(
2
3
3
)
594(394)
1235(855)
329(278)
81(34)
722(1093)
20(15)36
(
2
2
)
15
2
(
1
3
3
)
37
5
(
5
3
3
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
7
)
31
1
(
3
4
6
)
21
6
(
2
9
0
)
113(232)
35 (10)
143(318)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
1
(
7
1
6
)
29
8
(
3
6
7
)
28
2
(
2
1
9
)
16
6
6
(
1
4
4
7
)
62
(
6
7
)
23 (23)
222(190)
72 (115)
250(456)
252(205)
109(198)
13
7
(
2
0
3
)
65
6
(
1
4
3
5
)
44
(
8
0
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (314)
22
4
(
2
4
6
)
15
9
9
(
2
1
2
6
)
14
(
2
1
)
18
1
(
1
2
3
)
21
2
1
(
2
3
3
6
)
48
(
3
1
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
207(200)
20
1
(
2
6
6
)
15
6
2
(
2
0
5
7
)
27
(
6
1
)
26
7
(
2
1
1
)
19
9
1
(
2
4
4
3
)
30
(
4
5
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
15
1
(
1
3
9
)
16
6
1
(
1
9
7
8
)
96
(
1
3
6
)
25
3
(
1
4
7
)
18
5
3
(
2
3
3
6
)
13
3
(
1
2
6
)
26
(
3
9
)
22
5
7
(
2
0
9
8
)
35
(
7
4
)
6 (29)
3 (30)
3 (57)
49 (49)
7 (7)
48 (21)
57
(
1
2
0
)
12
5
8
(
2
0
2
7
)
28
(
1
0
)
589(671)
161(139)
956(553)
22 (57)
32(332)
115(133)30
(
6
7
)
42
8
(
4
4
9
)
28
9
(
4
9
5
)
52
(
5
2
)
34
9
(
4
6
9
)
52
4
(
1
0
3
5
)
656(431)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC rev2.cdr
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-13b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
74
(
4
2
)
32
7
(
3
8
9
)
14
5
(
1
0
8
)
65(166)
850(887)
59(111)
56(81)
691(862)
62(91)15
1
(
7
9
)
21
7
(
3
4
6
)
46
(
4
8
)
17
5
(
1
6
4
)
78
3
(
1
2
7
8
)
0
(
6
)
3 (6)
83(101)
99(88)
76(118)
78(98)
134(306)
30
0
(
2
3
9
)
14
4
8
(
9
1
8
)
17
(
3
9
)
12
5
(
5
3
2
)
55
8
(
9
7
4
)
27
1
(
1
7
4
)
97(137)
714(1875)
357(265)
435(232)
1901(985)
408(137)
22
2
(
7
7
8
)
10
7
8
(
7
3
7
)
29
5
(
2
6
6
)
23
(
8
)
78
7
(
5
5
1
)
43
7
(
2
1
6
)
46(472)
14 (5)
67(328)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)18
(
7
)
36
3
(
7
1
3
)
43
4
(
1
8
6
)
700(1125)
908(521)
10
8
(
6
2
0
)
39
7
(
6
8
0
)
1012(892)
628(120)
31
7
(
2
8
2
)
1
(
1
)
28
8
(
3
0
1
)
194(363)
1165(1824)
52 (2)
201(172)
1822(1166)
38 (4)1
(
3
1
)
1
(
2
)
3
(
2
6
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
82
(
3
8
)
2203(1144)
44 (103)
883(2224)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
539(1132)
196(80)
45 (37)
1473(1056)
552(108)
14
1
(
5
5
9
)
3
(
2
2
)
91
(
2
5
9
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (18)
503(681)
35(93)
12 (3)
597(673)
509(455)
27
5
(
4
9
3
)
7
(
4
)
31
(
1
0
3
)
36
(
6
9
)
33
4
(
3
7
8
)
59
(
1
0
5
)
49(86)
361(264)
11 (84)
30(109)
141(471)
271(563)
50
0
(
2
6
6
)
30
2
(
3
7
2
)
16
(
3
4
)
12
(
1
2
)
30
3
(
5
1
9
)
37
3
(
4
8
2
)
521(367)
455(372)
1 (3)
128(534)
6 (31)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
88(98)
559(431)
95(59)
39(86)
277(543)
14(27)
13
2
(
1
1
7
)
53
0
(
5
0
5
)
16
2
(
1
5
5
)
49
(
5
9
)
29
1
(
4
6
0
)
81
(
1
7
1
)
83(122)
166(358)55
0
(
8
2
6
)
18
3
(
1
4
7
)
78
0
(
7
0
4
)
51
0
(
4
3
4
)
74(202)
18 (83)
74
1
(
8
8
9
)
23
3
(
1
6
2
)
66
0
(
7
2
7
)
10
1
(
6
7
)
41
(
2
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
22 (3)
790(2071)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
11
5
(
3
0
)
11
5
(
3
0
)
69
0
(
2
5
3
)
60
(
9
6
)
160 (29)
1829(683)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (21)
648(1727)
105(60)
11 (21)
1820(1164)
512(74)
35
(
4
2
5
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
40
4
(
4
3
4
)
80
5
(
8
2
1
)
35
4
(
1
9
2
)
61 (245)
695(1446)
264(383)
383(475)
1409(937)
346(241)
20
8
(
3
0
2
)
78
7
(
9
0
4
)
49
9
(
3
1
8
)
71
(
3
8
)
30
2
(
2
2
2
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(22)
104(86)
6 (13)
186(408)
34(168)
82(125)
13
8
(
1
8
7
)
29
7
(
6
4
7
)
8
(
3
1
)
61
6
(
2
8
9
)
68
8
(
7
6
0
)
11
(
2
7
)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC rev2.cdr
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
1
(
7
7
1
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
322(361)
106(119)
175(231)
625(366)
220(209)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
6
(
7
3
2
)
37
(
4
7
)
12
3
(
1
1
6
)
56
6
(
5
0
6
)
9
(
2
3
)
43
(
6
0
)
33
2
(
3
9
0
)
10
(
3
8
)
10
(
2
0
)
53
5
(
7
1
3
)
50
(
7
5
)
6
(
3
)
99
5
(
8
2
8
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
25
(
7
)
98
6
(
8
1
0
)
28
1
(
5
2
3
)
506(282)
45 (3)
152(34)
23 (42)
63 (71)
23 (43)57
(
7
)
64
6
(
9
8
8
)
15
2
(
8
7
)
5
(
5
)
40
(
1
4
)
11
9
(
7
4
)
33 (62)
1174(997)
412(231)
1 (2)
756(950)
62 (94)97
(
6
7
)
7
(
1
3
)
23
1
(
2
1
6
)
10
9
(
9
5
)
42
0
(
3
1
1
)
70 (58)
1258(1557)
491(224)
1451(1340)
17
9
(
8
0
)
12
8
5
(
3
7
5
2
)
161(77)
456(1934)
20
5
5
(
6
5
3
)
39
9
1
(
9
2
7
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(160)
297(494)
69(70)
128(110)
579(456)
155(291)
69
(
7
1
)
65
9
(
1
2
8
1
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
6
2
(
1
1
6
6
)
22
(
6
2
)
528(613)
87(134)
559(497)
526(505)
31
6
(
5
1
6
)
11
3
(
1
3
4
)
26
1
(
2
0
2
)
94
2
(
2
2
6
5
)
87
(
9
)
22(98)
15(256)
8 (166)
121(75)
373(75)
562(1719)
13
8
9
(
4
4
3
)
23
7
7
(
1
0
2
1
)
22
(
3
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
73
3
(
5
8
5
)
96
7
(
1
5
7
0
)
186(335)
1405(1079)
955(1283)
653(906)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
92
(
1
2
2
)
17
5
3
(
1
4
3
1
)
10
9
(
8
9
)
50(70)
239(193)
126(113)
55(140)
172(205)
56(127)
13
3
(
1
2
3
)
77
8
(
1
6
4
5
)
59
(
1
1
5
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
19
3
(
1
7
9
)
82
2
(
7
1
2
)
140(364)
619(761)
65
0
(
8
3
5
)
46
4
(
6
5
4
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
79
(
6
3
)
22
0
9
(
1
6
8
0
)
17
7
(
8
2
)
215(251)
24 (29)
89 (103)
15 (35)
23 (10)
1 (35)22
(
5
0
)
90
7
(
1
8
3
7
)
56
(
6
1
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
71
7
(
7
0
4
)
33
9
(
1
1
9
)
1931(1161)
855(722)
1202(2299)
707(513)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-13c
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
4
2
)
28
1
(
4
3
0
)
282(717)
371(297)
539(342)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
33
0
(
3
1
1
)
11
3
4
(
2
2
4
0
)
15
6
(
1
6
3
)
136(238)
567(503)
113(166)
219(235)
424(602)
186(498)
39
3
(
3
2
1
)
15
5
6
(
1
2
2
8
)
92
(
1
8
4
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
98
(
1
4
0
)
22
6
(
3
2
9
)
54
(
1
0
5
)
60(61)
1348(695)
118(164)
147(112)
619(1818)
114(107)
11
6
(
2
1
8
)
26
3
(
2
8
7
)
11
7
(
4
9
9
)
50
3
(
2
1
7
)
12
2
(
1
5
7
)
21
(
7
3
)
84(111)
1042(764)
29(108)
169(233)
380(918)
285(605)
48
1
(
3
5
6
)
52
5
(
4
9
7
)
33
3
(
9
4
9
)
58(120)
66(309)
21 (47)
21 (25)
249(133)
38 (7)
121(219)
8 (8)
97(283)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC rev2.cdr
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Figure 3-13d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Future Construction
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
177(113)
187(220)61
(
2
7
6
)
87
(
1
7
6
)
268(100)
323(151)
46
(
2
5
)
26
9
(
1
0
9
)
22
2
(
1
3
4
)
157(261)
154(90)
157(250)
114(40)
65(295)
255(247)
12 (65)
363(288)
49
(
1
0
6
)
11
2
(
3
0
9
)
11
8
(
2
0
1
)
49
(
6
1
)
13
(
4
)
19
7
(
6
7
7
)
480(180)
183(185)
11 (8)
66 (61)
96(295)
7 (2)2
(
6
)
5
(
2
6
)
1
(
1
7
)
16
(
1
3
)
48
(
1
6
)
8 (18)
856(1345)
26 (19)
1315(1046)
2 (1)
1 (2)
62
53 (404)
890 (1464)
369 (393)
772 (464)
33
6
(
2
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
95
7
(
5
1
1
)
Alpine Rd
I-2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
1
(
2
8
1
)
38
0
(
7
2
)
404 (916)
828 (812)
761 (805)
189 (288)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-56 January 13, 2009
Table 3-7
LOS Comparison with SSC only in 2015
2015AM 2015AM+SSC Compare 2015PM 2015PM+SSC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso D 41 0.882 45.3 D 41.2 0.884 45.6 0.3 0.002 N D- 52.6 0.95 65 D- 54.1 0.965 68.7 3.7 0.015 N
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B+ 11.6 0.635 11.6 B+ 11.6 0.638 11.6 0 0.003 N B- 19.1 0.638 20 B-19 0.648 19.9 -0.1 0.01 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood D 50.2 0.955 55.5 D 50.7 0.959 56.5 1 0.004 N E+59 0.985 73 E 60.3 0.994 75.3 2.3 0.009 N
#4 ECR/Roble B+10 0.537 9.5 A 10 0.54 9.5 0 0.003 N B 12.4 0.527 13.2 B 12.3 0.536 13.1 -0.1 0.009 N
#5 ECR/Middle C 25.7 0.816 31.3 C 25.9 0.821 31.6 0.3 0.005 N D 43.1 0.935 47.8 D 45.1 0.958 51.4 3.6 0.023 N
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 14.5 0.68 16.6 B 14.5 0.684 16.6 0 0.004 N B 14.3 0.627 20.5 B 14.3 0.638 20.5 0 0.011 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill-Alma C 27 0.636 36.6 C 27.3 0.638 36.7 0.1 0.002 N D+ 35.4 0.676 43.6 D+ 36.6 0.691 44.1 0.5 0.015 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B+12 0.516 14.4 B 12.3 0.523 14.8 0.4 0.007 N C+ 22.8 0.569 31.5 C 23.8 0.6 32.7 1.2 0.031 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B 17.4 0.545 17.8 B 17.4 0.548 17.8 0 0.003 N C 28 0.879 34.3 C 28.7 0.888 35.6 1.3 0.009 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int) C- 34.1 0.851 39.9 C- 33.3 0.851 40.6 0.7 0 N D-54 0.922 63.2 E 61.7 0.954 69 5.8 0.032 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez D- 53.3 0.927 61.8 D- 53.6 0.93 62.3 0.5 0.003 N E 69.1 0.989 75.5 E 71.7 1.003 78.9 3.4 0.014 N
#12 ECR/Churchill C 25.7 0.665 34.1 C 25.7 0.668 34.1 0 0.003 N C 27.8 0.834 41.7 C 28 0.843 42.1 0.4 0.009 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B 15.8 0.642 18.4 B 15.8 0.643 18.4 0 0.001 N C 26.7 0.809 33.3 C 26.7 0.816 33.4 0.1 0.007 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 21.3 0.635 24.4 C+ 21.3 0.637 24.5 0.1 0.002 N C+ 22.9 0.747 28.4 C+ 22.9 0.754 28.5 0.1 0.007 N
#15 ECR/California C+ 20.5 0.613 20.9 C+ 20.5 0.614 20.9 0 0.001 N C 29.2 0.757 29.5 C 29.3 0.764 29.5 0 0.007 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 83.4 1.096 106.3 F 84.1 1.099 107.5 1.2 0.003 N F 94.3 1.105 108.4 F 96.7 1.107 109.8 1.4 0.002 N
#17 Woodland/University D+ 37.7 0.78 41.7 D+ 37.7 0.78 41.7 0 0 N E 63.8 1.03 83.7 E 64 1.032 84.1 0.4 0.002 N
#18 Middlefield/Willow D 48.5 0.919 56.2 D 48.8 0.922 56.6 0.4 0.003 N E 74 1.028 89.8 E- 75.9 1.036 92.3 2.5 0.008 N
#19 Middlefield/Lytton D 45.2 0.831 46.1 D 45.7 0.834 46.5 0.4 0.003 N F 82 1.027 92.1 F 85.4 1.039 96.1 4 0.012 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 28.8 0.57 28.8 C 28.8 0.572 28.9 0.1 0.002 N C- 33.2 0.786 37.2 C- 33.5 0.796 37.7 0.5 0.01 N
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D+ 38.2 0.6 39.6 D+ 38.2 0.602 39.6 0 0.002 N D 40 0.669 41.6 D 40 0.674 41.7 0.1 0.005 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C+ 21.1 0.714 17.9 C+ 21.1 0.715 17.9 0 0.001 N C- 33.5 0.892 41.1 C- 33.9 0.896 41.8 0.7 0.004 N
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road F 143.6 1.292 205.4 F 143.9 1.293 205.9 0.5 0.001 N F 178.7 1.415 268.4 F 180.3 1.421 271.3 2.9 0.006 N
#24 Junipero/Stanford B 13.6 0.715 19.2 B 13.6 0.718 19.3 0.1 0.003 N B 17.3 0.767 23.2 B 17.5 0.775 23.6 0.4 0.008 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 12.6 0.575 18.2 B 12.7 0.577 18.2 0 0.002 N B 14 0.607 17.4 B 14.1 0.615 17.5 0.1 0.008 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West D 39.9 0.614 43.3 D 40.8 0.615 43.9 0.6 0.001 N E 61.8 0.932 83.2 E 73.6 0.978 102 18.8 0.046 Y
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz D 45 0.972 52.9 D 46.3 0.979 54.6 1.7 0.007 N D- 54.5 0.995 57.7 E 60.8 1.023 65.2 7.5 0.028 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*F 90.4 0.998 70.3 F 91.5 1.001 70.9 0.6 0.003 N D 41.9 0.938 49.3 D 43.5 0.95 51.8 2.5 0.012 N
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C 27.1 0.763 24.7 C 27.1 0.767 24.7 0 0.004 N C 25.2 0.787 28.6 C 25.6 0.807 29.6 1 0.02 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill D 41.6 0.991 60 D 42.9 1.002 62.8 2.8 0.011 N D 48.1 0.914 55.4 D 50.6 0.937 58.7 3.3 0.023 N
#31 Oak/Sand Hill A 9.4 0.73 10.5 A 9.4 0.737 10.6 0.1 0.007 N A 7.2 0.74 8.7 A 7.4 0.765 9.1 0.4 0.025 N
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 16 0.625 17.4 B 16.1 0.633 17.6 0.2 0.008 N C 25.3 0.683 27.6 C 25.8 0.708 28.7 1.1 0.025 N
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill C+ 22.6 0.666 25.1 C+ 22.9 0.675 25.7 0.6 0.009 N C 25.5 0.596 26.2 C 26.5 0.624 27.7 1.5 0.028 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill B- 19.7 0.487 22.3 B-20 0.503 22.7 0.4 0.016 N C 26.1 0.603 29.8 C 29.2 0.653 34.5 4.7 0.05 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C- 33.1 0.613 34 C- 33.2 0.616 34.2 0.2 0.003 N C 31.9 0.712 37 C- 32.7 0.73 38.2 1.2 0.018 N
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-57 January 13, 2009
2015AM 2015AM+SSC Compare 2015PM 2015PM+SSC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg Crit
Delay ¨ Crit V/C Impact?
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+ 22.7 0.822 27.4 C+23 0.828 28 0.6 0.006 N C+ 20.7 0.723 21.9 C+ 21.2 0.751 23.4 1.5 0.028 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 29.2 0.67 29.2 D 29.3 0.67 29.3 0.1 0 N F 86.6 1.04 86.6 F 91.6 1.05 91.6 5 0.01 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D 48.9 0.758 49.7 D 48.9 0.759 49.7 0 0.001 N E+ 58.7 0.962 66 E+ 59.1 0.964 66.5 0.5 0.002 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 42.4 0.833 43.9 D 42.5 0.834 44 0.1 0.001 N D 46.6 0.884 50.4 D 46.9 0.888 50.8 0.4 0.004 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 41 0.701 42.9 D 41 0.702 42.9 0 0.001 N D 41.6 0.728 44.3 D 41.6 0.73 44.4 0.1 0.002 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 17.2 0.405 17.9 B 17.2 0.406 18 0.1 0.001 N B- 18.2 0.41 18.8 B- 18.2 0.414 18.9 0.1 0.004 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+ 11.1 0.503 12.8 B+ 11.2 0.505 12.9 0.1 0.002 N C+ 21.2 0.618 21.8 C+ 21.4 0.624 22 0.2 0.006 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C+ 22.5 0.564 28.9 C+ 22.8 0.574 29.1 0.2 0.01 N C 30 0.67 35 C 31 0.714 36.6 1.6 0.044 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove C 30.3 0.769 29.7 C 30.3 0.772 29.8 0.1 0.003 N C 30.8 0.724 30.4 C 30.8 0.733 30.4 0 0.009 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C 30.8 0.704 34.6 C 30.8 0.704 34.6 0 0 N C 31.3 0.816 38.7 C 31.4 0.818 38.9 0.2 0.002 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenswood F 86.9 1.111 108.7 F 87.8 1.115 109.7 1 0.004 N F 132.9 1.281 173.3 F 138.2 1.297 179.9 6.6 0.016 Y
#47 ECR/Encinal B- 19.9 0.775 18.6 B- 19.9 0.775 18.6 0 0 N C+ 20.4 0.723 22.2 C+ 20.4 0.724 22.2 0 0.001 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 13.1 0.583 14.5 B 13.1 0.583 14.5 0 0 N B 12.4 0.516 13.6 B 12.4 0.518 13.7 0.1 0.002 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh B- 18.5 0.78 20.2 B- 18.5 0.78 20.2 0 0 N C 24.8 0.917 26.7 C 24.9 0.919 26.9 0.2 0.002 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 14.8 0.588 15.7 B 14.8 0.588 15.7 0 0 N B- 18.5 0.896 21.5 B- 18.5 0.896 21.5 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow B- 19.9 0.726 24.8 B- 19.9 0.727 24.8 0 0.001 N B 16.9 0.613 20.7 B 16.9 0.616 20.7 0 0.003 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow C 31.5 0.781 46 C 31.5 0.781 46.1 0.1 0 N F 95.8 1.152 117.8 F 96.2 1.153 118.3 0.5 0.001 N
#53 Bayfront Expy/University C- 32.5 0.984 63.1 C- 32.5 0.984 63.1 0 0 N D+ 37.6 0.946 45.6 D+ 37.8 0.947 45.8 0.2 0.001 N
#54 Bay/University D+ 37.5 0.802 41.1 D+ 37.5 0.802 41.1 0 0 N F 102.8 1.191 139.2 F 102.9 1.191 139.3 0.1 0 N
#55 Donohoe/University D- 53.1 0.924 57.8 D- 53.2 0.924 57.9 0.1 0 N D 44 0.892 51.3 D 44 0.892 51.3 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry B- 19.8 0.49 22.5 B- 19.8 0.493 22.6 0.1 0.003 N C+ 20.7 0.505 22.4 C+ 20.9 0.5 22.4 0 -0.005 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill A 7.9 0.426 5.6 A 7.8 0.435 5.6 0 0.009 N A 6 0.424 7.9 A 6.1 0.45 8.1 0.2 0.026 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 8.4 0.328 10.1 A 8.3 0.328 10.1 0 0 N B+ 10.6 0.414 10.7 B+ 10.6 0.414 10.7 0 0 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.6 0.32 9.2 B+ 10.6 0.321 9.2 0 0.001 N A 8.6 0.261 9.1 A 8.6 0.261 9.1 0 0 N
#60 Durand/Welch
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave C 18.2 0.803 18.2 C 18.2 0.803 18.2 0 0 N B 14.2 0.653 14.2 B 14.3 0.658 14.3 0.1 0.005 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 251.7 2.13 251.7 F 252.3 2.132 252.3 0.6 0.002 N F 260.5 2.026 260.5 F 263.7 2.04 263.7 3.2 0.014 N
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 444.1 1.86 444.1 F 445.9 1.86 445.9 1.8 0 N E 36 0.73 36 E 36.5 0.74 36.5 0.5 0.01 N
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3-58 January 13, 2009
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) – Palm Drive – LOS changes from D to
E and is considered adversely impacted.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 4 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.012. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) – LOS remains at E but the
average critical delay increased by 18.8 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.046. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) - LOS changes from
D to E and is considered adversely impacted.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of Palo
Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized intersections.
Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic through the
intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal warrants at this
intersection are met at baseline conditions as well as with project.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 6.6 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.016.
This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
3.4.2 Impact of SUMC only in 2015
No Build 2015 traffic volumes + SUMC at 60 percent of full build-out occupancy
compared with No Build 2015 traffic volumes
The traffic volumes for this scenario are shown in Figures 3-14a through 3-14d. The
results of the analysis are included in Table 3-8. For this scenario, SUMC is at 60
percent occupancy of the full build-out. As seen in Table 3-8, four intersections would
be adversely impacted by the proposed SUMC project during the AM peak:
x El Camino Real / Galvez (#11) - LOS changes from D to E with the project
and is considered significantly impacted.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F
with or without the proposed project. The average critical delay increased by
6.1 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.016. This intersection is significantly
affected by the project.
x Alpine / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The
City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
x Alpine / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized)- LOS remains at F. The City
of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Figure 3-14a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
24(38)
56(97)
51(91)
89
1
(
1
6
5
1
)
60
(
5
6
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
10
9
(
1
6
3
)
19
3
5
(
1
6
4
7
)
15
(
7
6
)
19
1
0
(
1
5
7
1
)
18
2
(
2
1
3
)
38 (100)
349(387)
589(514)
15 (33)
371(353)
61(125)
11
3
(
2
4
5
)
87
3
(
1
4
1
3
)
39
6
(
6
2
6
)
95
(
1
5
4
)
24
1
9
(
2
0
3
2
)
0
(
4
)
0 (2)
6 (1)
5 (3)
177(203)
0 (0)
340(204)
21
8
(
4
2
7
)
10
8
0
(
2
0
8
2
)
0
(
1
)
25
(
1
8
)
27
1
8
(
2
2
4
6
)
44
(
5
1
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
14(21)
1 (0)
46(34)
20
7
(
2
6
6
)
12
6
0
(
2
4
7
4
)
1
(
3
)
49
3
(
3
4
7
)
15
4
9
(
1
1
3
0
)
63
3
(
4
0
7
)
289(587)
278(240)24
8
(
1
4
3
)
80
9
(
1
3
1
4
)
29
(
7
0
)
16
9
(
1
0
8
)
19
9
3
(
1
6
5
2
)
139(349)
138(415)23
7
(
4
2
3
)
10
6
2
(
1
6
2
5
)
157(177)
1412(1122)
299(220)
9 (49)
441(885)
31(101)12
5
(
6
2
)
36
3
(
4
3
4
)
10
2
(
5
3
)
28
7
(
3
5
9
)
22
4
(
1
1
3
)
18
0
0
(
2
0
1
6
)
30
5
(
4
4
4
)
263(200)
503(431)
234(319)
57(273)
175(499)
140(464)
45
8
(
3
5
6
)
14
7
4
(
1
7
8
0
)
90
(
3
9
2
)
19
5
5
(
2
4
9
2
)
19
3
(
3
6
3
)
162(175)
233(198)
16
9
5
(
2
0
7
0
)
16
5
(
2
0
7
)
197(298)
1402(865)
475(576)
440(612)
900(1262)
131(434)
34
8
(
2
0
2
)
13
3
5
(
1
9
5
6
)
67
4
(
7
4
5
)
45
5
(
3
5
4
)
10
8
8
(
1
1
7
9
)
15
6
(
2
3
3
)
594(394)
1266(860)
329(278)
81(34)
731(1119)
20(15)36
(
2
2
)
15
2
(
1
3
3
)
37
5
(
5
3
3
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
7
)
31
1
(
3
4
6
)
21
6
(
2
9
0
)
114(230)
35 (10)
171(320)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
5
(
7
2
8
)
30
1
(
3
7
6
)
28
2
(
2
1
9
)
17
1
4
(
1
4
6
1
)
62
(
6
7
)
23 (23)
222(190)
78 (111)
250(456)
252(205)
105(176)
13
5
(
1
8
3
)
67
1
(
1
4
7
7
)
46
(
8
1
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (315)
22
5
(
2
4
6
)
16
4
4
(
2
1
1
0
)
14
(
2
1
)
18
1
(
1
2
3
)
21
3
3
(
2
3
5
5
)
48
(
3
1
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
208(200)
20
2
(
2
6
5
)
16
0
7
(
2
0
4
2
)
27
(
6
1
)
26
7
(
2
1
1
)
20
0
3
(
2
4
6
2
)
30
(
4
5
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
15
1
(
1
3
9
)
17
0
7
(
1
9
6
1
)
96
(
1
3
6
)
25
3
(
1
4
7
)
18
6
6
(
2
3
5
5
)
13
3
(
1
2
6
)
26
(
3
9
)
23
1
5
(
2
0
7
7
)
35
(
7
4
)
6 (29)
3 (30)
3 (57)
49 (49)
7 (7)
48 (21)
57
(
1
2
0
)
12
7
4
(
2
0
5
2
)
28
(
1
0
)
589(670)
161(139)
993(557)
22 (57)
320(332)
115(133)30
(
6
7
)
42
9
(
4
4
7
)
29
9
(
5
2
4
)
52
(
5
2
)
34
9
(
4
6
7
)
52
4
(
1
0
3
4
)
657(429)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Figure 3-14b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
74
(
4
2
)
32
7
(
3
8
8
)
14
5
(
1
0
8
)
65(166)
872(884)
59(111)
56(81)
697(875)
62(91)15
2
(
7
7
)
21
8
(
3
4
5
)
46
(
4
8
)
17
5
(
1
6
4
)
78
4
(
1
2
8
1
)
0
(
6
)
3 (6)
83(101)
99(88)
76(118)
78(98)
136(309)
30
5
(
2
3
9
)
14
5
5
(
9
1
7
)
17
(
3
9
)
12
9
(
5
4
2
)
56
2
(
9
8
2
)
27
1
(
1
7
4
)
97(137)
713(1872)
356(261)
450(231)
1900(982)
408(137)
22
2
(
7
7
8
)
10
9
1
(
7
3
6
)
29
4
(
2
6
2
)
23
(
8
)
78
7
(
5
4
7
)
43
4
(
1
8
8
)
44(449)
14 (5)
75(350)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)18
(
7
)
36
5
(
7
0
5
)
45
9
(
1
9
3
)
704(1135)
903(490)
10
9
(
6
2
0
)
39
6
(
6
4
8
)
1026(892)
630(119)
31
7
(
2
8
2
)
1
(
1
)
28
5
(
2
8
7
)
192(351)
1172(1828)
52 (2)
201(172)
1855(1138)
38 (4)1
(
3
1
)
1
(
2
)
3
(
2
6
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
80
(
3
3
)
2248(1082)
43(98)
891(2211)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
532(1069)
247(98)
45 (37)
1467(972)
578(117)
14
9
(
5
8
3
)
3
(
2
2
)
10
7
(
3
0
5
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (18)
558(651)
81(88)
12 (3)
602(672)
513(418)
27
4
(
4
7
0
)
7
(
4
)
37
(
1
0
8
)
33
(
4
1
)
33
1
(
3
5
8
)
12
4
(
1
1
8
)
61(120)
401(302)
17 (102)
21(80)
183(506)
285(603)
54
4
(
2
8
2
)
29
6
(
3
5
0
)
39
(
3
6
)
12
(
1
3
)
31
0
(
5
3
4
)
38
4
(
5
0
3
)
556(364)
455(372)
1 (0)
128(534)
6 (31)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
88(98)
571(425)
95(59)
42(88)
280(547)
14(26)
14
2
(
1
1
1
)
53
0
(
5
0
5
)
16
2
(
1
5
5
)
50
(
5
8
)
29
1
(
4
6
0
)
81
(
1
7
1
)
83(122)
166(358)55
8
(
8
4
4
)
18
3
(
1
4
7
)
80
8
(
7
0
3
)
51
1
(
4
3
3
)
74(202)
18 (83)
74
9
(
9
0
7
)
23
3
(
1
6
2
)
68
8
(
7
2
6
)
10
1
(
6
7
)
41
(
2
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
22 (3)
797(2075)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
25
0
(
5
5
)
11
5
(
3
0
)
69
3
(
2
5
3
)
60
(
9
6
)
160 (29)
1859(656)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (21)
649(1688)
105(60)
11 (21)
1840(1089)
535(82)
42
(
4
4
7
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
40
4
(
4
3
4
)
79
9
(
7
9
4
)
35
3
(
1
7
9
)
61 (242)
701(1437)
268(388)
383(475)
1439(897)
346(241)
20
8
(
3
0
2
)
78
4
(
8
8
1
)
51
6
(
3
0
9
)
71
(
3
8
)
32
7
(
2
2
4
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(22)
104(86)
7 (10)
191(418)
34(168)
83(123)
13
8
(
1
8
7
)
29
9
(
6
5
1
)
8
(
2
9
)
64
5
(
2
9
2
)
69
7
(
7
5
8
)
11
(
2
7
)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
1
(
7
6
9
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
328(360)
106(119)
175(231)
627(370)
220(209)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
8
(
7
2
9
)
37
(
4
7
)
12
3
(
1
1
6
)
56
6
(
5
0
5
)
9
(
2
3
)
43
(
6
0
)
33
3
(
3
8
9
)
10
(
3
8
)
10
(
2
0
)
53
6
(
7
1
6
)
56
(
9
1
)
6
(
3
)
10
0
2
(
8
2
7
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
25
(
7
)
98
6
(
8
0
7
)
28
1
(
5
2
3
)
507(281)
45 (3)
152(34)
23 (42)
63 (71)
23 (43)57
(
7
)
64
6
(
9
8
5
)
15
2
(
8
7
)
5
(
5
)
40
(
1
4
)
11
9
(
7
4
)
33 (62)
1189(997)
413(230)
1 (2)
760(960)
62 (94)97
(
6
7
)
7
(
1
3
)
23
1
(
2
1
6
)
10
9
(
9
5
)
42
0
(
3
1
1
)
70 (58)
1268(1585)
491(224)
1488(1343)
17
9
(
8
0
)
12
9
1
(
3
7
6
9
)
161(77)
459(1942)
20
6
4
(
6
5
5
)
40
1
1
(
9
3
1
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(160)
303(493)
69(70)
128(110)
581(460)
155(291)
69
(
7
1
)
66
3
(
1
2
8
7
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
7
4
(
1
1
6
3
)
22
(
6
2
)
527(604)
87(134)
557(487)
521(474)
31
1
(
4
8
2
)
11
3
(
1
3
4
)
26
1
(
2
0
2
)
94
2
(
2
2
6
5
)
87
(
9
)
22(98)
15(256)
8 (166)
121(75)
373(75)
568(1736)
14
0
9
(
4
4
7
)
23
7
7
(
1
0
2
1
)
22
(
3
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
74
8
(
5
8
6
)
96
7
(
1
5
7
0
)
186(335)
1405(1079)
959(1293)
653(906)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
92
(
1
2
2
)
18
0
3
(
1
4
1
8
)
10
9
(
8
9
)
50(70)
239(193)
126(113)
55(140)
172(205)
56(127)
13
3
(
1
2
3
)
79
2
(
1
6
7
0
)
59
(
1
1
5
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
19
9
(
1
7
2
)
82
2
(
7
0
9
)
141(364)
619(761)
65
1
(
8
3
4
)
46
4
(
6
5
2
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
79
(
6
3
)
22
5
7
(
1
6
9
4
)
17
7
(
8
2
)
215(251)
24 (29)
89 (103)
15 (35)
23 (10)
1 (35)22
(
5
0
)
92
2
(
1
8
7
9
)
56
(
6
1
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
71
7
(
7
0
4
)
33
9
(
1
1
9
)
1931(1161)
855(722)
1202(2299)
711(523)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-14c
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
3
9
)
28
8
(
4
4
8
)
282(717)
396(299)
539(342)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
33
0
(
3
1
1
)
11
4
0
(
2
2
4
8
)
15
8
(
1
6
7
)
142(237)
567(503)
113(166)
219(235)
424(602)
186(498)
39
3
(
3
2
1
)
15
7
6
(
1
2
1
9
)
92
(
1
8
4
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
98
(
1
3
9
)
22
6
(
3
2
9
)
54
(
1
0
5
)
60(61)
1357(697)
118(164)
147(111)
622(1826)
114(107)
11
6
(
2
1
8
)
26
3
(
2
8
7
)
11
7
(
4
9
9
)
50
3
(
2
1
7
)
12
2
(
1
5
7
)
21
(
7
3
)
84(111)
1050(765)
29(108)
169(233)
383(925)
285(605)
48
1
(
3
5
6
)
52
5
(
4
9
7
)
33
3
(
9
4
9
)
58(120)
72(325)
21 (47)
21 (25)
271(134)
38 (7)
143(220)
8 (8)
97(283)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Figure 3-14d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
178(112)
187(220)61
(
2
7
6
)
88
(
1
7
6
)
269(99)
323(151)
46
(
2
5
)
32
5
(
1
2
9
)
24
3
(
1
4
1
)
169(296)
158(92)
185(260)
124(44)
72(314)
268(275)
12 (65)
412(305)
52
(
1
1
5
)
13
0
(
3
6
0
)
12
0
(
2
0
5
)
50
(
6
3
)
13
(
4
)
23
4
(
7
5
9
)
570(220)
185(172)
11 (8)
68 (62)
105(269)
7 (2)2
(
6
)
5
(
2
6
)
1
(
1
7
)
16
(
1
3
)
48
(
1
6
)
8 (18)
899(1300)
26 (19)
1325(1008)
34 (37)
3 (1)
39 (33)
3 (1)
1
(
2
)
1
(
3
)
62
53 (404)
895 (1475)
369 (393)
776 (462)
33
6
(
2
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
97
0
(
5
1
2
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
1
(
2
8
1
)
38
0
(
7
2
)
407 (925)
829 (813)
765 (803)
189 (288)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-63 January 13, 2009
Table 3-8
LOS Comparison with SUMC only in 2015
2015AM 2015AM+SUMC Compare 2015PM 2015PM+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso D 41 0.882 45.3 D 41.8 0.897 46.5 1.2 0.015 N D- 52.6 0.95 65 D- 53.6 0.956 66.1 1.1 0.006 N
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B+ 11.6 0.635 11.6 B+ 11.7 0.652 11.8 0.2 0.017 N B- 19.1 0.638 20 B- 19.1 0.645 19.9 -0.1 0.007 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood D 50.2 0.955 55.5 D- 52.9 0.976 60 4.5 0.021 N E+59 0.985 73 E 60 0.99 74.4 1.4 0.005 N
#4 ECR/Roble B+10 0.537 9.5 A 9.9 0.551 9.4 -0.1 0.014 N B 12.4 0.527 13.2 B 12.3 0.532 13.2 0 0.005 N
#5 ECR/Middle C 25.7 0.816 31.3 C 25.9 0.83 31.7 0.4 0.014 N D 43.1 0.935 47.8 D 44.3 0.953 50.2 2.4 0.018 N
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 14.5 0.68 16.6 B 14.6 0.695 16.7 0.1 0.015 N B 14.3 0.627 20.5 B 14.2 0.631 20.4 -0.1 0.004 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill - Alma C 27 0.636 36.6 C 28.9 0.642 37 0.4 0.006 N D+ 35.4 0.676 43.6 D+ 36.6 0.694 44.1 0.5 0.018 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B+12 0.516 14.4 B 13.1 0.543 16 1.6 0.027 N C+ 22.8 0.569 31.5 C 24 0.597 32.6 1.1 0.028 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B 17.4 0.545 17.8 B 17.9 0.569 18.5 0.7 0.024 N C 28 0.879 34.3 C 29.4 0.897 36.8 2.5 0.018 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int)C- 34.1 0.851 39.9 D+ 36.4 0.887 44 4.1 0.036 N D-54 0.922 63.2 E 65.8 0.968 73.3 10.1 0.046 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez D- 53.3 0.927 61.8 E+55.3 0.943 65.1 3.3 0.016 Y E 69.1 0.989 75.5 E 71 1.005 75.5 0 0.016 N
#12 ECR/Churchill C 25.7 0.665 34.1 C 25.8 0.68 34.3 0.2 0.015 N C 27.8 0.834 41.7 C 28 0.842 42.2 0.5 0.008 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B 15.8 0.642 18.4 B 15.7 0.646 18.4 0 0.004 N C 26.7 0.809 33.3 C 26.8 0.82 33.5 0.2 0.011 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 21.3 0.635 24.4 C+ 21.2 0.64 24.5 0.1 0.005 N C+ 22.9 0.747 28.4 C+ 22.9 0.757 28.5 0.1 0.01 N
#15 ECR/California C+ 20.5 0.613 20.9 C+ 20.5 0.617 20.8 -0.1 0.004 N C 29.2 0.757 29.5 C 29.3 0.767 29.6 0.1 0.01 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 83.4 1.096 106.3 F 86.9 1.112 112.4 6.1 0.016 Y F 94.3 1.105 108.4 F 97.4 1.115 112.4 4 0.01 Y
#17 Woodland/University D+ 37.7 0.78 41.7 D+ 37.9 0.78 41.7 0 0 N E 63.8 1.03 83.7 E 65.3 1.04 86.3 2.6 0.01 N
#18 Middlefield/Willow D 48.5 0.919 56.2 D 50.8 0.94 59.5 3.3 0.021 N E 74 1.028 89.8 F 80.3 1.055 98.5 8.7 0.027 Y
#19 Middlefield/Lytton D 45.2 0.831 46.1 D- 51.7 0.85 52.6 6.5 0.019 N F 82 1.027 92.1 F 86.3 1.04 97.3 5.2 0.013 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 28.8 0.57 28.8 C 28.8 0.579 29 0.2 0.009 N C- 33.2 0.786 37.2 C- 33.4 0.795 37.6 0.4 0.009 N
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D+ 38.2 0.6 39.6 D+ 38.1 0.609 39.6 0 0.009 N D 40 0.669 41.6 D 40 0.672 41.6 0 0.003 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C+ 21.1 0.714 17.9 C+ 21.3 0.717 18 0.1 0.003 N C- 33.5 0.892 41.1 C- 34.2 0.899 42.3 1.2 0.007 N
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road F 143.6 1.292 205.4 F 144.6 1.296 207.2 1.8 0.004 N F 178.7 1.415 268.4 F 181.1 1.425 272.7 4.3 0.01 Y
#24 Junipero/Stanford B 13.6 0.715 19.2 B 14 0.735 20 0.8 0.02 N B 17.3 0.767 23.2 B 17.6 0.775 23.6 0.4 0.008 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 12.6 0.575 18.2 B 13 0.595 18.8 0.6 0.02 N B 14 0.607 17.4 B 14.2 0.614 17.5 0.1 0.007 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West D 39.9 0.614 43.3 D 42.1 0.621 43.8 0.5 0.007 N E 61.8 0.932 83.2 E 63.5 0.938 85.5 2.3 0.006 N
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz D 45 0.972 52.9 D 46.3 0.979 54.7 1.8 0.007 N D- 54.5 0.995 57.7 E+56.4 1.004 60 2.3 0.009 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*F 90.4 0.998 70.3 F 93.7 1.012 72.5 2.2 0.014 N D 41.9 0.938 49.3 D 44 0.952 52 2.7 0.014 N
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C 27.1 0.763 24.7 C 27.2 0.776 24.9 0.2 0.013 N C 25.2 0.787 28.6 C 25.3 0.799 28.8 0.2 0.012 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill D 41.6 0.991 60 D 45.5 1.024 68.8 8.8 0.033 N D 48.1 0.914 55.4 D 49.3 0.926 57 1.6 0.012 N
#31 Oak/Sand Hill A 9.4 0.73 10.5 A 9.5 0.75 10.8 0.3 0.02 N A 7.2 0.74 8.7 A 7.4 0.759 9 0.3 0.019 N
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-64 January 13, 2009
2015AM 2015AM+SUMC Compare 2015PM 2015PM+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 16 0.625 17.4 B 16.2 0.641 17.8 0.4 0.016 N C 25.3 0.683 27.6 C 26.2 0.704 29 1.4 0.021 N
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill C+ 22.6 0.666 25.1 C 26.6 0.711 30.5 5.4 0.045 N C 25.5 0.596 26.2 C 26.4 0.612 27.2 1 0.016 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill B- 19.7 0.487 22.3 C+ 20.6 0.537 23.6 1.3 0.05 N C 26.1 0.603 29.8 C 27.7 0.625 31.5 1.7 0.022 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C- 33.1 0.613 34 C-34 0.657 35.3 1.3 0.044 N C 31.9 0.712 37 C- 33.3 0.763 40.1 3.1 0.051 N
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+ 22.7 0.822 27.4 C 26.4 0.877 33.4 6 0.055 N C+ 20.7 0.723 21.9 C+ 21.6 0.761 23.9 2 0.038 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 29.2 0.67 29.2 D 30.4 0.69 30.4 1.2 0.02 N F 86.6 1.04 86.6 F 105.3 1.1 105.3 18.7 0.06 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D 48.9 0.758 49.7 D 49 0.766 49.9 0.2 0.008 N E+ 58.7 0.962 66 E+ 59.3 0.966 66.8 0.8 0.004 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 42.4 0.833 43.9 D 42.8 0.84 44.4 0.5 0.007 N D 46.6 0.884 50.4 D 47 0.89 51.1 0.7 0.006 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 41 0.701 42.9 D 41.1 0.703 42.9 0 0.002 N D 41.6 0.728 44.3 D 41.6 0.729 44.3 0 0.001 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 17.2 0.405 17.9 B 17.7 0.42 18.5 0.6 0.015 N B- 18.2 0.41 18.8 B- 18.5 0.424 19.2 0.4 0.014 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+ 11.1 0.503 12.8 B 12.1 0.521 13.8 1 0.018 N C+ 21.2 0.618 21.8 C+ 21.5 0.624 22 0.2 0.006 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C+ 22.5 0.564 28.9 C+ 22.7 0.568 29 0.1 0.004 N C 30 0.67 35 C 30 0.673 35.2 0.2 0.003 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove C 30.3 0.769 29.7 C 30.5 0.786 30.1 0.4 0.017 N C 30.8 0.724 30.4 C 30.8 0.74 30.5 0.1 0.016 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C 30.8 0.704 34.6 C 30.9 0.705 34.6 0 0.001 N C 31.3 0.816 38.7 C 31.4 0.817 38.8 0.1 0.001 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenwood F 86.9 1.111 108.7 F 89.5 1.121 111.8 3.1 0.01 N F 132.9 1.281 173.3 F 136 1.29 177.1 3.8 0.009 N
#47 ECR/Encinal B- 19.9 0.775 18.6 C+ 20.1 0.789 19 0.4 0.014 N C+ 20.4 0.723 22.2 C+ 20.4 0.736 22.3 0.1 0.013 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 13.1 0.583 14.5 B 13 0.588 14.5 0 0.005 N B 12.4 0.516 13.6 B 12.4 0.521 13.6 0 0.005 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh B- 18.5 0.78 20.2 B- 18.5 0.782 20.2 0 0.002 N C 24.8 0.917 26.7 C 25.1 0.922 27.2 0.5 0.005 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 14.8 0.588 15.7 B 14.8 0.588 15.7 0 0 N B- 18.5 0.896 21.5 B- 18.5 0.896 21.5 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow B- 19.9 0.726 24.8 B- 19.9 0.738 24.9 0.1 0.012 N B 16.9 0.613 20.7 B 17.5 0.651 16.3 -4.4 0.038 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow C 31.5 0.781 46 C 31.7 0.788 46.5 0.5 0.007 N F 95.8 1.152 117.8 F 98.2 1.159 120.9 3.1 0.007 N
#53 Bayfront Expy/University C- 32.5 0.984 63.1 C- 33.1 0.988 64.3 1.2 0.004 N D+ 37.6 0.946 45.6 D+ 38.7 0.951 46.9 1.3 0.005 N
#54 Bay/University D+ 37.5 0.802 41.1 D+ 37.6 0.805 41.2 0.1 0.003 N F 102.8 1.191 139.2 F 103.5 1.194 140.3 1.1 0.003 N
#55 Donohoe/University D- 53.1 0.924 57.8 D- 53.4 0.926 58.2 0.4 0.002 N D 44 0.892 51.3 D 44 0.892 51.3 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry B- 19.8 0.49 22.5 C+ 21.6 0.57 25.4 2.9 0.08 N C+ 20.7 0.505 22.4 C+ 22.9 0.568 27.2 4.8 0.063 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill A 7.9 0.426 5.6 A 7.8 0.438 5.6 0 0.012 N A 6 0.424 7.9 A 6 0.436 8 0.1 0.012 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 8.4 0.328 10.1 A 8.4 0.367 10.2 0.1 0.039 N B+ 10.6 0.414 10.7 B+ 10.8 0.449 10.8 0.1 0.035 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.6 0.32 9.2 B+ 10.8 0.37 9.4 0.2 0.05 N A 8.6 0.261 9.1 A 8.7 0.294 9.2 0.1 0.033 N
#60 Durand/Welch
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave C 18.2 0.803 18.2 C 18.3 0.805 18.3 0.1 0.002 N B 14.2 0.653 14.2 B 14.3 0.658 14.3 0.1 0.005 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 251.7 2.13 251.7 F 258.1 2.161 258.1 6.4 0.031 Y F 260.5 2.026 260.5 F 267 2.053 267 6.5 0.027 Y
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 444.1 1.86 444.1 F 449.4 1.87 449.4 5.3 0.01 Y E 36 0.73 36 E 36.6 0.74 36.6 0.6 0.01 N
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3-65 January 13, 2009
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
During the PM peak hour, eight intersections would be adversely affected. The eight
affected intersections are:
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS changes from D to E with
the project and is considered significantly impacted.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 4 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.01. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS changes from E to F with the
project. The average critical delay increased by 8.7 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.027. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 5.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.013. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Page Mill Road (#23) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 4.3 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.01. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine / Santa Cruz (#27) - LOS changes from D
to E with the project and is considered significantly impacted.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of
Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
3.4.3 Impact of SSC + SUMC in 2015
No Build 2015 traffic volumes + SSC at 100 percent build-out + SUMC at 60 percent
occupancy of full build-out compared with No Build 2015 traffic volumes
The traffic volumes for this scenario are shown in Figures 3-15a through 3-15d. The
results of the analysis are included in Table 3-9.
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC+SUMC rev2.cdr
Figure 3-15a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
AM (PM) Peak Hour
24(38)
56(97)
51(91)
89
5
(
1
6
8
2
)
60
(
5
6
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
10
9
(
1
6
3
)
19
4
5
(
1
6
8
0
)
15
(
7
6
)
19
2
0
(
1
6
0
4
)
18
2
(
2
1
3
)
38 (100)
349(387)
593(526)
15 (33)
371(353)
61(125)
11
3
(
2
4
5
)
87
7
(
1
4
4
4
)
39
8
(
6
3
8
)
95
(
1
5
4
)
24
3
3
(
2
0
7
7
)
0
(
4
)
0 (2)
6 (1)
5 (3)
177(203)
0 (0)
343(215)
22
0
(
4
3
7
)
10
8
7
(
2
1
2
4
)
0
(
1
)
25
(
1
8
)
27
3
5
(
2
3
0
1
)
44
(
5
1
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
14 (21)
1 (0)
46 (34)
20
7
(
2
6
8
)
12
6
8
(
2
5
2
6
)
1
(
3
)
50
3
(
3
8
2
)
15
5
6
(
1
1
5
6
)
63
3
(
4
0
7
)
294(623)
282(267)25
6
(
1
7
2
)
81
2
(
1
3
3
4
)
29
(
7
1
)
17
7
(
1
3
8
)
19
9
8
(
1
6
8
5
)
143(375)
144(455)24
5
(
4
5
1
)
10
7
6
(
1
6
7
5
)
166(209)
1416(1138)
299(220)
9 (49)
444(900)
31(101)12
5
(
6
2
)
36
3
(
4
3
4
)
10
2
(
5
3
)
29
1
(
3
8
9
)
22
4
(
1
1
3
)
18
0
5
(
2
0
5
0
)
30
6
(
4
5
4
)
266(211)
504(435)
234(319)
57(273)
175(502)
140(467)
45
9
(
3
5
9
)
14
8
4
(
1
8
1
5
)
90
(
3
9
2
)
19
6
0
(
2
5
2
3
)
19
3
(
3
6
5
)
162(177)
233(198)
17
0
5
(
2
1
0
5
)
16
5
(
2
0
7
)
200(308)
1402(865)
475(576)
443(619)
900(1262)
131(434)
34
9
(
2
0
9
)
13
3
8
(
1
9
7
4
)
67
5
(
7
5
4
)
45
5
(
3
5
4
)
10
9
4
(
1
1
9
8
)
15
6
(
2
3
3
)
594(394)
1268(866)
329(287)
81(34)
732(1124)
20(15)36
(
2
2
)
15
2
(
1
3
3
)
37
5
(
5
3
3
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
7
)
31
1
(
3
4
6
)
21
6
(
2
9
1
)
114(232)
35 (10)
174(329)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
6
(
7
3
2
)
30
2
(
3
8
0
)
28
2
(
2
1
9
)
17
1
5
(
1
4
6
3
)
62
(
6
7
)
23 (23)
222(190)
81 (118)
250(456)
252(205)
112(199)
13
8
(
2
0
5
)
67
2
(
1
4
8
0
)
47
(
8
8
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (315)
22
5
(
2
4
6
)
16
5
4
(
2
1
4
5
)
14
(
2
1
)
18
1
(
1
2
3
)
21
3
8
(
2
3
8
6
)
48
(
3
1
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
208(202)
20
3
(
2
6
7
)
16
1
7
(
2
0
7
6
)
27
(
6
1
)
26
7
(
2
1
1
)
20
0
8
(
2
4
9
4
)
30
(
4
5
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
15
1
(
1
3
9
)
17
1
8
(
1
9
9
7
)
96
(
1
3
6
)
25
3
(
1
4
7
)
18
7
1
(
2
3
8
9
)
13
3
(
1
2
6
)
26
(
3
9
)
23
2
9
(
2
1
2
2
)
35
(
7
4
)
6 (29)
3 (30)
3 (57)
49 (49)
7 (7)
48 (21)
57
(
1
2
0
)
12
8
1
(
2
0
9
4
)
28
(
1
0
)
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC and SUMC
589(671)
161(139)
995(567)
22(57)
320(332)
115(133)30
(
6
7
)
42
9
(
4
5
0
)
30
1
(
5
3
2
)
52
(
5
2
)
35
0
(
4
7
0
)
52
4
(
1
0
3
5
)
657(431)
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC+SUMC rev2.cdr
Figure 3-15b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
74
(
4
2
)
32
7
(
3
8
9
)
14
5
(
1
0
8
)
65(166)
876(896)
59(111)
56(81)
699(886)
63(92)15
2
(
7
9
)
21
8
(
3
4
6
)
46
(
4
8
)
17
5
(
1
6
4
)
78
5
(
1
2
8
5
)
0
(
6
)
3 (6)
83(101)
99(88)
76(118)
78(98)
136(311)
30
5
(
2
4
1
)
14
5
6
(
9
2
1
)
17
(
3
9
)
13
1
(
5
4
8
)
56
3
(
9
8
8
)
27
1
(
1
7
4
)
97(137)
714(1875)
357(265)
452(238)
1901(985)
408(137)
22
2
(
7
7
8
)
10
9
3
(
7
4
2
)
29
5
(
2
6
6
)
23
(
8
)
78
8
(
5
5
6
)
44
3
(
2
1
8
)
48(478)
14 (5)
75(352)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)18
(
7
)
36
9
(
7
1
5
)
46
0
(
1
9
4
)
705(1140)
913(528)
10
9
(
6
2
2
)
40
3
(
6
8
5
)
1028(897)
630(121)
31
7
(
2
8
2
)
1
(
1
)
28
9
(
3
0
1
)
194(364)
1180(1866)
52 (2)
201(172)
1868(1181)
38 (4)1
(
3
1
)
1
(
2
)
3
(
2
6
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
82
(
3
8
)
2274(1168)
44(103)
905(2290)
17
(
1
0
)
10
(
9
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
546(1153)
247(98)
45 (37)
1495(1063)
578(117)
14
9
(
5
8
3
)
3
(
2
2
)
10
7
(
3
0
5
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (18)
566(705)
87(110)
12 (3)
618(730)
525(461)
28
0
(
5
0
9
)
7
(
4
)
40
(
1
3
1
)
37
(
7
0
)
33
4
(
3
7
8
)
12
7
(
1
2
7
)
62(128)
402(306)
18 (107)
30(110)
184(509)
285(603)
54
4
(
2
8
2
)
30
2
(
3
7
2
)
41
(
4
2
)
12
(
1
3
)
31
2
(
5
4
4
)
38
6
(
5
1
8
)
560(380)
455(372)
2 (4)
128(534)
6 (31)
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
88(98)
574(435)
95(59)
43(98)
281(557)
14(27)
14
5
(
1
2
1
)
53
0
(
5
0
5
)
16
2
(
1
5
5
)
50
(
5
9
)
29
1
(
4
6
0
)
81
(
1
7
1
)
83(122)
166(359)56
0
(
8
5
5
)
18
3
(
1
4
7
)
81
1
(
7
1
4
)
51
1
(
4
3
4
)
74(202)
18 (83)
75
1
(
9
1
8
)
23
3
(
1
6
2
)
69
1
(
7
3
7
)
10
1
(
6
7
)
41
(
2
1
9
)
0
(
0
)
22 (3)
805(2113)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
25
0
(
5
5
)
11
5
(
3
0
)
69
3
(
2
5
4
)
60
(
9
6
)
160 (29)
1871(698)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (21)
663(1771)
105(60)
11 (21)
1868(1180)
535(82)
42
(
4
4
7
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
40
4
(
4
3
4
)
80
8
(
8
2
2
)
35
7
(
1
9
3
)
61 (247)
710(1489)
270(403)
383(475)
1456(953)
346(241)
20
8
(
3
0
2
)
78
8
(
9
0
8
)
52
1
(
3
2
5
)
71
(
3
8
)
32
9
(
2
3
1
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(22)
104(86)
8 (13)
191(420)
34(168)
84(125)
13
9
(
1
8
9
)
30
0
(
6
5
6
)
8
(
3
2
)
64
7
(
2
9
9
)
69
8
(
7
6
3
)
11
(
2
7
)
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC and SUMC
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC+SUMC rev2.cdr
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
1
(
7
7
3
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
329(363)
106(119)
175(231)
627(373)
220(209)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
9
(
7
3
3
)
37
(
4
7
)
12
3
(
1
1
6
)
56
6
(
5
0
6
)
9
(
2
3
)
43
(
6
0
)
33
3
(
3
9
0
)
10
(
3
8
)
10
(
2
0
)
53
7
(
7
2
0
)
57
(
9
7
)
6
(
3
)
10
0
3
(
8
3
1
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
25
(
7
)
98
7
(
8
1
1
)
28
1
(
5
2
4
)
507(282)
45 (3)
152(34)
23 (42)
63 (71)
23 (43)57
(
7
)
64
6
(
9
8
9
)
15
2
(
8
7
)
5
(
5
)
40
(
1
4
)
11
9
(
7
4
)
33 (62)
1190(1002)
413(231)
1 (2)
761(965)
62 (94)97
(
6
7
)
7
(
1
3
)
23
1
(
2
1
7
)
10
9
(
9
5
)
42
0
(
3
1
1
)
70 (58)
1270(1594)
491(224)
1491(1353)
17
9
(
8
0
)
12
9
1
(
3
7
7
2
)
161(77)
459(1943)
20
6
5
(
6
5
6
)
40
1
2
(
9
3
4
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(160)
304(496)
69(70)
128(110)
581(463)
155(291)
69
(
7
1
)
66
4
(
1
2
9
5
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
7
7
(
1
1
7
1
)
22
(
6
2
)
529(614)
87(134)
560(498)
527(508)
32
0
(
5
1
7
)
11
3
(
1
3
4
)
26
1
(
2
0
2
)
94
2
(
2
2
6
5
)
87
(
9
)
22(98)
15(256)
8 (166)
121(75)
373(75)
568(1739)
14
1
0
(
4
5
0
)
23
7
7
(
1
0
2
1
)
22
(
3
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
74
9
(
5
9
1
)
96
7
(
1
5
7
0
)
186(335)
1405(1079)
960(1298)
653(906)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
92
(
1
2
2
)
18
1
3
(
1
4
5
1
)
10
9
(
8
9
)
50(70)
239(193)
126(113)
55(140)
172(205)
56(127)
13
3
(
1
2
3
)
79
6
(
1
7
0
1
)
59
(
1
1
5
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
20
3
(
1
8
3
)
82
3
(
7
1
3
)
143(374)
620(762)
65
2
(
8
3
6
)
46
5
(
6
5
5
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
79
(
6
3
)
22
5
8
(
1
6
9
6
)
17
7
(
8
2
)
215(251)
24 (29)
89 (103)
15 (35)
23 (10)
1 (35)22
(
5
0
)
92
3
(
1
8
8
2
)
56
(
6
1
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
71
7
(
7
0
4
)
33
9
(
1
1
9
)
1931(1161)
855(722)
1202(2299)
712(528)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-15c
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
4
2
)
28
9
(
4
5
4
)
282(717)
398(306)
539(342)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
33
0
(
3
1
1
)
11
4
2
(
2
2
6
3
)
15
8
(
1
7
0
)
143(240)
567(503)
113(166)
219(235)
424(602)
186(498)
39
3
(
3
2
1
)
15
8
1
(
1
2
3
6
)
92
(
1
8
4
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
98
(
1
4
0
)
22
6
(
3
2
9
)
54
(
1
0
5
)
60(61)
1358(698)
118(164)
147(112)
622(1827)
114(107)
11
6
(
2
1
8
)
26
3
(
2
8
7
)
11
7
(
4
9
9
)
50
3
(
2
1
7
)
12
2
(
1
5
7
)
21
(
7
3
)
84(111)
1051(767)
29(108)
169(233)
383(927)
285(605)
48
1
(
3
5
6
)
52
5
(
4
9
7
)
33
3
(
9
4
9
)
58(120)
73(331)
21 (47)
21 (25)
273(141)
38 (7)
145(227)
8 (8)
97(283)
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC and SUMC
STANFORD EIR2015 Volumes with SCC+SUMC rev2.cdr
Figure 3-15d
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
179(114)
187(220)61
(
2
7
7
)
88
(
1
7
8
)
269(100)
323(151)
46
(
2
5
)
32
5
(
1
2
9
)
24
3
(
1
4
1
)
169(296)
158(92)
185(260)
124(44)
72(314)
268(275)
12 (65)
412(305)
52
(
1
1
5
)
13
0
(
3
6
0
)
12
0
(
2
0
5
)
50
(
6
3
)
13
(
4
)
23
4
(
7
5
9
)
570(220)
189(202)
11 (8)
68 (62)
115(300)
7 (2)2
(
6
)
5
(
2
6
)
1
(
1
7
)
16
(
1
3
)
48
(
1
6
)
8 (18)
914(1384)
26 (19)
1353(1099)
2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC and SUMC
62
53 (404)
896 (1482)
369 (393)
777 (466)
33
6
(
2
4
5
)
0
(
0
)
97
1
(
5
1
6
)
Alpine Rd
I-2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
1
(
2
8
1
)
38
0
(
7
2
)
408 (928)
829 (816)
766 (807)
189 (288)
Welch Rd
34 (37)
3 (1)
39 (33)
3 (1)
1
(
2
)
1
(
3
)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-70 January 13, 2009
Table 3-9
LOS Comparison with SSC & SUMC in 2015
2015AM 2015AM+SSC+SUMC Compare 2015PM 2015PM+SSC+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec)V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso D 41 0.882 45.3 D 42 0.899 46.9 1.6 0.017 N D-52.6 0.95 65 E+55.1 0.971 69.9 4.9 0.021 Y
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B+11.6 0.635 11.6 B+11.7 0.655 11.8 0.2 0.02 N B-19.1 0.638 20 B-19 0.654 19.9 -0.1 0.016 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood D 50.2 0.955 55.5 D-53.4 0.98 61 5.5 0.025 N E+59 0.985 73 E 61.5 1 76.7 3.7 0.015 N
#4 ECR/Roble B+10 0.537 9.5 A 9.8 0.554 9.4 -0.1 0.017 N B 12.4 0.527 13.2 B 12.2 0.54 13.1 -0.1 0.013 N
#5 ECR/Middle C 25.7 0.816 31.3 C 26.2 0.836 32 0.7 0.02 N D 43.1 0.935 47.8 D 46.7 0.976 54.8 7 0.041 N
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 14.5 0.68 16.6 B 14.6 0.698 16.8 0.2 0.018 N B 14.3 0.627 20.5 B 14.3 0.643 20.5 0 0.016 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill - Alma C 27 0.636 36.6 C 29.2 0.645 37.1 0.5 0.009 N D+35.4 0.676 43.6 D+37.7 0.71 44.7 1.1 0.034 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B+12 0.516 14.4 B 13.4 0.549 16.4 2 0.033 N C+22.8 0.569 31.5 C 25 0.627 33.8 2.3 0.058 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B 17.4 0.545 17.8 B 17.9 0.571 18.6 0.8 0.026 N C 28 0.879 34.3 C 30.2 0.906 38.3 4 0.027 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm
(Single Int)C-34.1 0.851 39.9 D+37.3 0.894 44.9 5 0.043 N D-54 0.922 63.2 E-77.7 1.006 86.2 23 0.084 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez D-53.3 0.927 61.8 E+55.7 0.946 65.8 4 0.019 Y E 69.1 0.989 75.5 E 74 1.013 77.4 1.9 0.024 N
#12 ECR/Churchill C 25.7 0.665 34.1 C 25.8 0.682 34.3 0.2 0.017 N C 27.8 0.834 41.7 C 28.3 0.851 42.6 0.9 0.017 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B 15.8 0.642 18.4 B 15.7 0.647 18.4 0 0.005 N C 26.7 0.809 33.3 C 26.8 0.826 33.7 0.4 0.017 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+21.3 0.635 24.4 C+21.2 0.641 24.5 0.1 0.006 N C+22.9 0.747 28.4 C 23 0.765 28.6 0.2 0.018 N
#15 ECR/California C+20.5 0.613 20.9 C+20.4 0.618 20.8 -0.1 0.005 N C 29.2 0.757 29.5 C 29.3 0.774 29.7 0.2 0.017 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 83.4 1.096 106.3 F 87.7 1.116 113.7 7.4 0.02 Y F 94.3 1.105 108.4 F 100 1.121 114.9 6.5 0.016 Y
#17 Woodland/University D+37.7 0.78 41.7 D+37.9 0.78 41.7 0 0 N E 63.8 1.03 83.7 E 65.5 1.041 86.7 3 0.011 N
#18 Middlefield/Willow D 48.5 0.919 56.2 D-51.1 0.942 59.9 3.7 0.023 N E 74 1.028 89.8 F 82.6 1.064 101.4 11.6 0.036 Y
#19 Middlefield/Lytton D 45.2 0.831 46.1 D-52.2 0.854 53.2 7.1 0.023 N F 82 1.027 92.1 F 89.6 1.051 101.1 9 0.024 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 28.8 0.57 28.8 C 28.8 0.581 29 0.2 0.011 N C-33.2 0.786 37.2 C-33.7 0.806 38.2 1 0.02 N
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D+38.2 0.6 39.6 D+38.1 0.61 39.6 0 0.01 N D 40 0.669 41.6 D 40 0.677 41.7 0.1 0.008 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C+21.1 0.714 17.9 C+21.3 0.717 18 0.1 0.003 N C-33.5 0.892 41.1 C-34.6 0.903 42.9 1.8 0.011 N
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill
Road F 143.6 1.292 205.4 F 144.9 1.297 207.8 2.4 0.005 N F 178.7 1.415 268.4 F 182.7 1.431 275.7 7.3 0.016 Y
#24 Junipero/Stanford B 13.6 0.715 19.2 B 14 0.737 20.1 0.9 0.022 N B 17.3 0.767 23.2 B 17.8 0.782 23.9 0.7 0.015 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 12.6 0.575 18.2 B 13.1 0.597 18.9 0.7 0.022 N B 14 0.607 17.4 B 14.3 0.621 17.6 0.2 0.014 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West D 39.9 0.614 43.3 D 43.1 0.621 44 0.7 0.007 N E 61.8 0.932 83.2 E-75.6 0.985 104.8 21.6 0.053 Y
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa
Cruz D 45 0.972 52.9 D 47.6 0.986 56.3 3.4 0.014 N D-54.5 0.995 57.7 E 63 1.032 67.8 10.1 0.037 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand
Hill*F 90.4 0.998 70.3 F 94.8 1.015 73.1 2.8 0.017 N D 41.9 0.938 49.3 D 45.8 0.964 54.9 5.6 0.026 N
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C 27.1 0.763 24.7 C 27.2 0.78 25 0.3 0.017 N C 25.2 0.787 28.6 C 25.8 0.819 30 1.4 0.032 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill D 41.6 0.991 60 D 47 1.035 72 12 0.044 N D 48.1 0.914 55.4 D-52.1 0.95 60.8 5.4 0.036 N
#31 Oak/Sand Hill A 9.4 0.73 10.5 A 9.6 0.758 10.9 0.4 0.028 N A 7.2 0.74 8.7 A 7.6 0.784 9.4 0.7 0.044 N
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-71 January 13, 2009
2015AM 2015AM+SSC+SUMC Compare 2015PM 2015PM+SSC+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec)V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 16 0.625 17.4 B 16.3 0.65 18 0.6 0.025 N C 25.3 0.683 27.6 C 26.9 0.729 30.3 2.7 0.046 N
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill C+22.6 0.666 25.1 C 27.2 0.72 31.7 6.6 0.054 N C 25.5 0.596 26.2 C 27.7 0.64 29.2 3 0.044 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill B-19.7 0.487 22.3 C+21 0.553 24.2 1.9 0.066 N C 26.1 0.603 29.8 C 31.9 0.674 37.5 7.7 0.071 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C-33.1 0.613 34 C-34.1 0.659 35.4 1.4 0.046 N C 31.9 0.712 37 C-34.3 0.782 41.6 4.6 0.07 N
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+22.7 0.822 27.4 C 26.8 0.883 34.1 6.7 0.061 N C+20.7 0.723 21.9 C+22.4 0.783 25.2 3.3 0.06 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 29.2 0.67 29.2 D 30.5 0.69 30.5 1.3 0.02 N F 86.6 1.04 86.6 F 110.1 1.11 110.1 23.5 0.07 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D 48.9 0.758 49.7 D 49 0.768 49.9 0.2 0.01 N E+58.7 0.962 66 E+59.7 0.969 67.3 1.3 0.007 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 42.4 0.833 43.9 D 42.8 0.841 44.5 0.6 0.008 N D 46.6 0.884 50.4 D 47.4 0.895 51.5 1.1 0.011 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 41 0.701 42.9 D 41.1 0.703 43 0.1 0.002 N D 41.6 0.728 44.3 D 41.7 0.731 44.4 0.1 0.003 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 17.2 0.405 17.9 B 17.7 0.422 18.5 0.6 0.017 N B-18.2 0.41 18.8 B-18.6 0.428 19.3 0.5 0.018 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+11.1 0.503 12.8 B 12.1 0.522 13.9 1.1 0.019 N C+21.2 0.618 21.8 C+21.7 0.63 22.2 0.4 0.012 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C+22.5 0.564 28.9 C+22.9 0.577 29.3 0.4 0.013 N C 30 0.67 35 C 31 0.716 36.7 1.7 0.046 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove C 30.3 0.769 29.7 C 30.6 0.789 30.2 0.5 0.02 N C 30.8 0.724 30.4 C 30.8 0.749 30.6 0.2 0.025 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C 30.8 0.704 34.6 C 30.9 0.705 34.6 0 0.001 N C 31.3 0.816 38.7 C 31.4 0.819 38.9 0.2 0.003 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenwood F 86.9 1.111 108.7 F 90.8 1.126 113.4 4.7 0.015 Y F 132.9 1.281 173.3 F 141.7 1.307 184.2 10.9 0.026 Y
#47 ECR/Encinal B-19.9 0.775 18.6 C+20.1 0.789 19.1 0.5 0.014 N C+20.4 0.723 22.2 C+20.4 0.737 22.3 0.1 0.014 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 13.1 0.583 14.5 B 13 0.588 14.5 0 0.005 N B 12.4 0.516 13.6 B 12.4 0.523 13.7 0.1 0.007 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh B-18.5 0.78 20.2 B-18.5 0.782 20.2 0 0.002 N C 24.8 0.917 26.7 C 25.2 0.924 27.4 0.7 0.007 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 14.8 0.588 15.7 B 14.8 0.588 15.7 0 0 N B-18.5 0.896 21.5 B-18.5 0.896 21.5 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow B-19.9 0.726 24.8 B-19.9 0.739 25 0.2 0.013 N B 16.9 0.613 20.7 B 16.9 0.62 20.7 0 0.007 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow C 31.5 0.781 46 C 31.7 0.788 46.5 0.5 0.007 N F 95.8 1.152 117.8 F 98.6 1.16 121.4 3.6 0.008 N
#53 Bayfront Expy/University C-32.5 0.984 63.1 C-33.1 0.989 64.4 1.3 0.005 N D+37.6 0.946 45.6 D+38.9 0.952 47.2 1.6 0.006 N
#54 Bay/University D+37.5 0.802 41.1 D+37.6 0.805 41.2 0.1 0.003 N F 102.8 1.191 139.2 F 103.6 1.194 140.4 1.2 0.003 N
#55 Donohoe/University D-53.1 0.924 57.8 D-53.4 0.927 58.2 0.4 0.003 N D 44 0.892 51.3 D 44 0.892 51.3 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry B-19.8 0.49 22.5 C+21.6 0.57 25.4 2.9 0.08 N C+20.7 0.505 22.4 C 23.1 0.568 27.2 4.8 0.063 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill A 7.9 0.426 5.6 A 7.8 0.446 5.7 0.1 0.02 N A 6 0.424 7.9 A 6.1 0.462 8.2 0.3 0.038 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 8.4 0.328 10.1 A 8.4 0.367 10.2 0.1 0.039 N B+10.6 0.414 10.7 B+10.8 0.449 10.8 0.1 0.035 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+10.6 0.32 9.2 B+10.8 0.37 9.4 0.2 0.05 N A 8.6 0.261 9.1 A 8.7 0.294 9.2 0.1 0.033 N
#60 Durand/Welch
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave C 18.2 0.803 18.2 C 18.3 0.805 18.3 0.1 0.002 N B 14.2 0.653 14.2 B 14.5 0.663 14.5 0.3 0.01 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine
Road F 251.7 2.13 251.7 F 258.7 2.163 258.7 7 0.033 Y F 260.5 2.026 260.5 F 270.3 2.067 270.3 9.8 0.041 Y
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine
Road F 444.1 1.86 444.1 F 450 1.87 450 5.9 0.01 Y E 36 0.73 36 E 37 0.74 37 1 0.01 N
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-72 January 13, 2009
For this scenario, SSC would be fully built-out while SUMC would be at 60 percent build-
out. Five intersections would be affected during the AM peak hour as shown in Table 3-
9:
x El Camino Real / Galvez (#11) – LOS changes from D to E and is therefore
considered significantly impacted by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 7.4 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.02. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 4.7 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.015. This intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
In the PM peak hour, a total of 11 intersections would be significantly impacted by the
proposed project:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso (#1) Avenue - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly impacted by the projects.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly impacted by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 6.5 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.016. This intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS changes from E to F with the
project. The average critical delay increased by 11.6 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.036. This intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 9 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.024. This
intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-73 January 13, 2009
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Page Mill Road (#23) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 7.3 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.016. This intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26). - LOS remains at E.
The average critical delay increased by 21.6 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.053. This intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) - LOS changes
from D to E and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the projects.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of Palo
Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized intersections.
Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic through the
intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal warrants are
met at this intersection.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 10.9 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.026. This intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
3.4.4 Impact of SUMC only in 2025
No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100 percent build-out compared with No Build
2025 traffic volumes
The traffic volumes for the scenario are shown in Figures 3-16a through 3-16d. The
results of the analysis are included in Table 3-10.
In 2025, SUMC is assumed to be fully built-out and occupied. As such, trips to/from
SUMC would increase. A total of 16 intersections would be negatively impacted by the
proposed expansion during the AM peak hour as presented in Table 3-10:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso Avenue (#1) - LOS remains at E. The average
critical delay increased by 8.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.023. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x El Camino Real / Ravenswood Avenue (#3) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 14 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.034. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly impacted by the project.
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Figure 3-16a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
24(50)
56(127)
51(120)
10
7
9
(
1
8
3
2
)
72
(
6
1
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
12
5
(
1
9
8
)
24
8
5
(
2
2
1
0
)
17
(
9
2
)
24
4
8
(
2
1
0
8
)
20
8
(
2
5
8
)
46 (114)
420(439)
714(585)
17 (38)
422(403)
69(142)
13
3
(
2
5
4
)
10
2
9
(
1
4
9
7
)
46
4
(
6
5
7
)
10
8
(
1
8
1
)
30
0
9
(
2
6
0
5
)
0
(
4
)
0 (3)
7 (1)
5 (4)
178(204)
0 (0)
345(206)
25
9
(
4
7
1
)
12
8
7
(
1
1
7
6
)
0
(
1
)
28
(
2
1
)
33
1
9
(
2
8
3
8
)
49
(
5
9
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (4)
15(23)
1 (0)
50(37)
24
0
(
2
9
0
)
14
7
2
(
2
5
8
7
)
1
(
4
)
55
6
(
4
1
4
)
15
7
0
(
1
5
7
7
)
69
3
(
4
8
0
)
385(606)
368(258)30
7
(
1
8
2
)
98
4
(
1
5
3
6
)
35
(
8
9
)
23
3
(
1
4
0
)
28
1
1
(
2
2
5
1
)
146(370)
152(458)28
0
(
5
5
5
)
10
8
3
(
1
9
6
9
)
200(216)
1648(1333)
351(260)
10 (49)
450(908)
31(101)17
5
(
7
5
)
50
6
(
5
2
2
)
12
7
(
5
6
)
36
4
(
4
0
2
)
30
6
(
1
4
2
)
26
5
3
(
2
7
5
3
)
41
5
(
5
6
2
)
265(232)
516(501)
234(368)
57(273)
179(512)
140(465)
54
7
(
4
7
1
)
17
8
3
(
2
2
5
2
)
10
7
(
5
1
9
)
29
1
3
(
3
2
4
8
)
26
7
(
4
4
0
)
164(176)
233(196)
21
0
5
(
2
5
4
8
)
20
4
(
2
6
7
)
212(303)
1402(965)
475(576)
534(723)
1092(1490)
159(512)
47
2
(
2
3
6
)
19
9
8
(
2
5
0
3
)
91
7
(
8
8
0
)
46
5
(
4
7
0
)
11
2
8
(
1
4
5
7
)
15
8
(
3
0
9
)
677(461)
1458(1012)
376(325)
100(39)
899(1306)
24(17)45
(
3
0
)
18
6
(
1
8
1
)
46
0
(
7
2
5
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
9
)
32
4
(
3
4
8
)
22
5
(
3
1
4
)
142(255)
44 (11)
227(360)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
41
9
(
7
3
9
)
30
4
(
3
8
4
)
32
3
(
2
6
8
)
22
3
8
(
2
0
0
6
)
71
(
8
2
)
26 (26)
254(216)
93 (128)
286(520)
287(234)
120(201)
16
6
(
2
0
2
)
82
9
(
1
6
3
5
)
56
(
9
2
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (315)
22
8
(
3
2
4
)
17
0
3
(
2
6
5
7
)
14
(
2
7
)
25
0
(
1
4
7
)
31
5
7
(
3
0
6
3
)
66
(
3
8
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
208(200)
20
5
(
3
5
2
)
16
6
3
(
2
5
9
9
)
28
(
8
1
)
37
0
(
2
4
8
)
29
7
7
(
3
1
3
2
)
42
(
5
3
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
18
8
(
1
8
4
)
17
5
8
(
2
4
8
3
)
11
9
(
1
8
0
)
35
0
(
1
7
4
)
27
8
5
(
3
0
2
1
)
18
4
(
1
4
8
)
30
(
4
6
)
29
0
9
(
2
6
5
8
)
40
(
8
7
)
7 (33)
4 (34)
4 (65)
56 (56)
8 (8)
55 (23)
67
(
1
3
3
)
15
0
4
(
2
1
6
1
)
33
(
1
1
)
621(776)
170(161)
1067(652)
35 (87)
499(513)
179(205)37
(
6
8
)
52
8
(
4
5
5
)
37
3
(
5
5
3
)
55
(
7
0
)
36
5
(
5
4
6
)
54
9
(
1
4
0
3
)
657(449)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Figure 3-16b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
Sto
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
10
1
(
4
2
)
44
5
(
3
8
9
)
19
7
(
1
0
8
)
65(184)
887(980)
59(123)
60(81)
756(889)
67(91)20
1
(
7
8
)
22
1
(
3
4
5
)
61
(
4
8
)
21
9
(
1
9
0
)
10
1
7
(
1
4
6
2
)
0
(
7
)
3 (8)
83(125)
99(109)
76(118)
78(98)
136(312)
34
6
(
3
1
6
)
16
4
8
(
9
4
1
)
19
(
5
2
)
18
7
(
6
5
6
)
56
5
(
1
1
8
5
)
27
1
(
2
0
9
)
97(137)
713(1872)
356(261)
460(289)
1900(1220)
408(170)
35
5
(
1
1
6
5
)
17
4
6
(
1
1
0
2
)
47
0
(
3
9
3
)
23
(
1
2
)
78
8
(
7
9
4
)
43
7
(
2
7
3
)
45(452)
14 (5)
79(363)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)23
(
9
)
46
1
(
9
0
6
)
58
4
(
2
5
0
)
980(1549)
1256(669)
15
2
(
7
4
8
)
55
9
(
7
8
1
)
1161(1157)
708(154)
38
9
(
3
7
5
)
2
(
2
)
35
1
(
3
8
2
)
246(427)
1497(2239)
66 (3)
230(193)
2147(1285)
44 (5)1
(
3
3
)
1
(
2
)
4
(
2
9
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
80
(
3
3
)
2596(1230)
50 (122)
1047(2499)
17
(
1
0
)
5
(
5
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
537(1555)
211(66)
52 (41)
1994(1152)
361 (69)82
(
2
5
9
)
1
(
9
)
62
(
1
5
6
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (21)
572(775)
106(111)
14 (3)
716(689)
609(419)
27
5
(
4
7
2
)
7
(
4
)
44
(
1
2
8
)
56
(
5
0
)
33
1
(
3
5
8
)
13
4
(
1
2
1
)
63 (127)
461(329)
18 (105)
28(100)
206(563)
281(593)
53
2
(
2
7
8
)
29
6
(
3
5
0
)
42
(
3
7
)
12
(
1
3
)
30
6
(
5
2
0
)
38
6
(
5
0
9
)
562(366)
474(379)
1 (0)
121(633)
6 (36)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
97(98)
640(428)
106(59)
52(126)
347(786)
17(39)
19
8
(
1
4
1
)
73
9
(
6
3
6
)
22
6
(
1
9
6
)
56
(
7
5
)
33
0
(
5
0
7
)
92
(
2
2
2
)
83(122)
166(358)56
4
(
1
1
5
3
)
18
3
(
2
0
0
)
10
3
1
(
9
5
6
)
64
6
(
5
8
7
)
74(202)
18 (83)
75
5
(
1
2
3
8
)
23
3
(
2
2
0
)
87
9
(
9
6
2
)
12
8
(
9
0
)
46
(
2
5
0
)
0
(
0
)
22 (3)
806(2100)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
25
0
(
5
5
)
13
1
(
3
5
)
79
3
(
2
8
9
)
68
(
1
0
9
)
160 (29)
1883(684)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (22)
653(1762)
105(62)
13 (24)
2117(1233)
641(102)52
(
4
7
5
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
53
9
(
5
8
9
)
10
6
6
(
1
0
7
8
)
47
1
(
2
4
2
)
70 (274)
810(1643)
311(449)
462(577)
1753(1096)
417(292)
26
8
(
4
1
0
)
10
0
8
(
1
1
9
6
)
67
0
(
4
2
3
)
71
(
3
8
)
31
2
(
2
1
9
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(27)
104(107)
8 (12)
233(437)
41(160)
102(127)
16
0
(
2
8
3
)
34
7
(
9
0
2
)
9
(
4
3
)
87
7
(
3
9
9
)
93
7
(
1
0
2
8
)
15
(
3
6
)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
1
(
7
7
1
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
332(362)
106(119)
219(280)
785(451)
275(253)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
52
9
(
7
2
9
)
37
(
4
7
)
18
0
(
1
4
6
)
82
9
(
6
3
7
)
13
(
2
9
)
49
(
8
0
)
37
7
(
4
0
9
)
11
(
5
1
)
11
(
2
3
)
65
8
(
7
9
9
)
68
(
1
1
6
)
6
(
3
)
10
0
6
(
8
2
8
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
32
(
8
)
12
8
0
(
9
3
7
)
36
6
(
6
0
8
)
578(322)
51 (4)
173(39)
26 (48)
72 (81)
26 (50)57
(
8
)
64
6
(
1
1
0
1
)
15
2
(
1
1
9
)
5
(
5
)
46
(
1
6
)
13
6
(
8
5
)
38 (70)
1361(1139)
471(263)
1 (3)
869(1101)
70 (107)
11
1
(
7
7
)
8
(
1
4
)
26
4
(
2
4
7
)
12
4
(
1
0
8
)
47
9
(
3
5
5
)
75 (67)
1359(1850)
576(264)
1762(1585)
20
7
(
8
4
)
14
9
1
(
3
9
7
8
)
186(85)
533(2136)
22
0
2
(
7
9
9
)
42
8
5
(
1
1
3
7
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(189)
307(584)
69(83)
164(130)
743(547)
198(344)
69
(
7
1
)
66
6
(
1
2
9
6
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
8
3
(
1
1
6
6
)
22
(
6
2
)
689(770)
113(171)
705(661)
659(642)
35
5
(
5
5
1
)
12
9
(
1
5
3
)
29
7
(
2
3
1
)
10
7
3
(
2
5
8
2
)
99
(
1
0
)
25(112)
17(292)
9 (189)
147(84)
453(84)
691(1933)
15
1
3
(
5
0
8
)
25
3
3
(
1
1
5
0
)
24
(
4
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
85
9
(
6
7
0
)
11
0
2
(
1
7
8
9
)
213 (382)
1601(1230)
1096(1482)
745(1033)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
10
6
(
1
5
2
)
23
3
9
(
1
9
6
5
)
12
6
(
1
1
0
)
57(80)
273(220)
143(129)
63(159)
196(233)
64(145)
16
0
(
1
3
3
)
95
4
(
1
8
3
6
)
71
(
1
2
4
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
27
7
(
2
1
5
)
11
3
4
(
8
8
3
)
178(435)
777(904)
78
1
(
1
1
2
2
)
47
9
(
7
8
8
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
89
(
7
6
)
27
8
7
(
2
2
5
9
)
19
7
(
9
9
)
245(286)
27 (33)
102(117)
17 (40)
26 (12)
1 (40)26
(
5
3
)
11
0
5
(
2
0
5
1
)
66
(
6
6
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
81
8
(
8
0
2
)
38
6
(
1
3
6
)
2201(1324)
974(823)
1371(2621)
813(604)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-16c
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
3
9
)
28
4
(
4
3
4
)
353(796)
381(343)
568(410)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
44
9
(
3
5
0
)
17
7
9
(
2
7
9
3
)
21
5
(
1
9
2
)
146(269)
567(567)
113(187)
233(261)
451(669)
198(553)
40
1
(
4
1
1
)
16
2
2
(
1
4
2
0
)
94
(
2
3
6
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
11
2
(
1
5
8
)
25
8
(
3
7
6
)
62
(
1
2
0
)
68(74)
1535(851)
133(200)
172(123)
733(2029)
134(119)
13
3
(
2
4
9
)
30
0
(
3
2
7
)
13
4
(
5
6
9
)
57
4
(
2
4
7
)
13
9
(
1
7
9
)
24
(
8
4
)
97(129)
1221(890)
33(125)
189(259)
432(1031)
320(672)
54
9
(
4
0
7
)
59
9
(
5
6
8
)
38
0
(
1
0
8
3
)
58(120)
77(339)
21 (47)
21 (31)
285(169)
38 (9)
157(225)
8 (8)
97(283)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SUMC
Figure 3-16d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
213(134)
225(265)73
(
3
3
1
)
10
6
(
2
1
1
)
323(119)
388(182)
40
(
1
1
)
34
8
(
7
5
)
18
9
(
7
4
)
180(293)
107(54)
232(258)
73(26)
39(160)
246(285)
8 (35)
415(330)
34
(
6
9
)
90
(
2
2
9
)
79
(
1
2
4
)
50
(
6
5
)
13
(
4
)
24
0
(
7
7
2
)
482(188)
210(165)
9 (6)
63 (51)
113(268)
6 (2)2
(
5
)
5
(
2
4
)
1
(
1
5
)
17
(
1
3
)
5
(
4
)
51
(
1
6
)
8 (20)
825(1394)
97 (50)
30 (24)
1527(1243)
309 (65)46
(
2
2
6
)
1
(
8
)
36
(
1
3
0
)
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
53
(
1
9
)
18
5
(
4
4
)
17
4
(
5
5
)
35(158)
238(372)
61(42)
15 (51)
420(406)
66 (19)19
(
5
5
)
41
(
1
5
4
)
44
(
1
0
2
)
62
73 (473)
1247(1737)
415 (567)
874 (666)
37
8
(
3
5
3
)
0
(
0
)
10
9
6
(
7
3
8
)
Alpine Rd
I-2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
4
(
3
9
9
)
42
7
(
1
0
2
)
536(1115)
1088(975)
862(1131)
212 (406)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-78 January 13, 2009
Table 3-10
LOS Comparison with SUMC only in 2025 – SUMC Only Project Impact
2025AM 2025AM+SUMC Compare 2025PM 2025PM+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso E 73.5 1.091 93.7 E-78.9 1.114 101.9 8.2 0.023 Y F 90.4 1.174 134.5 F 92.9 1.184 138.6 4.1 0.01 Y
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B 13.3 0.782 14.6 B 14.1 0.809 15.9 1.3 0.027 N C+ 21.5 0.819 24.2 C+ 21.7 0.828 24.5 0.3 0.009 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood F 101 1.175 127 F 109.9 1.209 141 14 0.034 Y F 99.7 1.194 143.1 F 102.4 1.204 146.9 3.8 0.01 N
#4 ECR/Roble B+ 10.4 0.66 10.7 B+ 10.4 0.682 10.8 0.1 0.022 N B 13 0.652 13.8 B 12.9 0.66 13.8 0 0.008 N
#5 ECR/Middle C- 32.6 0.951 41.2 D+ 35.2 0.975 45 3.8 0.024 N D 50.4 0.951 46.4 D- 51.8 0.961 47.9 1.5 0.01 N
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 17.3 0.812 20.7 B-18 0.835 21.7 1 0.023 N B 16.1 0.756 22.5 B 16 0.763 22.6 0.1 0.007 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill - Alma C 30.8 0.735 40.4 C-33 0.745 40.9 0.5 0.01 N D+ 35.9 0.758 45.9 D+38 0.786 47.2 1.3 0.028 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B 12 0.68 13.7 B 14.7 0.729 17.3 3.6 0.049 N C 23.7 0.725 32.8 C 26.2 0.769 35.5 2.7 0.044 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B- 18.3 0.58 19 B- 19.1 0.62 20.1 1.1 0.04 N C 31.8 0.917 40.5 D+ 35.1 0.947 46.2 5.7 0.03 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int)D 51 0.997 63.5 E 62.9 1.056 78.7 15.2 0.059 Y E 73.6 1.011 89.6 F 100.3 1.087 111.6 22 0.076 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez F 105.4 1.156 141.8 F 111.5 1.181 151.7 9.9 0.025 Y F 137.5 1.238 160.6 F 145 1.256 167.7 7.1 0.018 Y
#12 ECR/Churchill C 26.9 0.783 21.5 C 27.4 0.804 38.1 16.6 0.021 N C- 33.9 0.966 54.6 D+ 35.3 0.979 57.4 2.8 0.013 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B- 18.5 0.853 21.5 B- 18.5 0.859 21.9 0.4 0.006 N D+ 36.7 0.992 52.1 D+39 1.008 55.9 3.8 0.016 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 21.6 0.82 24.8 C+ 21.6 0.826 25 0.2 0.006 N C 27.8 0.921 37.9 C 28.8 0.937 39.4 1.5 0.016 N
#15 ECR/California C 24.7 0.836 26.4 C 24.8 0.842 26.7 0.3 0.006 N D+ 35.4 0.916 39.3 D+ 36.7 0.932 41.5 2.2 0.016 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 128.4 1.217 156 F 134.5 1.243 166.9 10.9 0.026 Y F 169.4 1.276 178.7 F 175.4 1.297 187.8 9.1 0.021 Y
#17 Woodland/University D 48.3 0.901 55.5 D 49.4 0.901 55.5 0 0 N F 111.5 1.236 160 F 115.3 1.251 166 6 0.015 Y
#18 Middlefield/Willow F 83.3 1.096 105.1 F 91.9 1.128 117.1 12 0.032 Y F 138.5 1.285 188.4 F 153 1.328 207.4 19 0.043 Y
#19 Middlefield/Lytton F 142.4 1.041 145 F 157.9 1.07 160.9 15.9 0.029 Y F 180.6 1.284 201.6 F 188.6 1.304 211.2 9.6 0.02 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 31.5 0.713 30.7 C 31.8 0.723 31 0.3 0.01 N E 62.5 1.031 74.3 E 65.8 1.046 78.9 4.6 0.015 Y
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D 42 0.683 42.8 D 42 0.696 43.1 0.3 0.013 N D 39.9 0.702 41.7 D 39.9 0.707 41.8 0.1 0.005 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C 27 0.793 35.5 C 27.8 0.8 36.8 1.3 0.007 N D- 52.2 1.029 70.6 D- 54.6 1.04 74.4 3.8 0.011 N
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road F 191.8 1.474 284.4 F 193.4 1.481 287.3 2.9 0.007 N F 251 1.675 382.3 F 255.2 1.691 389.4 7.1 0.016 Y
#24 Junipero/Stanford B- 18.9 0.842 28.8 C+ 21.7 0.873 34 5.2 0.031 N C 29.8 0.956 44.6 C- 32.6 0.967 47 2.4 0.011 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 16 0.682 23.7 B 17.8 0.713 26.8 3.1 0.031 N C 24.5 0.789 30.5 C 27.6 0.822 23.8 -6.7 0.033 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West D 50 0.729 63.2 E+56 0.771 75.5 12.3 0.042 Y F 124.9 1.116 164.9 F 131.1 1.127 169.9 5 0.011 Y
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz F 120.9 1.247 151 F 125.9 1.261 156.8 5.8 0.014 Y F 150.2 1.272 161.3 F 156 1.287 167.7 6.4 0.015 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*F 107.1 1.064 86.3 F 113 1.087 90.6 4.3 0.023 Y D-52 0.979 62.1 E+56.3 1.001 67.8 5.7 0.022 Y
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C- 34.1 0.895 34.3 D+ 35.3 0.916 36.4 2.1 0.021 N D+ 38.7 0.967 47.2 D 41.3 0.987 51.4 4.2 0.02 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill F 82 1.232 147.4 F 92.3 1.285 169.7 22.3 0.053 Y F 84.5 1.123 114.2 F 90 1.144 122.1 7.9 0.021 Y
#31 Oak/Sand Hill B+ 10.3 0.817 12.1 B+ 11.1 0.85 13.2 1.1 0.033 N A 8.2 0.82 10.3 A 8.9 0.851 11.3 1 0.031 N
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 17.5 0.702 19.8 B- 18.2 0.727 20.9 1.1 0.025 N C 25.6 0.704 28.4 C 27.7 0.739 31.5 3.1 0.035 N
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-79 January 13, 2009
2025AM 2025AM+SUMC Compare 2025PM 2025PM+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill D 45.2 0.777 58.3 E+57.7 0.829 76.6 18.3 0.052 Y C+ 20.8 0.627 22.8 C+ 22.2 0.653 22.2 -0.6 0.026 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill C+ 20.4 0.554 23.7 C+ 22.2 0.625 26.4 2.7 0.071 N C 29.9 0.681 38.1 C- 33.2 0.708 43.4 5.3 0.027 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C-32 0.572 32.7 C- 33.7 0.643 34.9 2.2 0.071 N C 31.9 0.712 37 C-33 0.759 40 3 0.047 N
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+ 22.7 0.822 27.4 C 25.9 0.873 32.7 5.3 0.051 N C+ 20.9 0.723 21.9 C+ 21.7 0.75 23.3 1.4 0.027 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 32 0.7 32 E 36.6 0.74 36.6 4.6 0.04 Y F 130.8 1.16 130.8 F 157.9 1.23 157.9 27.1 0.07 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D- 51.3 0.826 55 D- 51.7 0.832 55.3 0.3 0.006 N F 96.5 1.143 124.2 F 98.5 1.15 126.9 2.7 0.007 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 48.2 0.907 50.8 D 49.3 0.919 52.3 1.5 0.012 N E+ 57.9 0.963 62.9 E+ 59.6 0.974 65.3 2.4 0.011 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 42.5 0.765 44 D 42.6 0.767 44.1 0.1 0.002 N D 42.9 0.759 46.3 D 43 0.761 46.4 0.1 0.002 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 15.7 0.504 16.5 B 16.8 0.528 17.8 1.3 0.024 N B 17.6 0.461 18.3 B- 18.2 0.484 19.1 0.8 0.023 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+11 0.503 12.8 B 12.5 0.531 14.4 1.6 0.028 N C+ 21.5 0.618 21.8 C+22 0.628 22.1 0.3 0.01 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C 24.8 0.685 32 C 24.9 0.696 33 1 0.011 N D+ 36.1 0.837 45.3 D+ 36.4 0.843 45.8 0.5 0.006 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove D 44.3 0.958 49.4 D 48.9 0.985 56.2 6.8 0.027 N D+ 36.5 0.872 39.9 D+ 37.1 0.881 40.5 0.6 0.009 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C- 33.8 0.794 31.8 C- 33.9 0.795 31.9 0.1 0.001 N D+ 38.8 0.931 51.4 D 39.1 0.933 51.8 0.4 0.002 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenswood F 209.4 1.449 251.6 F 214.5 1.464 257.3 5.7 0.015 Y F 252.6 1.634 326.6 F 257.8 1.648 332.8 6.2 0.014 Y
#47 ECR/Encinal C 31.1 0.938 35.9 C- 34.8 0.96 41.6 5.7 0.022 N C 23.5 0.839 25.3 C 24 0.847 25.7 0.4 0.008 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 14.1 0.665 16 B 14.1 0.673 16.1 0.1 0.008 N B 13.2 0.588 14.6 B 13.2 0.597 14.7 0.1 0.009 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh C+ 21.9 0.889 25.1 C+ 22.1 0.891 25.2 0.1 0.002 N D 43.6 1.045 54.2 D 45.2 1.053 57 2.8 0.008 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 15.9 0.671 17.1 B 15.9 0.671 17.1 0 0 N D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6 D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow C 23.1 0.839 29.9 C 23.5 0.857 31 1.1 0.018 N B- 18.8 0.714 23 B- 19.3 0.754 18.7 -4.3 0.04 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow D+37 0.862 56.1 D+38 0.874 58.1 2 0.012 N F 140.1 1.294 177.8 F 144 1.305 182.8 5 0.011 Y
#53 Bayfront Expy/University D 46.7 1.074 91.4 D 48 1.081 94 2.6 0.007 N E 61.9 1.034 76.8 E 64.3 1.041 79.9 3.1 0.007 N
#54 Bay/University D 44.3 0.913 51.9 D 44.6 0.917 52.3 0.4 0.004 N F 145.2 1.349 206.9 F 146.3 1.353 208.5 1.6 0.004 N
#55 Donohoe/University E- 79.3 1.059 90.8 F 80.4 1.063 92.2 1.4 0.004 N E+ 55.2 1.007 72.2 E+ 55.2 1.007 72.2 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry B- 19.7 0.421 21.6 C+ 20.5 0.508 23.5 1.9 0.087 N C+ 20.3 0.466 22.1 C+ 22.8 0.539 27.8 5.7 0.073 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill B 12.5 0.641 11.7 B 13.7 0.674 13.5 1.8 0.033 N B 17.1 0.577 16.7 B 17.8 0.597 17.3 0.6 0.02 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 7.1 0.305 8.6 A 7.3 0.335 8.9 0.3 0.03 N A 9 0.323 10.6 A 9.5 0.355 10.8 0.2 0.032 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.4 0.358 10 B+ 10.6 0.412 10.2 0.2 0.054 N A 6.6 0.216 7 A 6.8 0.246 7.3 0.3 0.03 N
#60 Durand/Welch C 29.6 0.665 33.6 C- 33.4 0.705 39.7 6.1 0.04 N C 30.0 0.642 34.1 C- 33.3 0.695 40.4 6.3 0.053 N
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave E 37.7 1.007 37.7 E 38.1 1.01 38.1 0.4 0.003 N C 21.7 0.831 21.7 C 22 0.836 22 0.3 0.005 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 383.2 2.395 383.2 F 393.5 2.444 393.5 10.3 0.049 Y F 478.6 2.809 478.6 F 489.7 2.855 489.7 11.1 0.046 Y
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 1061 3.2 1061 F 1073 3.23 1073 12 0.03 Y F 184.4 1.28 184.4 F 189.5 1.3 189.5 5.1 0.02 Y
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-80 January 13, 2009
x El Camino Real / Embarcadero-Galvez (#11) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 9.9 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.025. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 10.9 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.026. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS remains at F with the project.
The average critical delay increased by 12 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.032. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 15.9 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.029.
This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 12.3 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.042. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) - LOS remains
at F. The average critical delay increased by 5.8 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.014. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Sand Hill Circle – I-280 / Sand Hill Road (#28) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 4.3 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.023. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Sand Hill Road / Santa Cruz Avenue (#30) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 22.3 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.053.
This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Sand Hill Road /Pasteur Drive (#33) - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly impacted by the project.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of
Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 5.7 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.015. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-81 January 13, 2009
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
In the PM peak hour, a total of 18 intersections meet the significance criteria for project
impact:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso Avenue (#1) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 4.1seconds and the V/C increased by 0.01. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) – LOS changes from LOS E to F
with the average critical delay increasing by 22 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.076. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x El Camino Real / Embarcadero-Galvez (#11) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 7.1 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.018. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 9.1 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.021. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Woodland Avenue / University Avenue (#17) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 6 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.015. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 19 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.043. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 9.6 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.02. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / University Avenue (#20) - LOS remains at E. The average
critical delay increased by 4.6 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.015. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Page Mill Road (#23) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 7.1 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.016. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-82 January 13, 2009
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 5 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.011. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) - LOS remains at
F. The average critical delay increased by 6.4 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.015. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Sand Hill Circle – I-280 / Sand Hill Road (#28) - LOS changes from LOS D to
E. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Sand Hill Road / Santa Cruz Avenue (#30) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 7.9 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.021. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of Palo
Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized intersections.
Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic through the
intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal warrants are
met at this intersection.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 6.2 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.014. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road (#52) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 5 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.011. This
intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
3.4.5 Cumulative Impact of SUMC in 2025
No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100 percent + SSC at 100 percent build-out
compared with No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SSC at 100 percent (Base A)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-83 January 13, 2009
The traffic volumes for this scenario are shown in Figures 3-17a through 3-17d. The
results of the analysis are included in Table 3-11. As noted on Table 3-11, a new base
for comparison, Base A, is used. Base A represents the 2025 No Build volumes plus the
full development of SSC.
In this scenario, it is assumed that the SSC has been completed in 2015 and is
considered part of the background traffic in 2025. The SUMC project volumes are
added on to determine the cumulative impact of SUMC in 2025.
A total of 16 intersections would be impacted during the AM peak period as shown in
Table 3-11:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso (#1) - LOS remains at E. The average critical
delay increased by 8.5 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.023. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Ravenswood (#3) - LOS remains at F. The average critical
delay increased by 13.8 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.034. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x University Avenue / El Camino Real (#10) – LOS changes from D in the base
scenario to E with SUMC and is therefore considered significantly impacted.
x El Camino Real / Embarcadero-Galvez (#11) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 9.9 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.025. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill - Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F.
The average critical delay increased by 11.1 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.027. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS remains at F. The average critical
delay increased by 11.8 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.032. This
intersection is significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 16 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.031. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus West Drive (#26) - LOS changes from D
to E and is therefore considered significantly impacted.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz (#27) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 5.6 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.013. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Sand Hill - I-280 / Sand Hill Circle (#28) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 4.4 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.023. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Santa Cruz / Sand Hill (#30) - LOS remains at F. The average critical delay
increased by 22.3 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.053. This intersection
is considered significantly affected by the projects.
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SSC + SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC AND SUMC
Figure 3-17a
Valparaiso
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
Santa Cruz
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
2
Ravenswood
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
3
Roble
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
4
Middle Av
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
5
Cambridge
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
6
Sand Hill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
7
Quarry
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
8
University
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
9
Embarcadero
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
11
Churchill
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
12
Palm Galvez
Park
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
13
Stanford
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
14
California
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
15
Page Mill Expwy
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
16
Serra
University
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
17
Willow
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
l
e
l
d
18
24(50)
56(127)
51(120)
10
8
2
(
1
8
6
2
)
72
(
6
1
)
87(159)
50(69)
74(151)
12
5
(
1
9
8
)
24
9
4
(
2
2
4
2
)
17
(
9
2
)
24
5
7
(
2
1
4
0
)
20
8
(
2
5
8
)
46 (114)
420(439)
718(597)
17 (38)
422(403)
69(142)
13
3
(
2
5
4
)
10
3
2
(
1
5
2
7
)
46
5
(
6
6
8
)
10
8
(
1
8
1
)
30
2
2
(
2
6
4
9
)
0
(
4
)
0 (3)
7 (1)
5 (4)
178(204)
0 (0)
348(216)
26
0
(
4
8
1
)
12
9
2
(
1
2
1
8
)
0
(
1
)
28
(
2
1
)
33
3
5
(
2
8
9
2
)
49
(
5
9
)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (4)
15(23)
1 (0)
50(37)
24
0
(
2
9
2
)
14
7
8
(
2
6
3
8
)
1
(
4
)
56
6
(
4
4
8
)
15
7
8
(
1
6
0
2
)
69
3
(
4
8
0
)
389(641)
372(284)31
6
(
2
1
8
)
98
6
(
1
5
5
6
)
35
(
9
0
)
24
1
(
1
6
9
)
28
1
5
(
2
2
8
5
)
149(396)
158(498)28
8
(
5
8
3
)
10
9
7
(
2
0
1
8
)
209(248)
1653(1349)
351(260)
10 (49)
451(923)
31(101)
17
5
(
7
5
)
50
6
(
5
2
2
)
12
7
(
5
6
)
36
8
(
4
3
2
)
30
6
(
1
4
2
)
26
5
7
(
2
7
8
7
)
41
6
(
5
7
2
)
268(242)
517(505)
234(368)
57(273)
180(515)
140(468)
54
8
(
4
7
5
)
17
9
3
(
2
2
8
7
)
10
7
(
5
1
9
)
29
1
7
(
3
2
7
9
)
26
8
(
4
4
1
)
165(178)
233(196)
21
1
5
(
2
5
8
1
)
20
4
(
2
6
7
)
215(313)
1402(965)
475(576)
537(730)
1092(1490)
159(512)
47
3
(
2
4
3
)
20
0
0
(
2
5
2
1
)
91
8
(
8
8
9
)
46
5
(
4
7
0
)
11
3
4
(
1
4
7
6
)
15
8
(
3
0
9
)
677(461)
1460(1018)
376(325)
100(39)
900(1311)
24(17)45
(
3
0
)
18
6
(
1
8
1
)
46
0
(
7
2
5
)
58
(
8
4
)
10
6
(
1
2
8
)
27
5
(
4
7
5
)
Alma
10
Lytton
Alm
a
16
(
1
9
)
32
4
(
3
4
8
)
22
5
(
3
1
5
)
142(257)
44 (11)
230(370)
6 (5)
5 (16)
7 (3)27
(
1
6
)
42
0
(
7
4
4
)
30
5
(
3
8
8
)
32
3
(
2
6
8
)
22
3
9
(
2
0
0
9
)
71
(
8
2
)
26 (26)
254(216)
95 (135)
286(520)
287(234)
127(224)
16
9
(
2
2
3
)
83
0
(
1
6
3
8
)
57
(
9
9
)
24 (16)
11 (4)
12 (4)
72 (145)
9 (26)
97 (315)
22
8
(
3
2
4
)
17
1
3
(
2
6
9
0
)
14
(
2
7
)
25
0
(
1
4
7
)
31
6
1
(
3
0
9
4
)
66
(
3
8
)
5 (15)
18 (10)
15 (28)
206(196)
19 (23)
208(202)
20
6
(
3
5
4
)
16
7
3
(
2
6
3
2
)
28
(
8
1
)
37
0
(
2
4
8
)
29
8
1
(
3
1
6
4
)
42
(
5
3
)
62 (90)
84 (49)
63 (135)
36(144)
47 (70)
65(143)
18
8
(
1
8
4
)
17
6
9
(
2
5
1
9
)
11
9
(
1
8
0
)
35
0
(
1
7
4
)
27
9
0
(
3
0
5
5
)
18
4
(
1
4
8
)
30
(
4
6
)
29
2
2
(
2
7
0
2
)
40
(
8
7
)
7 (33)
4 (34)
4 (65)
56 (56)
8 (8)
55 (23)
67
(
1
3
3
)
15
0
9
(
2
2
0
3
)
33
(
1
1
)
621(777)
170(161)
1070(661)
35 (87)
499(513)
179(205)37
(
6
8
)
52
8
(
4
5
9
)
37
4
(
5
6
2
)
55
(
7
0
)
36
6
(
5
4
9
)
54
9
(
1
4
0
4
)
657(451)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SSC + SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC AND SUMC
Figure 3-17b
Embarcadero
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
21
Churchill
Al
m
a
22
Page Mill
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
23
Stanford
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
24
Campus Dr E
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
25
Campus Dr W
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
26
Alpine
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
27
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
28
Sh
a
r
o
n
P
a
r
k
29
Sand Hill
Oa
k
31
Sand Hill
St
o
c
k
F
a
r
m
32
Sand Hill
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
33
Sand Hill
Sand Hill
Ab
o
r
e
t
u
m
34
Quarry
Ar
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
35
Palm
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
36
Foothill
10
1
(
4
2
)
44
5
(
3
8
9
)
19
7
(
1
0
8
)
65(184)
890(992)
59(123)
60(81)
757(900)
68(93)20
1
(
7
9
)
22
1
(
3
4
6
)
61
(
4
8
)
21
9
(
1
9
0
)
10
1
7
(
1
4
6
6
)
0
(
7
)
3 (8)
83(125)
99(109)
76(118)
78(98)
137(313)
34
7
(
3
1
8
)
16
4
9
(
9
4
5
)
19
(
5
2
)
18
9
(
6
6
2
)
56
5
(
1
1
9
0
)
27
1
(
2
0
9
)
97(137)
714(1875)
357(265)
462(296)
1901(1223)
408(170)
35
5
(
1
1
6
5
)
17
4
8
(
1
1
0
8
)
47
1
(
3
9
7
)
23
(
1
2
)
79
0
(
8
0
4
)
44
6
(
3
0
2
)
48(480)
14 (5)
80(365)
6 (30)
3 (22)
4 (22)23
(
9
)
46
4
(
9
1
6
)
58
4
(
2
5
1
)
981(1554)
1266(706)
15
2
(
7
4
9
)
56
5
(
8
1
8
)
1163(1163)
708(156)
38
9
(
3
7
5
)
2
(
2
)
35
5
(
3
9
5
)
247(440)
1504(2277)
66 (3)
230(193)
2160(1328)
44 (5)1
(
3
3
)
1
(
2
)
4
(
2
9
)
17
0
(
1
2
8
)
82
(
3
8
)
2622(1315)
51(127)
1060(2578)
17
(
1
0
)
5
(
5
)
11
(
1
1
)
7 (6)
550(1639)
211(66)
52 (41)
2022(1242)
361(69)82
(
2
5
9
)
1
(
9
)
62
(
1
5
6
)
4
(
5
)
7
(
1
0
)
4
(
4
)
6 (21)
579(828)
112(132)
14 (3)
732(746)
620(461)
28
0
(
5
1
1
)
7
(
4
)
47
(
1
5
1
)
59
(
7
8
)
33
3
(
3
7
8
)
13
6
(
1
2
9
)
64 (135)
462(332)
19 (110)
36(129)
207(566)
281(593)
53
2
(
2
7
8
)
30
2
(
3
7
1
)
44
(
4
2
)
12
(
1
4
)
30
7
(
5
2
9
)
38
7
(
5
2
5
)
567(382)
474(379)
2 (4)
121(633)
6 (36)
Santa Cruz
Sand Hill Rd
Sa
n
d
H
i
l
l
C
i
r
University
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
20
97(98)
643(438)
106(59)
54(135)
348(796)
17(39)
20
1
(
1
5
1
)
73
9
(
6
3
6
)
22
6
(
1
9
6
)
56
(
7
6
)
33
0
(
5
0
7
)
92
(
2
2
2
)
83(122)
166(359)56
5
(
1
1
6
3
)
18
3
(
2
0
0
)
10
3
4
(
9
6
8
)
64
6
(
5
8
8
)
74(202)
18 (83)
75
6
(
1
2
4
8
)
23
3
(
2
2
0
)
88
2
(
9
7
4
)
12
8
(
9
0
)
46
(
2
5
0
)
0
(
0
)
22 (3)
813(2138)
0 (1)
0
(
0
)
25
0
(
5
5
)
13
1
(
3
5
)
79
3
(
2
9
0
)
68
(
1
0
9
)
160 (29)
1896(726)
18
(
1
1
)
7
(
1
0
)
23
(
1
2
)
13 (22)
666(1846)
105(62)
13 (24)
2144(1323)
641(102)52
(
4
7
5
)
0
(
6
)
21
(
1
0
2
)
Sand Hill
Sa
n
t
a
C
r
u
z
30
53
9
(
5
8
9
)
10
7
4
(
1
1
0
5
)
47
5
(
2
5
6
)
71 (279)
819(1694)
313(464)
462(577)
1770(1152)
417(292)
26
8
(
4
1
0
)
10
1
1
(
1
2
2
2
)
67
5
(
4
3
9
)
71
(
3
8
)
31
4
(
2
2
6
)
1
(
0
)
Lytton
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
19
16(27)
104(107)
9 (16)
234(440)
41(160)
103(128)
16
0
(
2
8
4
)
34
8
(
9
0
7
)
9
(
4
7
)
87
9
(
4
0
7
)
93
8
(
1
0
3
3
)
15
(
3
6
)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SSC + SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC AND SUMC
Charleston
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
40
Hamilton
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
41
Hamilton
Alm
a
42
Santa Cruz Av
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
r
43
Ringwood
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
45 47
Ba
y
R
d
48
Willow Rd
Ba
y
(
V
a
n
V
u
r
e
n
)
51
Network Cir
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
52
University Av
Ba
y
f
r
o
n
t
E
x
p
w
y
53
Marsh Rd
14
6
(
1
5
5
)
63
2
(
7
7
4
)
33
3
(
1
7
6
)
140(194)
333(364)
106(119)
219(280)
786(454)
275(253)
14
5
(
2
1
8
)
53
0
(
7
3
3
)
37
(
4
7
)
18
0
(
1
4
6
)
82
9
(
6
3
7
)
13
(
2
9
)
49
(
8
0
)
37
7
(
4
1
0
)
11
(
5
1
)
11
(
2
3
)
65
8
(
8
0
3
)
69
(
1
2
2
)
6
(
3
)
10
0
7
(
8
3
2
)
18
7
(
1
6
4
)
32
(
8
)
12
8
1
(
9
4
1
)
36
6
(
6
0
9
)
578(322)
51 (4)
173(39)
26 (48)
72 (81)
26 (50)57
(
8
)
64
6
(
1
1
0
5
)
15
2
(
1
1
9
)
5
(
5
)
46
(
1
6
)
13
6
(
8
5
)
38 (70)
1362(1144)
471(263)
1 (3)
869(1105)
70 (107)11
1
(
7
7
)
8
(
1
4
)
26
4
(
2
4
8
)
12
4
(
1
0
8
)
47
9
(
3
5
5
)
75 (67)
1360(1859)
576(264)
1765(1594)
20
7
(
8
4
)
14
9
1
(
3
9
8
1
)
186(85)
533(2138)
22
0
4
(
8
0
0
)
42
8
6
(
1
1
4
0
)
Charleston
Alm
a
39
103(189)
308(586)
69(83)
164(130)
744(550)
198(344)
69
(
7
1
)
66
7
(
1
3
0
3
)
10
9
(
7
6
)
36
8
(
2
1
5
)
12
8
5
(
1
1
7
5
)
22
(
6
2
)
690(780)
113(171)
708(671)
665(676)
36
4
(
5
8
6
)
12
9
(
1
5
3
)
29
7
(
2
3
1
)
10
7
3
(
2
5
8
2
)
99
(
1
0
)
25(112)
17(292)
9 (189)
147(84)
453(84)
691(1936)
15
1
4
(
5
1
1
)
25
3
3
(
1
1
5
0
)
24
(
4
)
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
f
f
49
86
1
(
6
7
5
)
11
0
2
(
1
7
8
9
)
213 (382)
1601(1230)
1097(1486)
745(1033)
Oak Grove Rd
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
44
10
6
(
1
5
2
)
23
4
8
(
1
9
9
7
)
12
6
(
1
1
0
)
57(80)
273(220)
143(129)
63(159)
196(233)
64(145)
16
0
(
1
3
3
)
95
7
(
1
8
6
6
)
71
(
1
2
4
)
Ravenswood
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
46
28
1
(
2
2
6
)
11
3
5
(
8
8
7
)
180(446)
777(905)
78
2
(
1
1
2
3
)
48
0
(
7
9
1
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Encinal
89
(
7
6
)
27
8
8
(
2
2
6
2
)
19
7
(
9
9
)
245(286)
27 (33)
102(117)
17 (40)
26 (12)
1 (40)26
(
5
3
)
11
0
6
(
2
0
5
4
)
66
(
6
6
)
US
1
0
1
S
B
O
n
Marsh Rd
US
1
0
1
N
B
O
f
f
50
81
8
(
8
0
2
)
38
6
(
1
3
6
)
2201(1324)
974(823)
1371(2621)
814(608)
U
S
1
0
1
N
B
O
n
Willow Rd
Figure 3-17c
Embarcadero
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
37
27
(
4
1
)
28
4
(
4
4
1
)
353(796)
383(350)
568(410)
Galvez
Charleston
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
38
44
9
(
3
5
0
)
17
8
1
(
2
8
0
8
)
21
6
(
1
9
5
)
147(271)
567(567)
113(187)
233(261)
451(669)
198(553)
40
1
(
4
1
1
)
16
2
7
(
1
4
3
7
)
94
(
2
3
6
)
Arastradero
University Av
Ba
y
R
d
54
University Av
Do
n
o
h
o
e
S
t
55
11
2
(
1
5
9
)
25
8
(
3
7
6
)
62
(
1
2
0
)
68(74)
1536(852)
133(200)
172(124)
733(2031)
134(119)
13
3
(
2
4
9
)
30
0
(
3
2
7
)
13
4
(
5
6
9
)
57
4
(
2
4
7
)
13
9
(
1
7
9
)
24
(
8
4
)
97(129)
1222(892)
33(125)
189(259)
432(1034)
320(672)
54
9
(
4
0
7
)
59
9
(
5
6
8
)
38
0
(
1
0
8
3
)
58(120)
78(345)
21 (47)
21 (31)
287(176)
38 (9)
159(232)
8 (8)
97(283)
STANFORD EIR2025 Volumes with SSC + SUMC rev2.cdr
AM (PM) Peak Hour
2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SSC AND SUMC
Figure 3-17d
Quarry
We
l
c
h
R
d
56
Sand Hill Rd
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
57
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
E
)
Welch Rd
58
Pa
s
t
e
u
r
D
r
(
W
)
Welch Rd
59
Welch Rd
60
Stanford Av
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
S
t
61
214(136)
225(265)73
(
3
3
2
)
10
6
(
2
1
3
)
323(120)
388(182)
40
(
1
1
)
34
8
(
7
5
)
18
9
(
7
4
)
180(293)
107(54)
232(258)
73(26)
39(160)
246(285)
8 (35)
415(330)
34
(
6
9
)
90
(
2
2
9
)
79
(
1
2
4
)
50
(
6
5
)
13
(
4
)
24
0
(
7
7
2
)
482(188)
213(194)
9 (6)
63 (51)
122(298)
6 (2)2
(
5
)
5
(
2
4
)
1
(
1
5
)
17
(
1
3
)
5
(
4
)
51
(
1
6
)
8 (20)
838(1478)
97 (50)
30 (24)
1554(1332)
309 (65)46
(
2
2
6
)
1
(
8
)
36
(
1
3
0
)
Du
r
a
n
d
W
y
53
(
1
9
)
18
5
(
4
4
)
17
4
(
5
5
)
35(158)
238(372)
61(42)
15 (51)
420(406)
66 (19)19
(
5
5
)
41
(
1
5
4
)
44
(
1
0
2
)
62
73 (473)
1248(1744)
415 (567)
875 (669)
37
8
(
3
5
3
)
0
(
0
)
10
9
8
(
7
4
2
)
Alpine Rd
I-
2
8
0
N
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
I-
2
8
0
S
B
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Alpine Rd
63
57
4
(
3
9
9
)
42
7
(
1
0
2
)
537(1118)
1089(979)
863 (1134)
212 (406)
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-88 January 13, 2009
Table 3-11
SUMC Cumulative Impact
2025 New Base A (AM)SUMC with approved SSC (AM)Compare 2025 New Base A (PM)SUMC with approved SSC (PM)Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso E 73.9 1.093 94.4 E-79.5 1.116 102.9 8.5 0.023 Y F 93.4 1.188 140.6 F 95.9 1.198 144.8 4.2 0.01 Y
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B 13.3 0.785 14.8 B 14.2 0.811 16 1.2 0.026 N C+ 21.6 0.828 24.5 C+21.9 0.837 24.8 0.3 0.009 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood F 102 1.179 128.9 F 110.9 1.213 142.7 13.8 0.034 Y F 102.2 1.204 146.8 F 105.1 1.213 150.5 3.7 0.009 N
#4 ECR/Roble B+ 10.4 0.663 10.7 B+10.4 0.685 10.8 0.1 0.022 N B 12.9 0.66 13.8 B 12.8 0.668 13.8 0 0.008 N
#5 ECR/Middle C- 33.2 0.956 42 D+36.1 0.98 46.1 4.1 0.024 N D- 53.5 0.972 50.6 E+55.3 0.982 52.5 1.9 0.01 Y
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 17.4 0.815 20.8 B-18.1 0.838 21.9 1.1 0.023 N B 16.2 0.767 22.7 B 16.2 0.775 22.9 0.2 0.008 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill - Alma C 31 0.737 40.5 C-33.3 0.747 41 0.5 0.01 N D+ 37.6 0.773 46.7 D 39.6 0.802 48.1 1.4 0.029 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B 12.3 0.686 14.1 B 15 0.735 17.6 3.5 0.049 N C 25 0.755 34.5 C 27.7 0.799 37.3 2.8 0.044 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B- 18.3 0.583 19 B-19.1 0.623 20.2 1.2 0.04 N C- 32.7 0.926 42.1 D+36.5 0.958 48.5 6.4 0.032 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int)D 48.5 0.995 62.7 E 65 1.063 81 18.3 0.068 Y F 83.8 1.042 93.9 F 114.7 1.125 127.1 33.2 0.083 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez F 106.2 1.159 143 F 112.3 1.184 152.9 9.9 0.025 Y F 142.8 1.247 164.3 F 150.4 1.265 171.5 7.2 0.018 Y
#12 ECR/Churchill C 27 0.784 37.5 C 27.4 0.808 38.2 0.7 0.024 N C- 34.8 0.975 56.3 D+36.3 0.987 59.1 2.8 0.012 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B- 18.5 0.853 21.6 B-18.5 0.859 21.9 0.3 0.006 N D+ 37.6 0.998 53.6 D 39.7 1.014 57.3 3.7 0.016 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 21.6 0.821 24.8 C+21.6 0.828 25.1 0.3 0.007 N C 28.2 0.928 38.6 C 29.3 0.944 40.3 1.7 0.016 N
#15 ECR/California C 24.7 0.837 26.4 C 24.8 0.843 26.7 0.3 0.006 N D+ 35.9 0.922 40.1 D+37.3 0.939 42.5 2.4 0.017 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 129.2 1.22 157.3 F 135.4 1.247 168.4 11.1 0.027 Y F 172.7 1.288 184.1 F 178.6 1.309 193.2 9.1 0.021 Y
#17 Woodland/University D 48.4 0.901 55.5 D 49.4 0.901 55.5 0 0 N F 111.9 1.238 160.6 F 115.7 1.253 166.6 6 0.015 Y
#18 Middlefield/Willow F 84 1.098 106 F 92.3 1.13 117.8 11.8 0.032 Y F 141.3 1.293 191.9 F 156 1.337 211.2 19.3 0.044 Y
#19 Middlefield/Lytton F 143.1 1.043 145.7 F 158.6 1.074 161.7 16 0.031 Y F 184.3 1.295 205.8 F 192.5 1.316 215.6 9.8 0.021 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 31.5 0.715 30.8 C 31.8 0.725 31.1 0.3 0.01 N E 64.7 1.041 77.3 E 68 1.056 81.9 4.6 0.015 Y
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D 42 0.684 42.9 D 42 0.697 43.1 0.2 0.013 N D 39.9 0.706 41.8 D 39.9 0.711 41.8 0 0.005 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C 27.1 0.794 35.6 C 27.9 0.8 36.9 1.3 0.006 N D-53 1.033 72 E+55.3 1.043 75.5 3.5 0.01 Y
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road F 192.1 1.475 284.9 F 193.7 1.482 287.9 3 0.007 N F 252.8 1.681 385.3 F 256.8 1.697 392.1 6.8 0.016 Y
#24 Junipero/Stanford B- 19.1 0.845 29.1 C+22 0.875 34.4 5.3 0.03 N C 30.9 0.964 46.3 C-33.8 0.975 48.9 2.6 0.011 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 16.1 0.685 23.9 B 17.9 0.715 27 3.1 0.03 N C 25.5 0.796 31.7 C 28.9 0.829 25.1 -6.6 0.033 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West D- 51.3 0.736 65.6 E+57.5 0.778 78.1 12.5 0.042 Y F 140.5 1.162 187.7 F 146.6 1.172 192.7 5 0.01 Y
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz F 123.3 1.254 153.8 F 128.2 1.267 159.4 5.6 0.013 Y F 161.4 1.298 172.6 F 167.4 1.314 179.4 6.8 0.016 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*F 108.2 1.068 87 F 114.1 1.091 91.4 4.4 0.023 Y D-54 0.992 65.2 E+58.6 1.014 71.4 6.2 0.022 Y
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C- 34.4 0.898 34.6 D+35.6 0.919 36.8 2.2 0.021 N D 40.8 0.986 51.6 D 43.7 1.005 56.3 4.7 0.019 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill F 84.2 1.243 152 F 94.6 1.296 174.3 22.3 0.053 Y F 91 1.146 122.9 F 96.9 1.167 131 8.1 0.021 Y
#31 Oak/Sand Hill B+ 10.5 0.825 12.3 B+11.3 0.857 13.5 1.2 0.032 N A 8.7 0.844 11 A 9.7 0.876 12.4 1.4 0.032 N
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 17.7 0.71 20.2 B-18.4 0.735 21.3 1.1 0.025 N C 26.2 0.729 29.7 C 28.7 0.764 33.5 3.8 0.035 N
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-89 January 13, 2009
2025 New Base A (AM)SUMC with approved SSC (AM)Compare 2025 New Base A (PM)SUMC with approved SSC (PM)Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill D 48.4 0.785 63.1 E 60.9 0.838 81.3 18.2 0.053 Y C+ 22.2 0.654 25.1 C 23.9 0.68 25.3 0.2 0.026 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill C+ 20.8 0.57 24.2 C+22.8 0.64 27.3 3.1 0.07 N D+ 36.1 0.731 49.3 D 41.7 0.758 57.9 8.6 0.027 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C- 32.3 0.584 33.1 C-33.8 0.651 35.1 2 0.067 N C- 32.8 0.731 38.2 C-34 0.777 41.4 3.2 0.046 N
#36 Arboretum/Palm C 23.1 0.828 28 C 26.3 0.878 33.4 5.4 0.05 N C+ 21.4 0.75 23.4 C+22.5 0.772 24.6 1.2 0.022 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 32.2 0.7 32.2 E 36.6 0.74 36.6 4.4 0.04 Y F 136.6 1.18 136.6 F 165.4 1.25 165.4 28.8 0.07 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D- 51.3 0.827 55 D-51.7 0.833 55.4 0.4 0.006 N F 97.2 1.146 125.3 F 99.2 1.153 128 2.7 0.007 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 48.3 0.908 50.9 D 49.4 0.92 52.5 1.6 0.012 N E+ 58.6 0.967 63.7 E 60.3 0.978 66.1 2.4 0.011 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 42.5 0.765 44 D 42.6 0.768 44.1 0.1 0.003 N D 43 0.761 46.4 D 43 0.763 46.5 0.1 0.002 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 15.7 0.505 16.6 B 16.8 0.529 17.8 1.2 0.024 N B 17.7 0.465 18.5 B-18.3 0.487 19.2 0.7 0.022 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+ 11.1 0.505 12.9 B 12.6 0.532 14.4 1.5 0.027 N C+ 21.7 0.624 22 C+22.2 0.633 22.3 0.3 0.009 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C 25.1 0.7 33.1 C 25.3 0.705 33.4 0.3 0.005 N D+ 38.8 0.88 49.9 D 39.2 0.885 50.6 0.7 0.005 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove D 44.8 0.961 50.1 D 49.3 0.988 56.9 6.8 0.027 N D+ 36.9 0.881 40.5 D+37.6 0.89 41.2 0.7 0.009 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C- 33.8 0.794 31.8 C-33.9 0.795 32 0.2 0.001 N D 39.1 0.933 51.8 D 39.3 0.935 52.1 0.3 0.002 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenwood F 210.5 1.452 252.8 F 216 1.469 259.1 6.3 0.017 Y F 258.3 1.65 333.5 F 264 1.665 340.2 6.7 0.015 Y
#47 ECR/Encinal C 31.1 0.939 35.9 C-34.8 0.961 41.7 5.8 0.022 N C 23.6 0.84 25.3 C 24 0.848 25.7 0.4 0.008 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 14.1 0.665 16 B 14.1 0.673 16.1 0.1 0.008 N B 13.3 0.59 14.7 B 13.3 0.599 14.7 0 0.009 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh C+ 21.9 0.889 25.1 C+22.1 0.891 25.2 0.1 0.002 N D 44 1.047 54.8 D 45.6 1.055 57.6 2.8 0.008 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 15.9 0.671 17.1 B 15.9 0.671 17.1 0 0 N D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6 D+35.8 1.021 43.6 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow C 23.1 0.84 30 C 23.6 0.858 31.1 1.1 0.018 N B- 18.8 0.717 23 B-19.3 0.757 18.7 -4.3 0.04 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow D+37 0.862 56.2 D+38 0.874 58.2 2 0.012 N F 140.4 1.295 178.3 F 144.4 1.306 183.3 5 0.011 Y
#53 Bayfront Expy/University D 46.8 1.074 91.5 D 48.1 1.081 94.1 2.6 0.007 N E 62.1 1.034 77.2 E 64.6 1.042 80.3 3.1 0.008 N
#54 Bay/University D 44.3 0.913 51.9 D 44.6 0.917 52.4 0.5 0.004 N F 145.3 1.35 207 F 146.4 1.354 208.7 1.7 0.004 N
#55 Donohoe/University E- 79.4 1.059 90.9 F 80.5 1.063 92.3 1.4 0.004 N E+ 55.2 1.007 72.2 E+55.3 1.007 72.2 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry B- 19.7 0.426 21.7 C+20.4 0.508 23.5 1.8 0.082 N C+ 20.5 0.467 22.3 C+22.9 0.539 27.8 5.5 0.072 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill B 12.5 0.649 11.8 B 13.7 0.683 13.6 1.8 0.034 N B 17 0.602 16.7 B 17.7 0.622 17.4 0.7 0.02 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 7.2 0.305 8.6 A 7.3 0.335 8.9 0.3 0.03 N A 9 0.323 10.6 A 9.5 0.355 10.8 0.2 0.032 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.4 0.358 10 B+10.6 0.412 10.2 0.2 0.054 N A 6.6 0.216 7 A 6.8 0.246 7.3 0.3 0.03 N
#60 Durand/Welch C 29.6 0.666 33.7 C-33.4 0.705 39.7 6 0.039 N C 30.1 0.643 34.2 C-33.3 0.695 40.4 6.2 0.052 N
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave E 37.7 1.008 37.7 E 38.1 1.01 38.1 0.4 0.002 N C 22.1 0.837 22.1 C 22.4 0.842 22.4 0.3 0.005 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 383.8 2.395 383.8 F 394.4 2.448 394.4 10.6 0.053 Y F 481.6 2.826 481.6 F 492.7 2.866 492.7 11.1 0.04 Y
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 1062 3.2 1062 F 1076 3.24 1076 14 0.04 Y F 187.3 1.29 187.3 F 192.5 1.3 192.5 5.2 0.01 Y
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-90 January 13, 2009
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS changes from D in the base
scenario to E and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the project.
In addition, the City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants are met at this intersection.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 6.3 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.017. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignlized) - LOS remains at F. The
City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as well as with
project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
During the PM peak hour, 20 intersections would be impacted:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso (#1) - LOS remains at F. The average critical
delay increased by 4.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.01. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Middle Road (#5) - LOS changes from D in the base
scenario to E and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the
projects.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS remains at F. The average
critical delay increased by 33.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.083.
This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Embarcadero – Galvez (#11) - LOS remains at F. The
average critical delay increased by 7.2 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.018. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill Road - Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains
at F but the average critical delay increased by 9.1 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.021. This intersection is considered significantly affected by
the projects.
x Woodland / University Avenue (#17) - LOS remains at F. The average critical
delay increased by 6 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.015. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-91 January 13, 2009
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS remains at F with the project.
The average critical delay increased by 19.3 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.044. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield / Lytton (#19) - LOS remains at F but the average critical delay
increased by 9.8 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.021. This intersection
is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield / University Avenue (#20) - LOS remains at E but the average
critical delay increased by 4.6 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.015. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alma / Churchill Avenue (#22) - LOS changes from D in the base scenario to
E and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Page Mill Road (#23) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 6.8 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.016. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) - LOS remains at F but
the average critical delay increased by 5 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.01. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Santa Cruz (#27) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 6.8 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.016. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Sand Hill Road / I-280 (#28) - LOS remains at E but the average critical delay
increased by 6.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.022. This intersection
is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Santa Cruz / Sand Hill Road (#30) - LOS remains at F but the average critical
delay increased by 8.1 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.021. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of
Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
x Middlefield / Ravenswood (#46) - LOS remains at F but the average critical
delay increased by 6.7 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.015. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road (#52) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 5 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.011. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-92 January 13, 2009
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized)- LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
3.4.6 Cumulative Impact of SSC in 2025
No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100 percent + SSC at 100 percent build-out
compared with No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100 percent (Base B)
The traffic volumes for this scenario were previously shown in Figures 3-17a through
Figure 3-17d. The analysis results are shown in Table 3-12. As noted on Table 3-12, a
new base for comparison, Base B, is used. Base B represents the 2025 No Build
volumes plus full development of SUMC.
Only one intersection is adversely impacted by the project under this cumulative
scenario comparison in the AM peak:
x Santa Cruz / Sand Hill (#30) - LOS remains at LOS F but the critical average
delay increased by 4.6 seconds and V/C increased by 0.011. This is
considered significantly impacted by the projects.
There are eleven intersections that would be adversely impacted by the project during
the PM peak.
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso (#1) - LOS remains at F but the average critical
delay increased by 6.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.014. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Middle Road (#5) - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 15.5 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.038. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill - Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F
but the average critical delay increased by 5.4 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.012. This intersection is considered significantly affected by
the projects.
x Middlefield / Lytton (#19) - LOS remains at F but the average critical delay
increased by 4.4 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.012. This intersection
is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alma Street / Churchill Avenue (#22) - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly affected by the projects.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-93 January 13, 2009
Table 3-12
Cumulative SSC Analysis
2025 New Base B (AM)SSC with approved SUMC (AM)Compare 2025 New Base B (PM)SSC with approved SUMC (PM)Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso E- 78.9 1.114 101.9 E-79.5 1.116 102.9 1 0.002 N F 92.9 1.184 138.6 F 95.9 1.198 144.8 6.2 0.014 Y
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B 14.1 0.809 15.9 B 14.2 0.811 16 0.1 0.002 N C+ 21.7 0.828 24.5 C+21.9 0.837 24.8 0.3 0.009 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood F 109.9 1.209 141 F 110.9 1.213 142.7 1.7 0.004 N F 102.4 1.204 146.9 F 105.1 1.213 150.5 3.6 0.009 N
#4 ECR/Roble B+ 10.4 0.682 10.8 B+10.4 0.685 10.8 0 0.003 N B 12.9 0.66 13.8 B 12.8 0.668 13.8 0 0.008 N
#5 ECR/Middle D+ 35.2 0.975 45 D+36.1 0.98 46.1 1.1 0.005 N D- 51.8 0.961 47.9 E+55.3 0.982 52.5 4.6 0.021 Y
#6 ECR/Cambridge B-18 0.835 21.7 B-18.1 0.838 21.9 0.2 0.003 N B 16 0.763 22.6 B 16.2 0.775 22.9 0.3 0.012 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill - Alma C-33 0.745 40.9 C-33.3 0.747 41 0.1 0.002 N D+38 0.786 47.2 D 39.6 0.802 48.1 0.9 0.016 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B 14.7 0.729 17.3 B 15 0.735 17.6 0.3 0.006 N C 26.2 0.769 35.5 C 27.7 0.799 37.3 1.8 0.03 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B- 19.1 0.62 20.1 B-19.1 0.623 20.2 0.1 0.003 N D+ 35.1 0.947 46.2 D+36.5 0.958 48.5 2.3 0.011 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int)E 62.9 1.056 78.7 E 65 1.063 81 2.3 0.007 N F 100.3 1.087 111.6 F 114.7 1.125 127.1 15.5 0.038 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez F 111.5 1.181 151.7 F 112.3 1.184 152.9 1.2 0.003 N F 145 1.256 167.7 F 150.4 1.265 171.5 3.8 0.009 N
#12 ECR/Churchill C 27.4 0.804 38.1 C 27.4 0.808 38.2 0.1 0.004 N D+ 35.3 0.979 57.4 D+36.3 0.987 59.1 1.7 0.008 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B- 18.5 0.859 21.9 B-18.5 0.859 21.9 0 0 N D+39 1.008 55.9 D 39.7 1.014 57.3 1.4 0.006 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 21.6 0.826 25 C+21.6 0.828 25.1 0.1 0.002 N C 28.8 0.937 39.4 C 29.3 0.944 40.3 0.9 0.007 N
#15 ECR/California C 24.8 0.842 26.7 C 24.8 0.843 26.7 0 0.001 N D+ 36.7 0.932 41.5 D+37.3 0.939 42.5 1 0.007 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 134.5 1.243 166.9 F 135.4 1.247 168.4 1.5 0.004 N F 175.4 1.297 187.8 F 178.6 1.309 193.2 5.4 0.012 Y
#17 Woodland/University D 49.4 0.901 55.5 D 49.4 0.901 55.5 0 0 N F 115.3 1.251 166 F 115.7 1.253 166.6 0.6 0.002 N
#18 Middlefield/Willow F 91.9 1.128 117.1 F 92.3 1.13 117.8 0.7 0.002 N F 153 1.328 207.4 F 156 1.337 211.2 3.8 0.009 N
#19 Middlefield/Lytton F 157.9 1.07 160.9 F 158.6 1.074 161.7 0.8 0.004 N F 188.6 1.304 211.2 F 192.5 1.316 215.6 4.4 0.012 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 31.8 0.723 31 C 31.8 0.725 31.1 0.1 0.002 N E 65.8 1.046 78.9 E 68 1.056 81.9 3 0.01 N
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D 42 0.696 43.1 D 42 0.697 43.1 0 0.001 N D 39.9 0.707 41.8 D 39.9 0.711 41.8 0 0.004 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C 27.8 0.8 36.8 C 27.9 0.8 36.9 0.1 0 N D- 54.6 1.04 74.4 E+55.3 1.043 75.5 1.1 0.003 Y
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road F 193.4 1.481 287.3 F 193.7 1.482 287.9 0.6 0.001 N F 255.2 1.691 389.4 F 256.8 1.697 392.1 2.7 0.006 N
#24 Junipero/Stanford C+ 21.7 0.873 34 C+22 0.875 34.4 0.4 0.002 N C- 32.6 0.967 47 C-33.8 0.975 48.9 1.9 0.008 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 17.8 0.713 26.8 B 17.9 0.715 27 0.2 0.002 N C 27.6 0.822 23.8 C 28.9 0.829 25.1 1.3 0.007 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West E+56 0.771 75.5 E+57.5 0.778 78.1 2.6 0.007 N F 131.1 1.127 169.9 F 146.6 1.172 192.7 22.8 0.045 Y
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz F 125.9 1.261 156.8 F 128.2 1.267 159.4 2.6 0.006 N F 156 1.287 167.7 F 167.4 1.314 179.4 11.7 0.027 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*F 113 1.087 90.6 F 114.1 1.091 91.4 0.8 0.004 N E+ 56.3 1.001 67.8 E+58.6 1.014 71.4 3.6 0.013 N
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill D+ 35.3 0.916 36.4 D+35.6 0.919 36.8 0.4 0.003 N D 41.3 0.987 51.4 D 43.7 1.005 56.3 4.9 0.018 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill F 92.3 1.285 169.7 F 94.6 1.296 174.3 4.6 0.011 Y F 90 1.144 122.1 F 96.9 1.167 131 8.9 0.023 Y
#31 Oak/Sand Hill B+ 11.1 0.85 13.2 B+11.3 0.857 13.5 0.3 0.007 N A 8.9 0.851 11.3 A 9.7 0.876 12.4 1.1 0.025 N
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B- 18.2 0.727 20.9 B-18.4 0.735 21.3 0.4 0.008 N C 27.7 0.739 31.5 C 28.7 0.764 33.5 2 0.025 N
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-94 January 13, 2009
2025 New Base B (AM)SSC with approved SUMC (AM)Compare 2025 New Base B (PM)SSC with approved SUMC (PM)Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec)V/C (sec)
¨ Avg
Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill E+ 57.7 0.829 76.6 E 60.9 0.838 81.3 4.7 0.009 N C+ 22.2 0.653 22.2 C 23.9 0.68 25.3 3.1 0.027 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill C+ 22.2 0.625 26.4 C+22.8 0.64 27.3 0.9 0.015 N C- 33.2 0.708 43.4 D 41.7 0.758 57.9 14.5 0.05 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C- 33.7 0.643 34.9 C-33.8 0.651 35.1 0.2 0.008 N C-33 0.759 40 C-34 0.777 41.4 1.4 0.018 N
#36 Arboretum/Palm C 25.9 0.873 32.7 C 26.3 0.878 33.4 0.7 0.005 N C+ 21.7 0.75 23.3 C+22.5 0.772 24.6 1.3 0.022 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez E 36.6 0.74 36.6 E 36.6 0.74 36.6 0 0 N F 157.9 1.23 157.9 F 165.4 1.25 165.4 7.5 0.02 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D- 51.7 0.832 55.3 D-51.7 0.833 55.4 0.1 0.001 N F 98.5 1.15 126.9 F 99.2 1.153 128 1.1 0.003 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 49.3 0.919 52.3 D 49.4 0.92 52.5 0.2 0.001 N E+ 59.6 0.974 65.3 E 60.3 0.978 66.1 0.8 0.004 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 42.6 0.767 44.1 D 42.6 0.768 44.1 0 0.001 N D 43 0.761 46.4 D 43 0.763 46.5 0.1 0.002 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 16.8 0.528 17.8 B 16.8 0.529 17.8 0 0.001 N B- 18.2 0.484 19.1 B-18.3 0.487 19.2 0.1 0.003 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B 12.5 0.531 14.4 B 12.6 0.532 14.4 0 0.001 N C+22 0.628 22.1 C+22.2 0.633 22.3 0.2 0.005 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C 24.9 0.696 33 C 25.3 0.705 33.4 0.4 0.009 N D+ 36.4 0.843 45.8 D 39.2 0.885 50.6 4.8 0.042 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove D 48.9 0.985 56.2 D 49.3 0.988 56.9 0.7 0.003 N D+ 37.1 0.881 40.5 D+37.6 0.89 41.2 0.7 0.009 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C- 33.9 0.795 31.9 C-33.9 0.795 32 0.1 0 N D 39.1 0.933 51.8 D 39.3 0.935 52.1 0.3 0.002 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenswood F 214.5 1.464 257.3 F 216 1.469 259.1 1.8 0.005 N F 257.8 1.648 332.8 F 264 1.665 340.2 7.4 0.017 Y
#47 ECR/Encinal C- 34.8 0.96 41.6 C-34.8 0.961 41.7 0.1 0.001 N C 24 0.847 25.7 C 24 0.848 25.7 0 0.001 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 14.1 0.673 16.1 B 14.1 0.673 16.1 0 0 N B 13.2 0.597 14.7 B 13.3 0.599 14.7 0 0.002 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh C+ 22.1 0.891 25.2 C+22.1 0.891 25.2 0 0 N D 45.2 1.053 57 D 45.6 1.055 57.6 0.6 0.002 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 15.9 0.671 17.1 B 15.9 0.671 17.1 0 0 N D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6 D+35.8 1.021 43.6 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow C 23.5 0.857 31 C 23.6 0.858 31.1 0.1 0.001 N B- 19.3 0.754 18.7 B-19.3 0.757 18.7 0 0.003 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow D+38 0.874 58.1 D+38 0.874 58.2 0.1 0 N F 144 1.305 182.8 F 144.4 1.306 183.3 0.5 0.001 N
#53 Bayfront Expy/University D 48 1.081 94 D 48.1 1.081 94.1 0.1 0 N E 64.3 1.041 79.9 E 64.6 1.042 80.3 0.4 0.001 N
#54 Bay/University D 44.6 0.917 52.3 D 44.6 0.917 52.4 0.1 0 N F 146.3 1.353 208.5 F 146.4 1.354 208.7 0.2 0.001 N
#55 Donohoe/University F 80.4 1.063 92.2 F 80.5 1.063 92.3 0.1 0 N E+ 55.2 1.007 72.2 E+55.3 1.007 72.2 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry C+ 20.5 0.508 23.5 C+20.4 0.508 23.5 0 0 N C+ 22.8 0.539 27.8 C+22.9 0.539 27.8 0 0 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill B 13.7 0.674 13.5 B 13.7 0.683 13.6 0.1 0.009 N B 17.8 0.597 17.3 B 17.7 0.622 17.4 0.1 0.025 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 7.3 0.335 8.9 A 7.3 0.335 8.9 0 0 N A 9.5 0.355 10.8 A 9.5 0.355 10.8 0 0 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.6 0.412 10.2 B+10.6 0.412 10.2 0 0 N A 6.8 0.246 7.3 A 6.8 0.246 7.3 0 0 N
#60 Durand/Welch C- 33.4 0.705 39.7 C-33.4 0.705 39.7 0 0 N C- 33.3 0.695 40.4 C-33.3 0.695 40.4 0 0 N
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave E 38.1 1.01 38.1 E 38.1 1.01 38.1 0 0 N C 22 0.836 22 C 22.4 0.842 22.4 0.4 0.006 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 393.5 2.444 393.5 F 394.4 2.448 394.4 0.9 0.004 N F 489.7 2.855 489.7 F 492.7 2.866 492.7 3 0.011 N
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road F 1073 3.23 1073 F 1076 3.24 1076 3 0.01 N F 189.5 1.3 189.5 F 192.5 1.3 192.5 3 0 N
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-95 January 13, 2009
x Junipero Serra Boulevard /Campus Drive West (#26) - LOS remains at F but
the average critical delay increased by 22.8 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.045. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the
projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Santa Cruz-Alpine (#27) - LOS remains at F but
the average critical delay increased by 11.7 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.027. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the
projects.
x Santa Cruz / Sand Hill Road (#30) - LOS remains at F but the average critical
delay increased by 8.9 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.023. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of
Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
x Middlefield / Ravenswood (#46) - LOS remains at F but the average critical
delay increased by 7.4 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.017. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
3.4.7 2025 with SSC and SUMC – Cumulative of SSC + SUMC
No Build 2025 traffic volumes + SUMC at 100 percent + SSC at 100 percent build-out
compared with No Build 2025 traffic volumes
This is the worst-case scenario as both SSC and SUMC are at full build-out. While
lesser trips would be generated for the SSC during the AM peak hour due to the land
use, the PM peak hour results in this scenario having the highest number of trips
generated. 16 and 21 intersections would be adversely affected during the AM and PM
peak hour respectively. The traffic volumes for this scenario were previously shown in
Figures 3-17a through 3-17b. The analysis results are shown in Table 3-13.
During the AM peak hour, the affected intersections as shown in Table 3-13 are:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso Avenue (#1) - LOS remains at E but the average
critical delay increased by 9.2 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.025. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Ravenswood Avenue (#3) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 15.7 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.038. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS changes from LOS D to LOS
E and is therefore considered significantly impacted.
x El Camino Real / Embarcadero-Galvez (#11) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 11.1 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.028. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-96 January 13, 2009
Table 3-13
2025 with SSC and SUMC – Cumulative of SSC + SUMC
2025AM 2025AM+SSC+SUMC Compare 2025PM 2025PM+SSC+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#1 ECR/Valparaiso E 73.5 1.091 93.7 E-79.5 1.116 102.9 9.2 0.025 Y F 90.4 1.174 134.5 F 95.9 1.198 144.8 10.3 0.024 Y
#2 ECR/Santa Cruz B 13.3 0.782 14.6 B 14.2 0.811 16 1.4 0.029 N C+ 21.5 0.819 24.2 C+ 21.9 0.837 24.8 0.6 0.018 N
#3 ECR/Ravenswood F 101 1.175 127 F 110.9 1.213 142.7 15.7 0.038 Y F 99.7 1.194 143.1 F 105.1 1.213 150.5 7.4 0.019 Y
#4 ECR/Roble B+ 10.4 0.66 10.7 B+ 10.4 0.685 10.8 0.1 0.025 N B 13 0.652 13.8 B 12.8 0.668 13.8 0 0.016 N
#5 ECR/Middle C- 32.6 0.951 41.2 D+ 36.1 0.98 46.1 4.9 0.029 N D 50.4 0.951 46.4 E+55.3 0.982 52.5 6.1 0.031 Y
#6 ECR/Cambridge B 17.3 0.812 20.7 B- 18.1 0.838 21.9 1.2 0.026 N B 16.1 0.756 22.5 B 16.2 0.775 22.9 0.4 0.019 N
#7 ECR/Sand Hill - Alma C 30.8 0.735 40.4 C- 33.3 0.747 41 0.6 0.012 N D+ 35.9 0.758 45.9 D 39.6 0.802 48.1 2.2 0.044 N
#8 ECR/Quarry Rd B 12 0.68 13.7 B 15 0.735 17.6 3.9 0.055 N C 23.7 0.725 32.8 C 27.7 0.799 37.3 4.5 0.074 N
#9 Alma/Lytton B- 18.3 0.58 19 B- 19.1 0.623 20.2 1.2 0.043 N C 31.8 0.917 40.5 D+ 36.5 0.958 48.5 8 0.041 N
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single
Int)D 51 0.997 63.5 E 65 1.063 81 17.5 0.066 Y E 73.6 1.011 89.6 F 114.7 1.125 127.1 37.5 0.114 Y
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez F 105.4 1.156 141.8 F 112.3 1.184 152.9 11.1 0.028 Y F 137.5 1.238 160.6 F 150.4 1.265 171.5 10.9 0.027 Y
#12 ECR/Churchill C 26.9 0.783 21.5 C 27.4 0.808 38.2 16.7 0.025 N C- 33.9 0.966 54.6 D+ 36.3 0.987 59.1 4.5 0.021 N
#13 ECR/Serra-Park B- 18.5 0.853 21.5 B- 18.5 0.859 21.9 0.4 0.006 N D+ 36.7 0.992 52.1 D 39.7 1.014 57.3 5.2 0.022 N
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave C+ 21.6 0.82 24.8 C+ 21.6 0.828 25.1 0.3 0.008 N C 27.8 0.921 37.9 C 29.3 0.944 40.3 2.4 0.023 N
#15 ECR/California C 24.7 0.836 26.4 C 24.8 0.843 26.7 0.3 0.007 N D+ 35.4 0.916 39.3 D+ 37.3 0.939 42.5 3.2 0.023 N
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon F 128.4 1.217 156 F 135.4 1.247 168.4 12.4 0.03 Y F 169.4 1.276 178.7 F 178.6 1.309 193.2 14.5 0.033 Y
#17 Woodland/University D 48.3 0.901 55.5 D 49.4 0.901 55.5 0 0 N F 111.5 1.236 160 F 115.7 1.253 166.6 6.6 0.017 Y
#18 Middlefield/Willow F 83.3 1.096 105.1 F 92.3 1.13 117.8 12.7 0.034 Y F 138.5 1.285 188.4 F 156 1.337 211.2 22.8 0.052 Y
#19 Middlefield/Lytton F 142.4 1.041 145 F 158.6 1.074 161.7 16.7 0.033 Y F 180.6 1.284 201.6 F 192.5 1.316 215.6 14 0.032 Y
#20 Middlefield/University C 31.5 0.713 30.7 C 31.8 0.725 31.1 0.4 0.012 N E 62.5 1.031 74.3 E 68 1.056 81.9 7.6 0.025 Y
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero D 42 0.683 42.8 D 42 0.697 43.1 0.3 0.014 N D 39.9 0.702 41.7 D 39.9 0.711 41.8 0.1 0.009 N
#22 Alma/Churchill C 27 0.793 35.5 C 27.9 0.8 36.9 1.4 0.007 N D-52.2 1.029 70.6 E+55.3 1.043 75.5 4.9 0.014 Y
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill
Road F 191.8 1.474 284.4 F 193.7 1.482 287.9 3.5 0.008 N F 251 1.675 382.3 F 256.8 1.697 392.1 9.8 0.022 Y
#24 Junipero/Stanford B- 18.9 0.842 28.8 C+22 0.875 34.4 5.6 0.033 N C 29.8 0.956 44.6 C- 33.8 0.975 48.9 4.3 0.019 N
#25 Junipero/Campus East B 16 0.682 23.7 B 17.9 0.715 27 3.3 0.033 N C 24.5 0.789 30.5 C 28.9 0.829 25.1 -5.4 0.04 N
#26 Junipero/Campus West D 50 0.729 63.2 E+57.5 0.778 78.1 14.9 0.049 Y F 124.9 1.116 164.9 F 146.6 1.172 192.7 27.8 0.056 Y
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz F 120.9 1.247 151 F 128.2 1.267 159.4 8.4 0.02 Y F 150.2 1.272 161.3 F 167.4 1.314 179.4 18.1 0.042 Y
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*F 107.1 1.064 86.3 F 114.1 1.091 91.4 5.1 0.027 Y D-52 0.979 62.1 E+58.6 1.014 71.4 9.3 0.035 Y
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill C-34.1 0.895 34.3 D+35.6 0.919 36.8 2.5 0.024 N D+38.7 0.967 47.2 D 43.7 1.005 56.3 9.1 0.038 N
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill F 82 1.232 147.4 F 94.6 1.296 174.3 26.9 0.064 Y F 84.5 1.123 114.2 F 96.9 1.167 131 16.8 0.044 Y
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-97 January 13, 2009
2025AM 2025AM+SSC+SUMC Compare 2025PM 2025PM+SSC+SUMC Compare
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
¨ Avg Crit
Delay
¨ Crit
V/C Impact?
#31 Oak/Sand Hill B+ 10.3 0.817 12.1 B+ 11.3 0.857 13.5 1.4 0.04 N A 8.2 0.82 10.3 A 9.7 0.876 12.4 2.1 0.056 N
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill B 17.5 0.702 19.8 B- 18.4 0.735 21.3 1.5 0.033 N C 25.6 0.704 28.4 C 28.7 0.764 33.5 5.1 0.06 N
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill D 45.2 0.777 58.3 E 60.9 0.838 81.3 23 0.061 Y C+ 20.8 0.627 22.8 C 23.9 0.68 25.3 2.5 0.053 N
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill C+ 20.4 0.554 23.7 C+ 22.8 0.64 27.3 3.6 0.086 N C 29.9 0.681 38.1 D 41.7 0.758 57.9 19.8 0.077 N
#35 Arboretum/Quarry C-32 0.572 32.7 C- 33.8 0.651 35.1 2.4 0.079 N C 31.9 0.712 37 C-34 0.777 41.4 4.4 0.065 N
#36 Arboretum/Palm C+ 22.7 0.822 27.4 C 26.3 0.878 33.4 6 0.056 N C+ 20.9 0.723 21.9 C+ 22.5 0.772 24.6 2.7 0.049 N
#37 Arboretum/Galvez D 32 0.7 32 E 36.6 0.74 36.6 4.6 0.04 Y F 130.8 1.16 130.8 F 165.4 1.25 165.4 34.6 0.09 Y
#38 ECR/Charleston D- 51.3 0.826 55 D- 51.7 0.833 55.4 0.4 0.007 N F 96.5 1.143 124.2 F 99.2 1.153 128 3.8 0.01 N
#39 Alma/Charleston D 48.2 0.907 50.8 D 49.4 0.92 52.5 1.7 0.013 N E+ 57.9 0.963 62.9 E 60.3 0.978 66.1 3.2 0.015 N
#40 Middlefield/Charleston D 42.5 0.765 44 D 42.6 0.768 44.1 0.1 0.003 N D 42.9 0.759 46.3 D 43 0.763 46.5 0.2 0.004 N
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton B 15.7 0.504 16.5 B 16.8 0.529 17.8 1.3 0.025 N B 17.6 0.461 18.3 B- 18.3 0.487 19.2 0.9 0.026 N
#42 Alma/Hamilton B+11 0.503 12.8 B 12.6 0.532 14.4 1.6 0.029 N C+ 21.5 0.618 21.8 C+ 22.2 0.633 22.3 0.5 0.015 N
#43 University/Santa Cruz C 24.8 0.685 32 C 25.3 0.705 33.4 1.4 0.02 N D+ 36.1 0.837 45.3 D 39.2 0.885 50.6 5.3 0.048 N
#44 ECR/Oak Grove D 44.3 0.958 49.4 D 49.3 0.988 56.9 7.5 0.03 N D+ 36.5 0.872 39.9 D+ 37.6 0.89 41.2 1.3 0.018 N
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood C- 33.8 0.794 31.8 C- 33.9 0.795 32 0.2 0.001 N D+ 38.8 0.931 51.4 D 39.3 0.935 52.1 0.7 0.004 N
#46 Middlefield/Ravenwood F 209.4 1.449 251.6 F 216 1.469 259.1 7.5 0.02 Y F 252.6 1.634 326.6 F 264 1.665 340.2 13.6 0.031 Y
#47 ECR/Encinal C 31.1 0.938 35.9 C- 34.8 0.961 41.7 5.8 0.023 N C 23.5 0.839 25.3 C 24 0.848 25.7 0.4 0.009 N
#48 Bay/Marsh B 14.1 0.665 16 B 14.1 0.673 16.1 0.1 0.008 N B 13.2 0.588 14.6 B 13.3 0.599 14.7 0.1 0.011 N
#49 US 101SB/Marsh C+ 21.9 0.889 25.1 C+ 22.1 0.891 25.2 0.1 0.002 N D 43.6 1.045 54.2 D 45.6 1.055 57.6 3.4 0.01 N
#50 US 101NB/Marsh B 15.9 0.671 17.1 B 15.9 0.671 17.1 0 0 N D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6 D+ 35.8 1.021 43.6 0 0 N
#51 Bay/Willow C 23.1 0.839 29.9 C 23.6 0.858 31.1 1.2 0.019 N B- 18.8 0.714 23 B- 19.3 0.757 18.7 -4.3 0.043 N
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow D+37 0.862 56.1 D+38 0.874 58.2 2.1 0.012 N F 140.1 1.294 177.8 F 144.4 1.306 183.3 5.5 0.012 Y
#53 Bayfront Expy/University D 46.7 1.074 91.4 D 48.1 1.081 94.1 2.7 0.007 N E 61.9 1.034 76.8 E 64.6 1.042 80.3 3.5 0.008 N
#54 Bay/University D 44.3 0.913 51.9 D 44.6 0.917 52.4 0.5 0.004 N F 145.2 1.349 206.9 F 146.4 1.354 208.7 1.8 0.005 N
#55 Donohoe/University E- 79.3 1.059 90.8 F 80.5 1.063 92.3 1.5 0.004 N E+ 55.2 1.007 72.2 E+ 55.3 1.007 72.2 0 0 N
#56 Welch/Quarry B- 19.7 0.421 21.6 C+ 20.4 0.508 23.5 1.9 0.087 N C+ 20.3 0.466 22.1 C+ 22.9 0.539 27.8 5.7 0.073 N
#57 Durand/Sand Hill B 12.5 0.641 11.7 B 13.7 0.683 13.6 1.9 0.042 N B 17.1 0.577 16.7 B 17.7 0.622 17.4 0.7 0.045 N
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch A 7.1 0.305 8.6 A 7.3 0.335 8.9 0.3 0.03 N A 9 0.323 10.6 A 9.5 0.355 10.8 0.2 0.032 N
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch B+ 10.4 0.358 10 B+ 10.6 0.412 10.2 0.2 0.054 N A 6.6 0.216 7 A 6.8 0.246 7.3 0.3 0.03 N
#60 Durand/Welch C 29.6 0.665 33.6 C- 33.4 0.705 39.7 6.1 0.04 N C 30.0 0.642 34.1 C- 33.3 0.695 40.4 6.3 0.053 N
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave E 37.7 1.007 37.7 E 38.1 1.01 38.1 0.4 0.003 N C 21.7 0.831 21.7 C 22.4 0.842 22.4 0.7 0.011 N
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine
Road F 383.2 2.395 383.2 F 394.4 2.448 394.4 11.2 0.053 Y F 478.6 2.809 478.6 F 492.7 2.866 492.7 14.1 0.057 Y
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine
Road F 1061 3.2 1061 F 1076 3.24 1076 15 0.04 Y F 184.4 1.28 184.4 F 192.5 1.3 192.5 8.1 0.02 Y
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-98 January 13, 2009
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F but
the average critical delay increased by 12.4 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.03. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS remains at F with the project. The
average critical delay increased by 12.7 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.034. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 16.7 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.033. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) - LOS changes from
LOS D to LOS E and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the
projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) - LOS remains at
F but the average critical delay increased by 8.4 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.02. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the
projects.
x Sand Hill Circle – I-280 / Sand Hill Road (#28) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 5.1 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.027. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Sand Hill Road / Santa Cruz Avenue (#30) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 26.9 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.064. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Pasteur Drive / Sand Hill Road (#33) - LOS changes from LOS D to LOS E
and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the projects.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS changes from LOS D to LOS E
and is therefore considered significantly impacted by the project. In addition,
the City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants are met at this intersection.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 7.5 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.02. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-99 January 13, 2009
x Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
During the PM peak hour, the following intersections would be affected:
x El Camino Real / Valparaiso Avenue (#1) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 10.3 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.024.
This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Ravenswood Avenue (#3) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 7.4 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.019. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Middle Avenue (#5) - LOS changes from D to E and is
considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / University Avenue (#10) - LOS changes from E to F. The
average critical delay increased by 37.5 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.114. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Embarcadero-Galvez (#11) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 10.9 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.027. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x El Camino Real / Page Mill-Oregon Expressway (#16) - LOS remains at F but
the average critical delay increased by 14.5 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.033. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the
projects.
x Woodland Avenue / University Avenue (#17) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 6.6 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.017. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / Willow Road (#18) -LOS remains at F with the project.
The average critical delay increased by 22.8 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.052. This intersection is significantly affected by the project.
x Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue (#19) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 14 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.032. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Middlefield Road / University Avenue (#20) - LOS remains at E but the
average critical delay increased by 7.6 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.025. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alma Street / Churchill Avenue (#22) - LOS changes from D to E and is
therefore considered significantly impacted by the projects.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-100 January 13, 2009
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Page Mill Road (#23) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 9.8 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.022. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Campus Drive West (#26) - LOS remains at F but
the average critical delay increased by 27.8 seconds and the V/C increased
by 0.056. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the
projects.
x Junipero Serra Boulevard / Alpine-Santa Cruz Avenue (#27) - LOS remains
at F but the average critical delay increased by 18.1 seconds and the V/C
increased by 0.042. This intersection is considered significantly affected by
the projects.
x Sand Hill Circle – I-280 / Sand Hill Road (#28) - LOS changes from D to E
and is therefore considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Sand Hill Road / Santa Cruz Avenue (#30) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 16.8 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.044. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Arboretum / Galvez (#37) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F. The City of
Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at unsignalized
intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met, additional traffic
through the intersection would constitute a significant impact. Traffic signal
warrants are met at this intersection.
x Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue (#46) - LOS remains at F but the
average critical delay increased by 13.6 seconds and the V/C increased by
0.031. This intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Bayfront Expressway / Willow Road (#52) - LOS remains at F but the average
critical delay increased by 5.5 seconds and the V/C increased by 0.012. This
intersection is considered significantly affected by the projects.
x Alpine Road / I-280 NB Off-Ramp (#62) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
x Alpine Road / I-280 SB Off-Ramp (#63) (unsignalized) - LOS remains at F.
The City of Palo Alto has not adopted specific criteria for impacts at
unsignalized intersections. Therefore if traffic signal warrants are met,
additional traffic through the intersection would constitute a significant impact.
Traffic signal warrants at this intersection are met at baseline conditions as
well as with project.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-101 January 13, 2009
3.5 Project Impact Analysis Summary
A summary of project impacts for all the project scenarios is presented in Table 3-14. For the
different ‘bases’ used for comparison, intersections performing at LOS E or F are highlighted in
‘diamond’. Intersections exceeding the criteria thresholds and considered as adversely affected
by the project are highlighted by the different shapes. Squares are for the SSC, dots are for the
SUMC and triangles are for the combined effect of SSC and SUMC. Appendix F shows the
Traffix calculations for all intersections in 2015 and 2025.
Project impacts in 2015 are less than in 2025. First, the background traffic is lower in 2015 and
SUMC would only be equivalent to 60 percent build-out. In addition, impacts during the AM
peak are less than during the PM peak. Less employees and shoppers at the SSC would be
commuting during the AM peak whereas a larger number of SSC shoppers would be traveling
during the PM peak hour. This can be seen clearly from column B of Table 3-14 where no
intersections would be negatively impacted in 2015 during the AM peak. Six intersections would
be impacted during the PM peak due to the SSC project, of which three are in the City of Palo
Alto. Given that part of the study area is in the City of Menlo Park and some intersections are
under the jurisdiction of the County, the summary table presents the total number of
intersections that would be adversely impacted by the project and also notes the number of
intersections impacted in Palo Alto. A similar trend is seen for the SUMC. Four Palo Alto
intersections would be impacted during the AM peak hour in 2015 and five out of eight impacted
intersections are in Palo Alto. Under the effect of both the SSC and SUMC, five intersections
would be adversely affected in the AM peak hour by the project, with four of these intersections
being in Palo Alto. During the PM peak hour, 11 intersections would be affected of which seven
are in Palo Alto.
In 2025, there are different comparison scenarios dependent upon the completed parts of the
project in 2015. If SSC has been built in 2015, its generated trips would be part of the
background traffic (New Base A). The effect of SUMC in both the AM and PM peak hours are
presented in Columns M and T respectively. A total of 16 intersections would be affected in the
AM peak hour and 20 in the PM peak hour. The number of affected intersections in Palo Alto is
eight and ten respectively. On the other hand, if the SSC did not get built in 2015, the effect of
SUMC alone is presented in Columns J and Q for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. Of
the 16 impacted intersections in the AM peak hour, eight are in Palo Alto. Of the 18 impacted
intersections in the PM peak hour, nine are in Palo Alto. In order to determine the effect of the
SSC project in 2025, comparison is made with the scenario where SUMC is part of the
background as presented in Columns O and V. Similar to the trend in 2015, impact during the
AM peak hour is minimal with only one intersection in Menlo Park being affected. During the
evening peak, eleven intersections would be affected with three in Palo Alto.
3.6 Freeway Analysis
Based on the CMP requirements for freeways, Table 3-15 presents the number of project trips
on the different freeway segments within the study area. The number of project trips added
onto the freeway would determine if a freeway analysis is required. If the added project trips are
more than one percent of the freeway capacity for a freeway section currently operating at LOS
F, a freeway assessment would be necessary. The capacity for both US 101 and I-280 is 2,300
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-102 January 13, 2009
Table 3-14
Project Impact Summary
SUMC Project
Impact
SUMCCumulative
Impact
Cumulative SSC
Analysis
SUMC Project
Impact
SUMCCumulative
Impact
Cumulative SSC
Analysis
No Project
(base)
Stanford
Shopping
Center
SUMC SSC +
SUMC
No Project
(2015 Base)
Stanford
Shopping
Center
SUMC SSC +
SUMC
No Project
(2025 Base)
SUMC with no
SSC
(compared
with base)
Cumulative of
SSC + SUMC
(compared with
base)
No Projectwith SSC
(2025 New
Base A)
SUMC withapproved SSC
(compared with
2025 New Base
A)
No Project
with SUMC
(2025 New
Base B)
SSC withapproved SUMC
(compared with
2025 New Base
B)
No Project
(2025 Base)
SUMC with no
SSC (compared
with base)
Cumulative ofSSC + SUMC
(compared with
base)
No Project
with SSC
(2025 New
Base A)
SUMC withapproved SSC
(compared with
2025 New Base
A)
No Project
with SUMC
(2025 New
Base B)
SSC withapproved SUMC
(compared with
2025 New Base
B)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V
#01 ECR/Valparaiso MP S z S z z S z
#02 ECR/Santa Cruz MP
#03 ECR/Ravenswood MP z S z S
#04 ECR/Roble MP
#05 ECR/Middle MP S z
#06 ECR/Cambridge MP
#07 ECR/Sand Hill-Alma PA
#08 ECR/Quarry Rd PA
#09 Alma/Lytton PA
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int)PA z S z S z z S z
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez PA z S z S z z S z
#12 ECR/Churchill PA
#13 ECR/Serra-Park PA
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave PA
#15 ECR/California PA
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon PA z S z S z S z z S z
#17 Woodland/University EPA z S z
#18 Middlefield/Willow MP z S z S z z S z
#19 Middlefield/Lytton PA z S z S z z S z
#20 Middlefield/University PA z S z
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero PA
#22 Alma/Churchill PA S z
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill-OregonExpy PA z S z S z
#24 Junipero/Stanford SCC
#25 Junipero/Campus East SCC
#26 Junipero/Campus West SCC S z S z z S z
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz MP z S z S z z S z
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill*MP z S z z S z
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill MP
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill MP z S z z S z
#31 Oak/Sand Hill MP
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill PA
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill PA z S z
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill PA
#35 Arboretum/Quarry PA
#36 Arboretum/Palm PA
#37 Arboretum/Galvez PA z S z S z z S z
#38 ECR/Charleston PA
#39 Alma/Charleston PA
#40 Middlefield/Charleston PA
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton PA
#42 Alma/Hamilton PA
#43 University/Santa Cruz MP
#44 ECR/Oak Grove MP
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood MP
#46 Middlefield/Ravenswood MP S S z S z z S z
#47 ECR/Encinal MP
#48 Bay/Marsh MP
#49 US 101SB/Marsh MP
#50 US 101NB/Marsh MP
#51 Bay/Willow MP
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow MP z S z
#53 Bayfront Expy/University MP
#54 Bay/University EPA
#55 Donohoe/University EPA
#56 Welch/Quarry PA
#57 Durand/Sand Hill PA
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch PA
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch PA
#60 Durand/Welch PA
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave PA
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road PA z S z S z S z z S z
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road PA z S z S z z S z
Impacted Locations 6 0 4 5 15 6 8 11 15 16 16 15 16 19 1 23 18 21 23 20 24 11
PA Impacted Locations 4 0 4 4 8 3 5 7 7 8 8 7 8 10 0 11 9 10 11 10 11 3
(Orange) comparison with No Build (Diamond) Base S (Triangle) Combined both SSC & SUMC Projects
(Blue) comparision with SSC built in 2015 (New Base A)z (Dot) SUMC Project Impact
(Green) comparison with 100% SUMC built in 2025 (New Base B)(Square) SSC Impact
Column
2025 AM
Legend
#Intersection City
2025 PM2015 AM 2015 PM
* The intersection geometry has recently changed. The traffic operations at this intersection will be updated in the next version of this report.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-103 January 13, 2009
vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) as they have six lanes or more in each of the segments
covered. HOV lanes have been included in this calculation. There is one HOV lane on both
northbound and southbound of US 101 but none along the segments of I-280 within the study
area. For the purpose of this study, the worst case of added project trips is being considered;
the combined effect of SSC and SUMC would see the highest number of project trips being
added. It can be seen from the Table 3-15 that the number of project trips expected on the
regular freeway lanes would be less than one percent for all study segments. As such, no
further analysis is necessary. It is therefore inductive that the individual SSC and SUMC project
would not have adverse impact on these study freeway segments.
Table 3-15
Freeway Volumes with Project
U.S. 101 Segment Direction
No. of
Mixed
Lanes
Peak
Period
Total
Capacity
Total
Project
Trips
Project
Trips with
HOV adj
% Capacity
Added with
HOV Adj
Analysis
Required
Total
Project
Trips
Project
Trips with
HOV adj
%
Capacity
Added
with HOV
Adj
Analysis
Required
AM 6900 2 1 0.02%NO 4 3 0.04%NOPM6900860.09%NO 12 9 0.13%NO
AM 6900 7 5 0.08%NO 11 8 0.12%NOPM6900430.04%NO 6 4 0.06%NO
AM 6900 18 14 0.20%NO 28 21 0.31%NOPM6900750.08%NO 11 8 0.12%NO
AM 6900 6 5 0.07%NO 9 7 0.10%NO
PM 6900 18 14 0.20%NO 27 20 0.29%NO
AM 6900 54 40 0.59%NO 84 63 0.91%NO
PM 6900 21 16 0.23%NO 33 25 0.36%NOAM690018140.20%NO 27 20 0.29%NO
PM 6900 54 40 0.59%NO 81 61 0.88%NO
I-280 Segment Direction
No. of
Mixed
Lanes
Peak
Period
Total
Capacity
Total
Project
Trips
Project
Trips with
HOV adj
% Capacity
Added
Analysis
Required
Total
Project
Trips
Project
Trips with
HOV adj
%
Capacity
Added
Analysis
Required
AM 9200 18 0.21%NO 25 0.28%NO
PM 9200 69 0.68%NO 89 0.89%NOAM9200480.52%NO 69 0.75%NO
PM 9200 52 0.57%NO 59 0.65%NO
AM 9200 18 0.15%NO 29 0.24%NO
PM 9200 11 0.09%NO 15 0.13%NO
AM 9200 6 0.07%NO 10 0.10%NO
PM 9200 20 0.21%NO 30 0.29%NO
AM 9200 34 0.34%NO 52 0.51%NOPM9200230.23%NO 30 0.30%NO
AM 9200 12 0.13%NO 18 0.20%NO
PM 9200 40 0.41%NO 57 0.58%NO6
2
3
4
5
4
5
6
1
1
2
3
2025 SSC+SUMC2015 SSC+SUMC
Alpine Road to Page Mill Road SB 4
University Avenue to Willow Road NB 3
University Avenue to Embarcadero/Oregon E'way SB
Page Mill Road to El Monte Avenue SB 4
Embarcadero / Oregon Expressway
to San Antonio Road SB 3
Sand Hill Road to Woodside Road NB 4
NB
3
Sand Hill Road to Woodside Road SB 4
Alpine Road to Page Mill Road NB 4
Page Mill Road to El Monte Avenue 4
University Avenue to Willow Road SB 3
University Avenue to Embarcadero
/Oregon E'way NB 3
Embarcadero / Oregon Expressway
to San Antonio Road NB 3
Source: AECOM 2008
3.7 Residential Roadway Segment Analysis (TIRE Index)
This section looks at the project impact on residential streets in Palo Alto and Menlo Park. A
street is considered impacted if the TIRE Index increases by 0.1. The various project scenarios
are compared to the base to determine any project impact. No residential roadway segments
would be impacted in any of the 2015 project scenarios as seen in Table 3-16.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-104 January 13, 2009
Table 3-16
2015 TIRE Index Comparison with Base Scenarios
Roadway City ADT TIRE
Index ADT Change Impact ADT Change Impact ADT Change Impact
Sharon Road N of Sharon Park Drive MP 4564 3.7 1250 4729 165 N 4574 10 N 4739 175 N
Stanford Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 178 2.2 40 203 25 N 178 0 N 203 25 N
Leland Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 323 2.5 79 348 25 N 323 0 N 348 25 N
Vine Street N of Sand Hill Road MP 376 2.6 94 441 65 N 376 0 N 441 65 N
Hawthorne Avenue East of Alma Street PA 1921 3.3 500 1931 10 N 1976 55 N 1986 65 N
Everett Avenue East of Alma Street PA 1541 3.2 380 1551 10 N 1596 55 N 1606 65 N
Hamilton Avenue PA 1921 3.3 500 1961 40 N 2216 295 N 2256 335 N
SSC with no SUMC (Compared
with 2015 Base)
SUMC with no SSC
(Compared with 2015
Base)
Cumulative of SSC+SUMC
(compared with 2015 Base)
No Project (2015
Base)0.1 change
in the TIRE
IndexSegment
2015
Between Chaucer Street
& Lincoln Avenue
Source: AECOM 2008
In 2025 however, addition project traffic under the cumulative effect of SSC and SUMC would
significantly affect the section of Hamilton Avenue between Chaucer Street and Lincoln Avenue
as presented in Table 3-17. With a ‘no project’ ADT volume of 2,193 along Hamilton Avenue
(between Chaucer Street and Lincoln Avenue), an increase of 515 vehicles in ADT would
constitute a change of 0.1 in the TIRE Index. The cumulative ADT volume of the SSC and the
SUMC projects is 515 which would be considered a significant impact as the TIRE Index would
change. However, the TIRE index is based in ADT not peak hour traffic. While peak hour traffic
may be diverted to Hamilton Avenue, the same proportion of non-peak hour traffic would
probably not be diverted. Therefore, the ADT values may be overstated. The other residential
road segments would not be adversely by the project in 2025 as the increase in ADT volume
does not bring about any change in the TIRE Index. Table 3-17 also represents the 2025
cumulative condition. Mitigation of impacts to residential streets requires a reduction in traffic
volume. The impact to Hamilton Avenue is caused by the cumulative effect of both projects in
2025. SUMC constitutes 92 percent of the traffic and SSC contributes 8 percent. The effect of
each project individually is comparable to these percentages.
3.7.1 Menlo Park Roadway Analysis
As part of the City of Menlo Park evaluation criteria, selected roadways are being
evaluated to determine the effect of the proposed projects. Average daily traffic (ADT) of
these roadways were calculated for the different scenarios and compared to the ‘no
project’ scenario to determine project impact. Table 3-18 presents the analysis results.
This data is presented for informational purpose since the City of Palo Alto does not use
this evaluation methodology. The TIRE index for most of these roadway segments
would not be significantly impacted as discussed later in this section.
With the SSC project in 2015 as presented in Table 3-18, Sand Hill Road (east of Santa
Cruz), Willow Road (east of Middlefield Road) and Ravenswood Avenue (east of El
Camino Real) would be impacted by the project. With the SUMC project, two more
roadways would be affected by the proposed project. These are Marsh Road (west of
US 101) and Alpine Road (west of Junipero Serra Boulevard). With both the SSC and
SUMC projects, the same five roadways would be significantly impacted in 2015.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-105 January 13, 2009
Table 3-17
2025 TIRE Index Comparison
Roadway City ADT TIRE
Index ADT Change Impact ADT Change Impact
Sharon Road N of Sharon Park Drive MP 5211 3.7 1250 5236 25 N 5391 180 N
Stanford Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 204 2.3 52 204 0 N 224 20 N
Leland Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 368 2.6 94 368 0 N 388 20 N
Vine Street N of Sand Hill Road MP 429 2.6 94 429 0 N 494 65 N
Hawthorne Avenue East of Alma Street PA 2193 3.3 500 2288 95 N 2298 105 N
Everett Avenue East of Alma Street PA 1759 3.2 380 1854 95 N 1864 105 N
Hamilton Avenue PA 2193 3.3 500 2668 475 N 2708 515 Y
SUMC with no SSC (Compared with
2025 Base)
Cumulative of SSC+SUMC
(compared with 2025 Base)0.1 change
in the TIRE
Index
No Project (2025
Base)
Between Chaucer Street &
Lincoln Avenue
2025
Segment
Roadway City ADT TIRE
Index ADT Change Impact
Sharon Road N of Sharon Park Drive MP 5366 3.7 1250 5391 25 N
Stanford Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 224 2.3 65 224 0 N
Leland Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 388 2.6 94 388 0 N
Vine Street N of Sand Hill Road MP 494 2.7 114 494 0 N
Hawthorne Avenue East of Alma Street PA 2203 3.4 650 2298 95 N
Everett Avenue East of Alma Street PA 1769 3.2 380 1864 95 N
Hamilton Avenue PA 2233 3.3 650 2708 475 N
0.1 change
in the TIRE
Index
SUMC with approved SSC (compared
with 2025 New Base A)2025
No Project with
SSC (2025 New
Base A)
Segment
Between Chaucer Street &
Lincoln Avenue
Roadway City ADT TIRE
Index ADT Change Impact
Sharon Road N of Sharon Park Drive MP 5236 3.7 1250 5391 155 N
Stanford Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 204 2.3 52 224 20 N
Leland Avenue N of Sand Hill Road MP 368 2.6 94 388 20 N
Vine Street N of Sand Hill Road MP 429 2.6 94 494 65 N
Hawthorne Avenue East of Alma Street PA 2288 3.4 650 2298 10 N
Everett Avenue East of Alma Street PA 1854 3.3 500 1864 10 N
Hamilton Avenue PA 2668 3.4 650 2708 40 N
SSC with approved SUMC (compared
with 2025 New Base B)0.1 change
in the TIRE
Index
No Project with
SUMC (2025 New
Base B)
Segment
2025
Between Chaucer Street &
Lincoln Avenue
Source: AECOM 2008
In 2025, with the SSC project, four roadway segments would be significantly affected.
These are: Sand Hill Road (east of Santa Cruz), Willow Road (east of Middlefield Road),
Middlefield Road (north of Ravenswood Avenue) and Ravenswood Avenue (east of El
Camino Real). With the SUMC project, two more roadway segments would be adversely
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-106 January 13, 2009
impacted by the project. These two roadways are Marsh Road (west of US 101) and
Alpine Road (west of Junipero Serra Boulevard). With both the SSC and SUMC
projects, the same six roadways would be significantly impacted in 2025.
The cumulative impacts of the projects on the roadways in 2025 are also presented in
Table 3-18. It can be seen that the SUMC project would significantly affect six roadway
segments (Base A). They are Marsh Road (west of US 101), Sand Hill Road (east of
Santa Cruz), Willow Road (east of Middlefield Road), Alpine Road (west of Junipero
Serra Boulevard), Middlefield Road (north of Ravenswood Avenue) and Ravenswood
Avenue (east of El Camino Real). These same roadway segments, except Marsh Road
and Alpine Road, would also be adversely impacted by the cumulative effect of the SSC
project (Base B).
These roadway segments were also evaluated using the TIRE index, consistent with the
City of Palo Alto procedures. None of these roadway segments exceeded the TIRE
index thresholds as seen in Table 3-19. Therefore, according to City of Palo Alto
standards, no roadway segments are considered to be impacted to a significant level.
3.8 Parking Analysis
The following sections looked at the parking provisions planned for the SUMC and SSC.
Comparisons are made with the parking rates stated in the 3rd Edition of ITE Parking Generation
(ITE, 2004) as well as the requirements listed in the Palo Alto City Zoning Ordinance to
determine if the project has sufficient parking.
3.8.1 SUMC
The proposed SUMC expansion includes the Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), the
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) and Medical Office Buildings (MOB). The
SHC project component included 1,100,000 square feet of new hospital space and
429,000 square feet of new clinic space. To accommodate this new development,
356,875 square feet of hospital space and 308,176 square feet of clinic space would be
removed. The new hospital space is reduced by 320,000 square feet to account for
“right sizing”. “Right sizing” adjustment accounts for space changes in the medical
profession that does not accommodate additional patients or staff and therefore does not
generate additional traffic. The net development of SHC is 228,200 square feet of
hospital space and 315,700 square feet of clinic space for a total of 543,900 square feet
of additional development. Details of the parking evaluation are presented in Appendix
G1.
The LCPH project component includes 471,300 square feet of new hospital space and
50,000 square feet of new clinic space. “Right sizing” for LCPH represents a 126,000-
square foot reduction. The net development for LCPH is 345,300 square feet of hospital
space and 50,000 square feet of clinic space, for a total of 395,300 square feet of
additional development. Both the SHC and LPCH have a net additional area of 854,670
square feet combined. The MOB component of the project consists of the removal of
56,300 square feet of MOB at 701 Welch Road, 23,500 square feet at 703 Welch Road,
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-107 January 13, 2009
Table 3-18
2015 and 2025 Roadway ADT Analysis (Menlo Park)
2015
Roadway Type Segment No Build With SSC Impact With SUMC Impact
With
SSC +
SUMC
Impact
Marsh Minor Arterial W of US.101 37929 37994 N 38144 Y 38209 Y
Sand Hill Minor Arterial E of Santa Cruz 37631 38616 Y 38551 Y 39536 Y
Willow Minor Arterial E of Middlefield 30198 30318 Y 30708 Y 30828 Y
Willow Collector W of Middlefield 7400 7400 N 7400 N 7400 N
Alpine Minor Arterial W of Junipero Serra 25933 26028 N 26178 Y 26273 Y
Middlefield Minor Arterial N of Ravenswood 17465 17630 N 17605 N 17770 N
Middlefield Minor Arterial S of Ravenswood 27537 27577 N 27552 N 27592 N
Ravenswood Minor Arterial E of ECR 20599 20749 Y 20754 Y 20904 Y
Santa Cruz Minor Arterial W of ECR 5070 5070 N 5070 N 5070 N
Valparaiso Minor Arterial W of ECR 13339 13614 N 13374 N 13649 N
2025
Roadway Type Segment No Build With SSC Impact With SUMC Impact
With
SSC +
SUMC
Impact
Marsh Minor Arterial W of US.101 43234 43299 N 43574 Y 43639 Y
Sand Hill Minor Arterial E of Santa Cruz 44742 45712 Y 46222 Y 47192 Y
Willow Minor Arterial E of Middlefield 35873 35993 Y 36683 Y 36803 Y
Willow Collector W of Middlefield 10395 10395 N 10395 N 10395 N
Alpine Minor Arterial W of Junipero Serra 32653 32748 N 33043 Y 33138 Y
Middlefield Minor Arterial N of Ravenswood 21727 21887 Y 21947 Y 22107 Y
Middlefield Minor Arterial S of Ravenswood 34300 34340 N 34325 N 34365 N
Ravenswood Minor Arterial E of ECR 23643 23788 Y 23893 Y 24038 Y
Santa Cruz Minor Arterial W of ECR 5481 5481 N 5481 N 5481 N
Valparaiso Minor Arterial W of ECR 15338 15598 N 15388 N 15648 N
Roadway Type Segment Base A Cumulative
SUMC Impact Base B Cumulative
SSC Impact
Marsh Minor Arterial W of US.101 43299 43639 Y 43574 43639 N
Sand Hill Minor Arterial E of Santa Cruz 45712 47192 Y 46222 47192 Y
Willow Minor Arterial E of Middlefield 35993 36803 Y 36683 36803 Y
Willow Collector W of Middlefield 10395 10395 N 10395 10395 N
Alpine Minor Arterial W of Junipero Serra 32748 33138 Y 33043 33138 N
Middlefield Minor Arterial N of Ravenswood 21887 22107 Y 21947 22107 Y
Middlefield Minor Arterial S of Ravenswood 34340 34365 N 34325 34365 N
Ravenswood Minor Arterial E of ECR 23788 24038 Y 23893 24038 Y
Santa Cruz Minor Arterial W of ECR 5481 5481 N 5481 5481 N
Valparaiso Minor Arterial W of ECR 15598 15648 N 15388 15648 N
Source: AECOM 2008
40,100 square feet at 1101 Welch Road and the additional 60,000 square feet of new space at
Hoover Pavilion. In addition, 84,230 square feet of space at Hoover Pavilion Hospital will be
converted to MOB use. Total size of MOB would be 144,230 square feet.
Table 3-20 and Table 3-21 presents the expected project parking demand based on the square
footage described above for 2015 and 2025 respectively. In 2015, the hospitals and clinics
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-108 January 13, 2009
Table 3-19
2015 and 2025 TIRE Index Analysis for Menlo Park Roadway
2015 TIRE Index Analysis
No Build With SSC Impact With SUMC Impact
With SSC +
SUMC Impact
Roadway Segment ADT ADT
(Compared with
No Build)ADT
Compared with
No Build ADT
(Compared with
No Build)
Marsh W of US.101 37929 4.6 10000 37994 65 N 38144 215 N 38209 280 N
Sand Hill E of Santa Cruz 37631 4.6 10000 38616 985 N 38551 920 N 39536 1905 N
Willow E of Middlefield 30198 4.5 8200 30318 120 N 30708 510 N 30828 630 N
Willow W of Middlefield 7400 3.9 1800 7400 0 N 7400 0 N 7400 0 N
Alpine W of Junipero Serra 25933 4.4 6600 26028 95 N 26178 245 N 26273 340 N
Middlefield N of Ravenswood 17465 4.2 400 17630 165 N 17605 140 N 17770 305 N
Middlefield S of Ravenswood 27537 4.4 6600 27577 40 N 27552 15 N 27592 55 N
Ravenswood E of ECR 20599 4.3 5200 20749 150 N 20754 155 N 20904 305 N
Santa Cruz W of ECR 5070 3.7 1250 5070 0 N 5070 0 N 5070 0 N
Valparaiso W of ECR 13339 4.1 3000 13614 275 N 13374 35 N 13649 310 N
2025 TIRE Index Analysis
No Build With SSC Impact With SUMC Change Impact
With SSC +
SUMC Impact
Roadway Segment ADT ADT
(Compared with
No Build)ADT
Compared with
No Build ADT
(Compared with
No Build)
Marsh W of US.101 43234 4.6 10000 43299 65 N 43574 340 N 43639 405 N
Sand Hill E of Santa Cruz 44742 4.6 10000 45712 970 N 46222 1480 N 47192 2450 N
Willow E of Middlefield 35873 4.3 5200 35993 120 N 36683 810 N 36803 930 N
Willow W of Middlefield 10395 4.6 10000 10395 0 N 10395 0 N 10395 0 N
Alpine W of Junipero Serra 32653 4.5 8200 32748 95 N 33043 390 N 33138 485 N
Middlefield N of Ravenswood 21727 4.4 6600 21887 160 N 21947 220 N 22107 380 N
Middlefield S of Ravenswood 34300 4.5 8200 34340 40 N 34325 25 N 34365 65 N
Ravenswood E of ECR 23643 4.4 6600 23788 145 N 23893 250 N 24038 395 N
Santa Cruz W of ECR 5481 3.7 1250 5481 0 N 5481 0 N 5481 0 N
Valparaiso W of ECR 15338 4.2 400 15598 260 N 15388 50 N 15648 310 N
Base A
Cumulative
SUMC Impact Base B
Cumulative
SSC Impact
Roadway Segment ADT ADT
Compared with
Base A ADT ADT
Compared with
Base B
Marsh W of US.101 43299 4.6 10000 43639 340 N 43574 4.6 10000 43639 65 N
Sand Hill E of Santa Cruz 45712 4.6 10000 47192 1480 N 46222 4.7 12200 47192 970 N
Willow E of Middlefield 35993 4.3 5200 36803 810 N 36683 4.4 6600 36803 120 N
Willow W of Middlefield 10395 4.6 10000 10395 0 N 10395 4.6 10000 10395 0 N
Alpine W of Junipero Serra 32748 4.5 8200 33138 390 N 33043 4.5 8200 33138 95 N
Middlefield N of Ravenswood 21887 4.4 6600 22107 220 N 21947 4.4 6600 22107 160 N
Middlefield S of Ravenswood 34340 4.5 8200 34365 25 N 34325 4.5 8200 34365 40 N
Ravenswood E of ECR 23788 4.4 6600 24038 250 N 23893 4.4 6600 24038 145 N
Santa Cruz W of ECR 5481 3.7 1250 5481 0 N 5481 3.7 1250 5481 0 N
Valparaiso W of ECR 15598 4.2 400 15648 50 N 15388 4.2 400 15648 260 N
TIRE Index
TIRE Index
TIRE Index
TIRE
Index
Change Change
Change
0.1 change in
the TIRE
Index
0.1 change in
the TIRE
Index
0.1 change in
the TIRE
Index Change
Change Change
Change
0.1 change in the
TIRE Index
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-109 January 13, 2009
Table 3-20
SUMC 2015 Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply
Fehr and Peers City Zoning Ordinance4 ITE Parking Generation5
Land Use Size Parking Demand
Rate1
Parking
Demand Size Parking Demand
Rate Parking Demand Parking Demand
Rate Parking Demand
Hospitals Hospitals
LPCH 237.18 ksf 1.78 spaces per ksf 422 spaces 149 beds 0.67 spaces per
bed 100 spaces 1.64 spaces per
ksf 389 spaces
SHC 275.802 ksf 1.78 spaces per ksf 491 spaces 219.42 ksf 4.0 spaces per ksf 878 spaces 1.64 spaces per
ksf 452 spaces
Projected New Projected New Parking Demand 913 spaces 978 spaces 841 spaces
Gross Recommended New Parking Supply (Demand + 10%)3 1,005 spaces 1,076 spaces 925 spaces
Spaces available from current vacancies2 (258 spaces)(258 spaces)(258 spaces)
Net Recommended New Parking Supply- Hospitals3 747 spaces 818 spaces 667 spaces
Medical Office Buildings Medical Office Buildings
Hoover Pavilion
Site- New + re-use 144.230 ksf 4.00 spaces per ksf 577 spaces 3.23 spaces per
ksf 466 spaces 3.53 spaces per
ksf 509 spaces
Recommended New parking Supply (Demand + 10%)3 635 spaces 513 spaces 560 spaces
Total recommended new Parking Supply 1,382 spaces 1,331 spaces 1,227 spaces
Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet
1.Parking demand based on estimated Am peak hour rate from data collection. The AM peak hour parking rate is slightly higher than the PM peak hour parking rate.
2.Fehr & Peers analysis summarizes the parking areas with existing vacancies. These areas include L-7, L-13, S-4.
3.Parking supply increases the parking demand by 10 percent to ensure drivers are able to locate the parking space without re-circulating through the parking area.
4.Parking demand is based on City Zoning Ordinance 2007.
5.Parking demand is based on ITE Parking Generation 3rd edition.
Hospital and Clinics @ 60% of full build-out
2015 provision = 1625 spaces
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-110 January 13, 2009
Table 3-21
2025 SUMC Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply
Fehr and Peers City Zoning Ordinance4 ITE Parking Generation5
Land Use Size Parking Demand
Rate1
Parking
Demand Size Parking Demand
Rate Parking Demand Parking Demand
Rate Parking Demand
Hospitals Hospitals
Hospital (LPCH +
SHC)---248 beds 0.67 spaces per
bed 166 spaces --
Clinics (LPCH +
SHC)---365.7 ksf 4.0 spaces per
1.0 ksf 1,463 spaces --
Total 854.970 ksf 1.78 spaces per ksf 1,522 spaces -1,629 spaces 1.64 spaces per
ksf 1,402 spaces
Projected New Projected New Parking Demand 1,522 spaces 1,629 spaces 1,402 spaces
Gross Recommended New Parking Supply (Demand + 10%)3 1,674 spaces 1,792 spaces 1,542 spaces
Spaces available from current vacancies2 (258 spaces)(258 spaces)(258 spaces)
Net Recommended New Parking Supply- Hospitals3 1,416 spaces 1,534 spaces 1,284 spaces
Medical Office Buildings Medical Office Buildings
Hoover Pavilion
Site- New + re-use 144.230 ksf 4.00 spaces per ksf 577 spaces 3.23 spaces per
ksf 466 spaces 3.53 spaces per
ksf 509 spaces
Recommended New parking Supply (Demand + 10%)635 spaces 513 spaces 560 spaces
Total recommended new Parking Supply 2,051 spaces 2,047 spaces 1,844 spaces
Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet
1. Parking demand based on estimated AM peak hour rate from data collection. The AM peak hour parking rate is slightly higher than the PM peak hour parking rate.
2.Fehr & Peers analysis summarizes the parking areas with existing vacancies. These areas are included: L-7, L-13, S-4.
3.Parking supply increases the parking demand by 10 percent to ensure drivers are able to locate the parking space without re-circulating through the parking area.
4.Parking demand is based on City Zoning Ordinance 2007.
5.Parking demand is based on ITE Parking Generation 3rd edition.
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-111 January 13, 2009
would be operating at a level equivalent to 60% of the full project build-out. Using the
parking demand rate determined through the survey conducted on existing parking
conditions, 913 spaces would be needed for the hospitals in 2015 and 1,522 spaces
would be needed in 2025. Taking into account a 10-percent supply buffer to ensure that
drivers are able to locate parking spaces without excessive re-circulating through the
parking area, the parking demand at hospital is calculated to be 1,005 in 2015 and 1,674
in 2025. Taking away spaces available from current vacancies, new parking spaces
needed for the hospital would be 747 in 2015 and 1,416 in 2025. This is similar to the
City’s parking ordinance requirements and is greater than the parking demand
calculated according to ITE statistics. For the MOB, 577 spaces would be needed to
meet the parking demand for both horizon years. Similarly, taking into account a 10-
percent supply buffer to ensure that drivers are able to locate parking spaces without
excessive re-circulating through the parking area, the parking demand at MOB stands at
635 in both 2015 and 2025. The total demand for SUMC in 2015 is estimated to be
1,382 spaces and 2,051 in 2025. The proposed number of parking spaces is 2,180 in
2015 and the proposed provision is 2,985 spaces in year 2025. These spaces would be
distributed around the five parking structures in the hospital area. The total parking
supply in 2025 is allocated at 2,051 for SUMC and 932 as replacement parking for
existing spaces demolished for project construction. The replacement parking is
separated in 871 spaces removed plus a 10 percent vacancy factor. Appendix G2
summarizes the parking demand and replacements. Therefore, proposed parking
equals estimated parking demand plus a 10 percent buffer.
3.8.2 SSC
The SSC project is divided into three main categories. There is a 120-room hotel, a high
quality restaurant and the regular retail section that includes high turnover restaurants.
The size of the retail area and high quality restaurant is a total of 240,000 square feet.
Table 3-22 presents the parking calculations for each of the different uses. A total of
1,199 new parking spaces are being proposed for the SSC project, making the total
number of parking spaces for the SSC 7,000. This number is lower than the 10,362
spaces required based on the City’s parking ordinance and the 8,134 spaces calculated
using ITE parking generation rates. However, the existing shopping center has 5,801
parking spaces, whereas the City code projects a demand of 7,061 spaces for existing
uses. The difference between these two values, added to the proposed 7,000 spaces
results in 8,260 spaces, or approximately equal to the ITE estimated demand. Assuming
the percent shared parking results in parking supply slightly less than ITE demand figure
would indicate. Given the SSC is located near a major transit hub, parking supply meets
estimated demand. Details are provided in Appendix G3.
3.9 Project Site Local Circulation Analysis
The SUMC project will result in several changes to local access and circulation. While to a
great extent, the project will rely on the existing roadway network, there are changes to that
network and will enhance and modify local access, including improving the capacity of Welch
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-112 January 13, 2009
Table 3-22
Estimated Parking Demand and Recommended Supply for SSC
SSC (Simon
Property Group)
Parking Demand Parking Demand Rate Parking Demand Parking Demand Rate
Parking
Demand
Existing 1,412,362 5,801 7,062 5604
Proposed Total Retail 1,623,562 8,118 6426
Projected New Parking Demand 8,118 6426
Guest Room 120 1 space per room 120 76
Restaurant 8,000 -13.2 per ksf 106
Amenities (eg banquet room, commercial)20,000 5.0 per ksf 100
Projected New Parking Demand 28,000 326 76
Public Area 20,160 1 space per 0.06ksf 336 -
Other Area 8,640 1 space per 0.2ksf 43 -
Projected New Parking Demand 28,800 379 15.4 Per 1.0 ksf 444
Proposed Total Project Parking 1,199 1,919 1,633
Total Parking 7,000 10,362 8,134
Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet.
*ITE rates for Fridays during December**size in square feet or number of rooms for Hotel
1 space per 0.2 ksf Regression equation (3.89 x
GLA + 110)-
City Zoning Ordinance ITE Parking Generation
Regression equation (1.13 x
rooms - 60)
Land Use Size**
Shopping Center
Proposed Hotel
High Quality Restaurant*
Source: AECOM 2008
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-113 January 13, 2009
Road, adding extensions on Durand Way, Quarry Road, and Roth Way, and increasing the
capacity of Pasteur Drive. The following discusses the individual components of the roadway
network.
Welch Road
Welch Road between Quarry Road and Pasteur Drive currently has 29 driveways, of which 4
are closed. The remaining 25 driveways provide for a combination of inbound, outbound, and
two-way access to the individual land parcels along Welch Road. The current traffic volumes
are 11,375 vehicles per day, as measured in Fall 2008. Pedestrian crossings of Welch Road
are concentrated at three locations, near the Stanford Barn and on both sides of the LPCH
parking structure access. Hourly pedestrian volume at these three crossings was observed at
approximately 200 persons during the midday, the time of greatest pedestrian activity. None of
the three pedestrian crossings are signalized; one is controlled by a crossing guard. Therefore,
pedestrians frequently cross Welch Road which affects the traffic capacity of Welch Road.
Because of the numerous driveways, overlap of left turns occurs at 3 locations. Overlapping left
turns tend to increase congestion by restricting through traffic when opposing left turn queues
block each other. The existing constraints to capacity on Welch Road include the side friction
caused by numerous driveways and slow traffic turning into and out of the driveways, left turns
blocking the through traffic movements and frequent pedestrian crossings. The ‘with project’
scenario includes some modifications to Welch Road to improve traffic flow and accommodate
the future traffic volumes from the hospital expansion. Under the With Project scenario, Welch
Road will be a 3-lane roadway with on-street bike lanes. There will be one through lane in each
direction (11-foot through lanes), with a two way left turn lane in the center (12-foot center left
turn lane). The bike lanes will be six feet wide, including the gutter. Right turns into driveways
will occur from the through lanes, however, left turns will be removed from the through lanes.
The future traffic volumes on Welch Road are projected at 14,750 vehicles per day. This level
of traffic on a two-way roadway with a continuous two way left turn lane in the median is
approaching the capacity of the roadway. The three pedestrian crossings are proposed to be
combined into one or two locations. The main pedestrian crossing at the LPCH access will be
signalized. Signalization of the pedestrian crossing will improve the capacity of Welch by
concentrating crossings into specific time segments, rather than the current operation where
pedestrians cross individually or in smaller groups nearly continuously. The three locations with
overlapping left turns are removed. The conflict at 703 and 730 Welch Road is eliminated with
the realignment of the driveways. The conflict at 780/800 Welch and 777/801 Welch is
eliminated by closing a driveway. The conflict at 1110 Welch and 1101 Welch is eliminated by
moving the access to 1101 Welch onto Durand. Driveways in the vicinity of the Quarry Road
intersection would be restricted to right in and right out only. A center barrier median will be
constructed between Quarry Road and the entrance to LPCH to prevent left turns to and from
the driveways. The barrier median will also improve the capacity of Welch Road. A computer
simulation was made of traffic and pedestrian movements along Welch Road. That simulation
demonstrated that the modified roadway design proposed as part of the project improves traffic
flow.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-114 January 13, 2009
Durand Way
An extension of existing Durand Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road is proposed as part of
the hospital project build-out in 2025. The roadway is proposed as a four-lane cross section,
with two lanes in each direction and on-street bike lanes. Travel lane widths are 11 feet and the
bike lanes are 6 foot, including the gutter. This design will enable left turn queues to extend
from Sand Hill Road back to Welch Road, or the reverse. Both Sand Hill/Durand and
Welch/Durand would be signalized. At Sand Hill Road, the two westbound lanes on Durand
Way should be a left and a through/right. This lane striping will keep the queues from extending
back to the Welch Road intersection. At Welch Road the two lanes on Durand Way should be
striped for a right and a through/left. The two traffic signals on Durand Way should be
interconnected. The signal cycles on Sand Hill Road range from 120 to 140 seconds to
maximize through travel on Sand Hill Road. The signal cycle lengths on Welch will not be as
long. Instead, the cycle lengths at Welch/Durand should one-half of those on Sand Hill to
maintain coordination. The extension of Durand Way to Sand Hill Road provides traffic relief to
Pasteur Drive and to Welch Road. Durand Way was included in the computer simulation and
acceptable traffic operations are expected. Queue lengths were also calculated using
TRAFFIX. Adequate storage is provided to accommodate vehicles between these two
intersections.
Quarry Road Extension
An extension of Quarry Road is proposed to provide access to hospital parking. At the
approximate location where existing Quarry Road turns to connect to Campus Drive West, the
Quarry Road extension will continue south to Roth Way. The Quarry Road extension will be a
two-lane roadway with on-street bike lanes. Lane widths will be 11 feet with 6-foot bike lanes
including the gutter. The connection to existing Quarry Road would be stopped controlled for
the Quarry Road extension leg.
Roth Way
Roth Way will connect Campus Drive West to the Quarry Road extension. This connection will
provide access to a proposed parking structure. Roth Way will be a two-lane roadway with on-
street bike lanes. The travel lanes will be 11 feet and the bike lanes 6 feet including the gutter.
Pasteur Drive
The two legs of Pasteur Drive currently exist and provide access to the Medical Center and to
the underground parking garage. On-street parking will be removed from Pasteur Drive and the
roadway will provide two lanes of travel in each direction with on-street bike lanes. Travel lanes
will be 11 feet with 6-foot bike lanes including the gutter.
Service Connection Between Campus Drive West and Pasteur Drive
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-115 January 13, 2009
A private street connection is proposed between the intersection of Roth Way/Quarry Road
Extension and Pasteur Drive. Stanford has indicated that this service road would be for limited
access (emergency vehicle, transit, service). This roadway makes a connection between Sand
Hill Road at Pasteur Drive and Campus Drive West at Roth Way. As such it enhances the grid
pattern of the local street network. Local circulation could be improved with this roadway open
to all traffic as a public street.
3.10 Transit Impacts
The SUMC and SSC projects cause an increase in the level of traffic congestion at several
locations throughout the study area. While mitigation measures such as roadway improvements
and TDM measures have been identified to alleviate some of the traffic impacts, implementation
of many of the traffic improvements are either infeasible or undesirable and TDM measures do
not fully mitigate the traffic impacts. Impacts to transit service in the study area because of
congested intersections are considered a significant impact according to City of Palo Alto
criteria and occur as a result of both projects by 2015. The impacts increase as additional
project expansion occurs by 2025. Using trip generation values to establish the impact of each
project on the transit system results in a SSC contribution in 2015 of 42 percent versus 58
percent for SUMC. The split is 31 percent for SSC and 69 percent for SUMC in 2025.
3.11 Transportation Demand Management Impacts
The proposed developments are currently served by the Marguerite shuttles that connect to the
Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain stations. Other transit service to the Caltrain stations
and the shopping center that provide connecting service to the Marguerites include SamTrans
Routes RX, 280, 281, 297, 390, 397, and KX; VTA Routes 22, 35, 89, and 522; the U Line from
the East Bay; and the Palo Alto shuttles. Development of the expanded shopping center and
hospital would increase demand for transit service in the area. Also, the TDM measures
proposed for the hospital (provision of GO Passes for all employees) will increase transit
ridership. The mode split to transit for the existing hospital is 8.9 percent according to Stanford
data. This includes ridership on Marguerite shuttles, SamTrans, AC Transit, and VTA buses,
and Caltrain. The mode split for transit is expected to increase to 21.1 percent if all hospital
employees are provided with GO Passes. The mode split to transit for the shopping center
would probably be no more than 1 or 2 percent. A total of 71 to 165 AM and 79 to 170 PM peak
transit trips would be created by the project, depending on the success of the GO Pass. Given
the high level of transit service to the surrounding area, increased transit ridership could be
accommodated by the existing routes, with three possible exceptions. Expansion of the Go
Pass program to all hospital employees will increase ridership on the Marguerite shuttles, most
notably Line A and Line B Counter-Clockwise. Increased ridership on these two routes could
cause a load factor of greater than 1.25. This would be considered a significant impact. This
impact is associated with the SUMC project and could occur by 2015 but may not occur until
post 2015. Historically, Stanford monitors ridership on the Marguerite and adjusts transit
service to meet demand. Monitoring of Lines A and B needs to continue with expansion of the
GO Pass program to all hospital employees. Also, the current load factor on the U Line from the
East Bay is approaching 1.0 (0.94 according to AC Transit). The expanded ridership could push
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-116 January 13, 2009
the load factor above 1.0. A load factor on the U Line greater than 1.0 would be considered a
significant impact. This impact is also associated with the SUMC project and could occur by
2015 but may not occur until post 2015. It is also noted that Stanford would increase the
Marguerite shuttle services if the ridership increases and this could off-set the potential impact
to other transit services. Significant diversion of traffic to alternative modes is not as viable for
SSC as for SUMC. Therefore, the impacts to transit as a result of TDM is associated with
SUMC, rather than SSC.
3.12 Pedestrians and Bicycles Impacts
Pedestrian and bicycle traffic around the hospital and shopping center is currently very
extensive. Expansion of the two projects would increase the level of bicycle and pedestrian
activity. An extensive pedestrian and bicycle network currently exists around the shopping
center and hospital. This network should be enhanced in association with the two projects by
providing additional accesses to remove barriers. Figure 3-18 shows the Primary Pedestrian
and Bicycle Circulation as currently proposed. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided on
nearly all streets in the network. There are also numerous off-road pedestrian-only as well as
combined pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
The study area is conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel. Downtown Palo Alto, PAITS, the
Shopping Center, the Medical Center, and the University are all within a 20-minute walk if
linkages are made and barriers removed. The study area has barriers to pedestrian and bicycle
access to the shopping center and medical center. The Caltrain tracks and El Camino Real
separate the downtown from the shopping center; San Francisquito Creek separates the
residential neighborhoods of Menlo Park from the two projects; and Sand Hill Road separates
the residential areas to the northwest from the shopping center. The medical office buildings
and the Stanford Barn separate the residential areas from the medical center and the medical
center from the shopping center.
While both projects will continue to attract a high percentage of automobile traffic, alternative
modes of travel also need to be addressed. There is an opportunity to attract people from the
three residential neighborhoods that are within ½-mile walking distance to support pedestrian
activity within the projects’ study area. Residents of Sand Hill West and Menlo Park can benefit
from pedestrian access that links the medical center to the shopping center. Residents in
downtown Palo Alto have access to the study area via the Caltrain station access tunnels,
University Avenue undercrossing, and along Palo Alto Avenue to the intersection with Sand Hill
Road.
Additional connections would reduce walking and bicycle travel time between downtown and the
shopping center and medical center. The goal of the two projects would be to provide walking
and biking connectivity linking the shopping center, the medical center, the University, PAITS,
downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods, providing an environment that
accommodates alternative modes of travel in addition to auto travel.
A comprehensive approach to providing needed pedestrian and bicycle improvements should
be incorporated into the project during the planning stages to avoid their preclusion in the future.
Impeding the development of pedestrian and bicycle improvements is a significant impact per
CAMPUS DRIVE WEST
ARBORETUM ROAD
VINEYARD ROAD
WELCH ROADSAND HILL ROAD
W
E
L
C
H R
O
A
D
OAK ROAD
PASTEUR DRIVE --->
<--- PASTEUR DRIVE
SERRA MALL
PANAM
QUARRY ROAD
Q
U
AR
R
Y R
O
A
D
CLARK WAY
DURAND WAY
NORDSTROM
SHOPPINGCENTER
San Francisquito C reek
To Highway I-280
To El Camino Real
To Highway 101
via
Galvez/Embarcadero
1
2
DURAND WAY
CAMPUS DRIVE WEST
ARBORETUM ROAD
VINEYARD ROAD
WELCH ROADSAND HILL ROAD
W
E
L
C
H R
O
A
D
OAK ROAD
PASTEUR DRIVE --->
<--- PASTEUR DRIVE
SERRA MALL
PANAM
QUARRY ROAD
Q
U
AR
R
Y R
O
A
D
CLARK WAY
DURAND WAY
NORDSTROM
SHOPPINGCENTER
San Francisquito C reek
To Highway I-280
To El Camino Real
To Highway 101
via
Galvez/Embarcadero
1
2
DURAND WAY
Stanford University Land Use & Environmental Planning
File: fig3-7b_bike_ped_circ11x17.mxd, Printed: Mar. 13, 2008
0 400 800 Feet
1 acre
Palo Alto Boundary
Project Area Boundary
Pedestrian only (off road)
Pedestrian & Bicycle (off road)
Pedestrian & Bicycle (in street r-o-w)
Figure 3-7b Primary Pedestrian / Bicycle Circulation
1
2
New connectionfrom Sand Hill to Welch(Durand Way)
Revised: 10/2008
Additional access to eastside of SUMC in concertwith improved road access
STANFORD EIRFuture Ped & Bike [2].ai
Source: Stanford University Figure 3-18
FUTURE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-118 January 13, 2009
the City’s criteria. Both SSC and SUMC would be responsible to mitigate pedestrians and
bicycle impacts.
3.13 Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts
Emergency vehicles require access within the study area to respond to emergencies and also to
access the SUMC emergency room. Travel time by emergency vehicles would increase
because of additional traffic congestion associated with the projects. The City’s significance
criteria identify inadequate emergency access as a significant impact. The increased
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-119 January 13, 2009
congestion identified in this analysis due to the SSC and SUMC projects at study area
intersections is considered a significant impact. Table 3-23 lists the intersections at LOS E or F
during the different analysis year for the different scenarios. The intersections listed in Table 3-
23 as operating at LOS E or F are either associated with SSC, SUMC or both and are also
separated by analysis year. The impact for each project and for each analysis for emergency
access is as defined in Table 2-23. Traffic operation at LOS E or F is considered a significant
impact to emergency access.
3.14 Construction Impacts
Project-related construction traffic could contribute to increased intersection delays and
interference with pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. During the construction period, impacts
might arise from a substantial increase in heavy truck travel, as materials are brought in to the
project sites, and demolished or excavated materials are hauled out. Temporary lane or road
closures might be required for the construction and for underground utility work. Construction
activities would lead to both temporary disruption of transportation system operation and
possible damage to elements of the roadway system such as pavement and bridges. Figure 3-
19 illustrates the Stanford Area Truck Routes. All truck travel, either for excavation or for
transporting construction materials to the site would use these routes. From I-280 and the west,
Alpine Road, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Campus Drive West would be used to reach Welch
Road. From US 101 and the east, either San Antonio Road or Woodside Road would be used
to access El Camino Real. From there, trucks would follow Galvez Street to Arboretum Road,
and Sand Hill Road to Pasteur Drive. El Camino Real would be used for short construction-
related trips from the north and south. A detailed construction access plan shall be developed
for each project prior to the beginning of any construction activities. The construction access
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Any deviation from that plan would be a
significant impact. Impact due to construction would be according to the construction activities
of each project.
Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center
3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
3-120 January 13, 2009
Table 3-23
List of Intersections at LOS E and F for 2015 and 2025
SUMC Project
Impact
SUMC Project
Impact
Stanford
Shopping
Center
SUMC SSC +
SUMC
Stanford
Shopping
Center
SUMC SSC +
SUMC
SUMC with no
SSC
(compared
with base)
Cumulative of
SSC + SUMC
(compared with
base)
SUMC with no
SSC (compared
with base)
Cumulative of
SSC + SUMC
(compared with
base)
B C D F G H J K Q R
#01 ECR/Valparaiso MP E E E F F
#02 ECR/Santa Cruz MP
#03 ECR/Ravenswood MP E E E F F F F
#04 ECR/Roble MP
#05 ECR/Middle MP E
#06 ECR/Cambridge MP
#07 ECR/Sand Hill-Alma PA
#08 ECR/Quarry Rd PA
#09 Alma/Lytton PA
#10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int)PA E E E E E F F
#11 ECR/Embarcadero-Galvez PA E E E E E F F F F
#12 ECR/Churchill PA
#13 ECR/Serra-Park PA
#14 ECR/Stanford Ave PA
#15 ECR/California PA
#16 ECR/Page Mil-Oregon PA F F F F F F F F F F
#17 Woodland/University EPA E E E F F
#18 Middlefield/Willow MP E F F F F F F
#19 Middlefield/Lytton PA F F F F F F F
#20 Middlefield/University PA E E
#21 Middlefield/Embarcadero PA
#22 Alma/Churchill PA E
#23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road PA F F F F F F F F F F
#24 Junipero/Stanford SCC
#25 Junipero/Campus East SCC
#26 Junipero/Campus West SCC E E E E E F F
#27 Junipero/Alpine-Santa Cruz MP E E E F F F F
#28 Sand Hill Cir I-280/Sand Hill MP F F F F F E E
#29 Sharon Park/Sand Hill MP
#30 Santa Cruz/Sand Hill MP F F F F
#31 Oak/Sand Hill MP
#32 Stock Farm/Sand Hill PA
#33 Pasteur/Sand Hill PA E E
#34 Arboretum/Sand Hill PA
#35 Arboretum/Quarry PA
#36 Arboretum/Palm PA
#37 Arboretum/Galvez PA F F F E E F F
#38 ECR/Charleston PA E E E F F
#39 Alma/Charleston PA E E
#40 Middlefield/Charleston PA
#41 Middlefield/Hamilton PA
#42 Alma/Hamilton PA
#43 University/Santa Cruz MP
#44 ECR/Oak Grove MP
#45 Middlefield/Ringwood MP
#46 Middlefield/Ravenswood MP F F F F F F F F F F
#47 ECR/Encinal MP
#48 Bay/Marsh MP
#49 US 101SB/Marsh MP
#50 US 101NB/Marsh MP
#51 Bay/Willow MP
#52 Bayfront Expy/Willow MP F F F F F
#53 Bayfront Expy/University MP E E
#54 Bay/University EPA F F F F F
#55 Donohoe/University EPA F F E E
#56 Welch/Quarry PA
#57 Durand/Sand Hill PA
#58 Pasteur NB/Welch PA
#59 Pasteur SB/Welch PA
#60 Durand/Welch PA
#61 Bowdoin St/Stanford Ave PA E E
#62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road PA F F F F F F F F F F
#63 I-280 SB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road PA F F F E E E F F F F
2015 AM 2015 PM
Column
2025 AM 2025 PM
#Intersection City
Source: AECOM 2008
101
@
STANFORDUNIVERSITY
MENLO
PARK
PALO
ALTO
280
STANFORD EIRTruck Routes.cdr
PROJECT
AREA 1 PROJECT
AREA 2
PROJECTAREA 3
Figure 3-19
STANFORD AREA TRUCK ROUTES
To San Francisco
To San Jose
To I-280
To Woodside
Road
No trucks over 7 tons
on this segment of
Junipero Serra Blvd.
Truck Route
No Through Trucks
Stanford Pedestrian Zone. Special permit required.
SPECIAL NOTE
No trucks over 7 tons allowed on Stanford Avenue or Junipero SerraBoulevard between Page Mill Road and Campus Drive East.Use El Camino Real or Sand Hill Road to access the campus.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
January 29, 2009
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2009 CMR: 127:09
SUBJECT: Review of the Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Stanford University
Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center Expansions.
Please find attached (Attachment A) a summary of the minutes from the Planning and
Transportation Commission’s (P&TC) January 21, 2009 study session on the Stanford Projects’
transportation analysis. Minutes from that meeting were not available to be included in the early
packet on January 22, 2009 for this item.
Staff has also provided the full verbatim minutes of that meeting as Attachment B.
These documents are also available for public review in hardcopy format at the City Libraries,
the Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Planning Dept., 5th Floor at 250 Hamilton and
online at on the web at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=14666
________________________________ ___________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS JAMES KEENE
Interim Director of Planning and City Manager
Community Environment
Attachment A: Summary of P&TC Minutes of January 21, 2009
Attachment B: Verbatim Minutes of the P&TC Meeting of January 21, 2009
1
Planning and Transportation Commission
Meeting of January 21, 2009
Consolidated Questions and Summary of Minutes
Study Session: Discussion of the Traffic Analysis for the Stanford University Medical Center
and Stanford Shopping Center Projects.
The study session began with presentations by City staff and the traffic consultant, who was
responsible for the preparation of the transportation analysis for the Stanford Projects. The traffic
consultant described the purpose of the study, the analysis methodology including the scope of
the analysis, and the City’s transportation significance criteria for projects subject to CEQA. The
consultant provided a summary of the existing roadway conditions and described the impacts of
the projects, individually and cumulatively, at the years 2015 and 2025. These years represent
the anticipated full build out of the shopping center (2015) and the medical center (2025). The
consultant introduced possible mitigation measures, including:
• Physical improvements to intersections to achieve appropriate traffic flow operation
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, including the Go Pass program
Traffic Adaptive signalization at intersections
• Implementation of the Village Concept Alternative, which would include Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) housing that may reduce peak hour trips as compared to
non-TOD housing and reduced automobile dependence
• Specific mitigation measures were not discussed at the study session.
The consultant also described the efforts to share information with City of Menlo Park
transportation staff. The traffic study identified impacts upon future traffic volumes at
intersections in the City of Menlo Park due to the effects of the proposed Projects. City of Palo
Alto staff will continue to meet with Menlo Park staff to exchange information and provide
project updates.
The Commission heard from three members of the public:
• Tina Peek, who questioned the need for a regional hospital in Palo Alto, rather than a
smaller community hospital. Ms. Peek also questioned the reductions in trips due to
“right-sizing” the hospital and other similar trip reductions included in the analysis;
• Michael Griffin stated that the findings of the analysis were not a surprise, who would be
responsible for paying the costs of the mitigations, and also questioned the trip reductions
due to “right sizing”;
• Harlin Pinto noted that intersection geometries are often more complex than ts shown in
the analysis, that peak hour traffic does not equal peak flow of traffic, and that residential
arterials were to be analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The commissioner’s comments are summarized as follows:
• Cumulative impacts of the project- investigate what happens to the mitigation
requirements if neither project exceeds the significance threshold individually, but as a
combined development the thresholds would be exceeded.
2
• Traffic model- questions were raised about the growth rate that was included in the model
output. Changes to the City’s traffic model justify its own public review process. The
analysis is very sensitive to the base case of the traffic model. The base traffic growth in
the model is larger than the growth induced by the projects.
• Intersection improvements- describe why street intersection improvements characterized
as infeasible.
• Traffic study methodology- More information is needed about trip reductions for hospital
right-sizing and diverted trips. The Page Mill Road/Highway 280 intersection should be a
studied intersection. Clearly define “regional” and “local” as related to trip distribution.
• Mitigations- the concept of in lieu mitigations makes sense. Investigate mitigations that
provide for reconfigured streets during different times of the day. Ensure mitigations are
in place prior to occupancy of any of the expanded space. TDM programs as mitigation
should be a priority. Transit systems should be better integrated.
• Additional areas of focus in the traffic study- Welch Road pedestrian improvements,
potential for a “ring road” around the medical center including extension of Pasteur Road
to Quarry Road, satellite parking lots, emergency vehicle access to the hospital on narrow
streets is a concern.
• Suggestions for improvements to the transportation study- include more graphical
representations of information, where possible.
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 1 of 66
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
January 21, 2009 2
Draft Verbatim Minutes 3
4
Chair Garber: This brings us to item number one, Stanford University Medical Center and 5
Stanford Shopping Center. This is a Study Session to review the transportation analysis for the 6
proposed Medical Center and Shopping Center expansions. Would the Staff like to make a 7
presentation? 8
9
Study Session 10
Discussion of the Traffic Analysis for the Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford 11
Shopping Center Projects. 12
13
Ms. Gayle Likens, Transportation Manager: Good evening Chair Garber and members of the 14
Commission. I am Gayle Likens, the Transportation Manager for the City. We are pleased to be 15
here tonight to present a somewhat detailed overview of the traffic impact analysis for the 16
Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center 17
expansion projects. 18
19
The analysis has been prepared by AECOM Transportation for the City. AECOM 20
Transportation is a sub-consultant under the City’s environmental consultants, PBS&J. The 21
purpose of the TIA is to identify and evaluate existing conditions and future traffic conditions 22
associated with the proposed projects and to outline potential mitigation measures to reduce 23
significant impacts associated with the developments. 24
25
We are presenting tonight the first three chapters of this TIA, the Introduction, the Existing 26
Conditions, and Future Conditions chapters. Chapter 4, which relates to the detailed mitigations 27
is still under development and will not be presented tonight. 28
29
The purpose of tonight’s meeting is three fold. First to provide the Commissioners with a 30
detailed overview of all of the assumptions the traffic analysis and impacts presented in the TIA 31
to outline potential categories of mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Draft EIR 32
Transportation Analysis. Lastly, to receive the Commission’s comments on the Transportation 33
Analysis and the Commissioners input on the City’s approach to mitigation measures. 34
35
Sitting beside me is Steven Turner who is the Project Manager for this project and co-author of 36
the report. In the audience is our consultant team as well as Sam Pierce, Traffic Engineer for the 37
City. At this time I would like to introduce Dennis Struecker, Associate Vice President for 38
AECOM who will present the more detailed analysis part of this presentation. 39
40
Chair Garber: Thank you. Dennis, I understand you are going to be taking approximately 20 41
minutes or so. 42
43
Mr. Dennis Struecker, Associate Vice President, AECOM Transportation: Yes, I hope to get 44
through it in that time. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 2 of 66
This slide here just shows the two projects. On the bottom part of the aerial in the purple color is 1
the hospital area and in the orange color towards the top is the Shopping Center site. 2
3
The Shopping Center is expected to be fully developed by 2015. It is going to add 211,000 4
square feet of space to the retail area, included in that retail area is the high turnover restaurant 5
part of the project. There is an almost 29,000 square foot quality restaurant that is separate from 6
the Shopping Center, a 120-room hotel, and approximately 1,200 parking spaces. 7
8
This is the site plan of the Shopping Center. Along the right side of the graphic is El Camino 9
Real and increased development along that side of the Shopping Center including parking 10
structures in the lower left at Arboretum and Quarry is the hotel site and additional parking 11
structures. 12
13
The Stanford University Medical Center is to be developed in two stages approximately 60 14
percent to be completed by 2015 with the full build out of the proposed project in 2025. It adds 15
about 880,000 square feet, 855,000 is hospital and clinics, and about 24,000 is medical office 16
building. The actual increase in size is 1.3 million square feet but the term we use in the traffic 17
report is ‘right sizing,’ which is the additional area that is used in medical facilities today that 18
does not increase the patient count or the number of employees. So it doesn’t increase traffic but 19
it is the additional equipment and things that are in modern medicine today. The hospital also 20
adds a little over 2,000 parking spaces. 21
22
This is a site plan of the Medical Center. In the center towards the lower left is the Stanford 23
Hospital near Welch and Pasture. In the upper right at Welch and Quarry is the Lucile Packard 24
Children’s Hospital. 25
26
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is developed as input to the environmental document, the EIR, 27
for the project. Its intent is to identify and evaluate existing and future traffic and transportation 28
conditions that are associated with the project and then develop mitigation measures to alleviate 29
any impacts that are uncovered. 30
31
Some of the guidelines used to establish the study area are intersections along major corridors. 32
For this project that would be Sand Hill Road for instance and El Camino Real. Intersections 33
adjacent to the site, Quarry and El Camino Real for instance. Intersections known to experience 34
congestion, good examples of currently congested intersections would be El Camino and 35
Embarcadero, El Camino and Page Mill. Intersections of concern to Menlo Park we have 36
coordinated with Menlo Park on this study. Residential roadway segments where people may 37
use residential streets to get to where they want to be and then also roadway segments along 38
major corridors in Menlo Park, which is a part of their analysis procedures. 39
40
So the specifics of the study area for the project is 63 intersections, three in unincorporated Santa 41
Clara, 34 in Palo Alto, 23 in Menlo Park, and three in East Palo Alto, three freeway segments on 42
101 and three freeway segments on 280. Eight residential roadway segments, and eight roadway 43
segments along major corridors in Menlo Park. This shows you the intersections and it also 44
shows you the residential streets that were looked at. As you can see we looked at most 45
intersections along El Camino Real, and along Sand Hill Road, and we extend out essentially to 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 3 of 66
where you get on the freeway. After that point the effect on signalized intersections is 1
diminished. These are the residential streets that were included in the analysis. There are five of 2
them down off of Sand Hill Road, two in Downtown North, and Hamilton up near Chaucer and 3
Lincoln. 4
5
As we mentioned there are two horizon years, 2015 and 2025, so all analysis is at those two 6
breakpoints. They coincide with the development as I mentioned, the Shopping Center is to be 7
done by 2015 and a complete Medical Center by 2025. They also coordinate with the horizon 8
years of the City’s travel demand model. 9
10
The project scenarios, I have a feeling we may talk about this a couple of times tonight. Because 11
there are two projects and we have two analysis years there are seven scenarios. As we start the 12
first bullet there, the impact of the Shopping Center only in 2015. I am going to take a minute 13
and try and go through these in some detail so we can try and understand them. That would be 14
looking at the effect of building all of the Shopping Center in 2015 and so we would have 2015 15
no project traffic and to that we would compare the 2015 no project traffic plus all of the 16
Shopping Center. Any difference between the operations between those two sets of volumes 17
would be the effect of building the Shopping Center in 2015. 18
19
Now the same thing is for the Medical Center only recall that that is only 60 percent build out in 20
2015. So the second bullet would be the effect of building 60 percent of the hospital facilities in 21
2015 and adding that traffic onto the 2015 base, and then for the effect you would compare that 22
back to the 2015 no project. 23
24
Then the third bullet is the effect of building all of the Medical Center, 100 percent of the 25
Medical Center, in 2025. So we would add all of the Medical Center traffic to the 2025 baseline 26
and then compare that to the 2025 baseline and that would be the effect of the project. 27
28
Then in the middle of the slide, the next two bullets are the impact of both projects in 2015 and 29
2025. So the fourth bullet would be all of the Shopping Center, 60 percent of the hospital added 30
to the 2015 base and then compare those results back to the 2015 no project base. Then the fifth 31
bullet would be all of the Shopping Center, all of the hospital added to the 2025 base and 32
compared back to the 2025 no project base for the effect of the project. 33
34
Now the bottom two are the cumulative analysis of the two projects. So for these we have a 35
different base. So for the one that says Determine the Cumulative Impact of SUMC Only in 36
2025, that would be taking the 2025 base and adding all of the hospital development to it and 37
comparing that back to the 2025 base plus the Shopping Center. So it assumes that the Shopping 38
Center was built in 2015. So the Shopping Center traffic is added to the base. So it is not the 39
same base we used in the first five bullets. 40
41
Then the bottom one is just the opposite of that. It is just the Shopping Center added to the 2025 42
base and then compared to the 2025 base also including the hospital. 43
44
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 4 of 66
Chair Garber: May I interrupt you? This is a particularly tenacious topic that several of the 1
Commissioners have had questions on. I am wondering if you would mind a question or two 2
specifically here. 3
4
Mr. Struecker: Certainly. 5
6
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: So let me see if I can try to analyze this for a moment. Is it fair to say 9
that the seventh entry, which is the cumulative impact of SSC only in 2025, is the difference 10
between the fifth entry and the third entry? 11
12
Mr. Struecker: No, Nicole? 13
14
Commissioner Keller: I am saying when you look at – I mean in some sense the fifth entry is 15
comparing the impact of SSC and SUMC against nothing, against a baseline. 16
17
Mr. Struecker: That is correct. 18
19
Commissioner Keller: The third entry is comparing SUMC against the baseline, right? The last 20
entry is comparing the after number for the fifth against the after number for the third. 21
22
Mr. Struecker: No, the base in the seventh one includes all of the hospital plus into the base. It 23
has a new base to it. The first five always have no project as the base it is being compared to. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Right. Let me try to explain it differently. Suppose you have the impact 26
of SUMC, suppose that those numbers are base and SUMC-2025. So you are comparing base 27
2025 with SUMC-2025 that is what the third entry is, right? 28
29
Mr. Struecker: The third entry is base 2025 against all of the development of the hospital, yes. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: Against SUMC-2025. The fifth entry is comparing base 2025 against 32
SUMC plus SSC 2025. 33
34
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 35
36
Commissioner Keller: The last one is comparing SSC and SUMC 2025 with SUMC 2025. 37
38
Chair Garber: Forgive me Commissioner Keller, why don’t you attempt to get through the rest 39
of your presentation and come back to this. I suspect we are going to have a lot. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: I am just wondering if you can answer that question because it might help 42
clarify it. 43
44
Chair Garber: I am hoping that part of the question will be answered as part of his remaining ten 45
o 12 minutes. Commissioner Holman. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 5 of 66
1
Commissioner Holman: I just have one question. I see two Commissioners have questions and I 2
just want to make sure that either clarity will be provided for these points during the course of 3
your presentation or if Commissioners need clarification of these points now to be able to 4
understand the rest of the presentation then it would be prudent to ask the questions now. 5
6
Chair Garber: Can you use your crystal ball and tell us what we will be thinking in ten minutes? 7
8
Mr. Struecker: I will go in whatever direction you want to go. We can continue to talk about it 9
or we can go on with the presentation. 10
11
Chair Garber: Would the other Commissioners mind if we just spend a moment trying to 12
understand what these scenarios are? In that case we might as well get all the questions out now 13
and then we will see if you can pull it together. Commissioner Fineberg, 14
15
Commissioner Fineberg: I am going to ask Commissioner Keller’s question another way. In 16
simple arithmetic two plus three is five but in the scenario where you are analyzing – in the 17
analysis of traffic impacts if you have two scenarios when they are combining or separating does 18
the cumulative impact equal the same or do the thresholds of significance, let’s say two 19
individual projects together may not cross over thresholds of significance, but if you add them 20
combined they do. So can you separate out a cumulative of two projects and say that equals two 21
separate projects? 22
23
Mr. Struecker: No, the cumulative effect is just the effect of both projects. If I understood your 24
question if you have five impacts of project A, four impacts of project B you would not 25
necessarily have nine impacts when you combine the two. First of all some of the intersections 26
are the same. The thresholds remain the same in terms of what the trigger is so it could be more 27
or it could be less. 28
29
Chair Garber: Staff. 30
31
Ms. Likens: I think you need to look at the detail table set that was attached to your Staff Report 32
that had to be reprinted because they were longer. I think the answer to your question is yes, 33
Commissioner Keller. If you were to look at Table 3-10 in the attachment I am just using that 34
because we are talking about the cumulative effect of the Stanford Shopping Center. 35
36
Commissioner Keller: This is the attachment that was given to us separately? 37
38
Ms. Likens: Yes, it was included in your packet but it was for the purposes of reading the whole 39
table. See if my rationale is correct, Dennis. 40
41
The columns that are labeled 2025 PM, I am just taking PM as an example, plus SUMC. It is the 42
third. I just picked that. The 2025 PM plus SUMC, the first intersection the Level of Service is 43
F and the delay is 92.9 seconds. 44
45
Commissioner Keller: Which row are you looking at? 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 6 of 66
1
Ms. Likens: The first row. Dennis, are you following me? I am looking at this number, which 2
is Level of Service F, 92.9 seconds delay. Then if you go down to Table 3.12 and you look at 3
the new base, the 2025 PM Base the new base for that intersection is Level of Service F, 92.9 4
seconds. 5
6
Mr. Struecker: Right. The new base has the hospital in the base and so that is why the delay 7
goes up from 90 to 92, correct. 8
9
Ms. Likens: Was that your question, Commissioner Keller? 10
11
Chair Garber: In that specific example though the delay in both of those is 92.9. Is that correct? 12
13
Ms. Likens: No, because the new base includes the hospital in the base for the cumulative 14
analysis for the Stanford Shopping Center. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: Maybe trying to put it in simple arithmetic just to try to do this. Suppose 17
there are ten cars in the projected base and we think that there are two extra cars from the 18
Medical Center and three extra cars from the Shopping Center. So one of the deltas is three cars, 19
one of the deltas is two cars, and one of deltas is five cars. 20
21
Mr. Struecker: Correct. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: Essentially the difference between the base and the SSC is the top 24
calculation. The difference between the base and the SUMC is second or third calculation. The 25
difference between the SSC and the both is the bottom calculation. The difference between the 26
SUMC and the both is the sixth calculation. That is what I am trying to think of intuitively. 27
Does that make sense? 28
29
Mr. Struecker: It makes sense. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: Does that help everybody else understand what I am talking about? 32
Okay. At least now I understand what is going on. 33
34
Chair Garber: I am a little behind you. So in the examples that you have been walking us 35
through here for instance the Shopping Center and viewing that at the 2015 horizon line the 36
volume, let’s just choose that as one data set, if you were to add the underlying base of 2015 plus 37
the impact of the Shopping Center at 2015 it would not be the same if I incorporate those two 38
numbers as the new base. That is a different number than the accumulation of those two? 39
40
Mr. Struecker: Correct. One base you have no build and the other base you have one of the 41
projects. In your example I believe it was the hospital. 42
43
Chair Garber: It doesn’t matter which one I am just trying to understand. In one case why 44
would a project plus the base equal a different number than one of the projects where it 45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 7 of 66
incorporates the base? I am not following. Maybe I am missing something there. It sounds like 1
there are two numbers when you get to the horizon that is 2025. 2
3
Mr. Struecker: There are. There are two different bases. 4
5
Chair Garber: So you are comparing it in one case where you are taking one of the projects, call 6
it the Medical Center, and making that part of the base to see the impacts of the Shopping Center 7
exclusively. That base, where you have taken the underlying base plus the Medical Center, is a 8
different number than taking the base plus the hospital. 9
10
Mr. Struecker: Correct. 11
12
Chair Garber: I am probably jumping ahead in your presentation but how is that number 13
different or why is it different? 14
15
Mr. Struecker: Well, you compare back to whatever base we are using. So we have an original 16
base that we are using in the first five bullets there. That original base either in 2025 or 2015 is 17
the no project base. The impacts are based on delay. So if we have an intersection in 2025, say 18
the fifth bullet there, that we add both projects together and they have 75 seconds of delay but 19
the 2025 no project that includes neither had 70 seconds of delay so you have a five second 20
impact at that intersection. 21
22
Now we go down to the final entry there we no longer have that base of 70 seconds of delay 23
because we have added the hospital into it. So now the delay is going to be up. Up to 72, 73, or 24
it is a different number than 70. So we have a different base that we are comparing to because it 25
includes the traffic from the hospital in addition to just the general no project traffic. 26
27
Chair Garber: When you add in the additional project at 2015. 28
29
Mr. Struecker: We don’t do that in 2015 it only happens at 2025. 30
31
Chair Garber: So when you get to 2025 and you look at say the Medical Center and the 2025 32
numbers the additional impact occurs because the other project has then existed for then ten 33
years and creates additional demand, which changes the base number. 34
35
Mr. Struecker: Correct. 36
37
Chair Garber: That is the why. 38
39
Mr. Struecker: Correct. 40
41
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Is it fair to say that traffic is additive in the sense that if you are adding so 44
many cars from Stanford Shopping Center or you are adding so many cars from Stanford 45
Medical Center it doesn’t really matter which way you add them the comparisons are the same. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 8 of 66
The difference is that delay is not additive and delay basically is nonlinear. It has more complex 1
difference. So adding the three cars in my case from ten to 13, adding the Stanford Shopping 2
Center cars to the base from ten to 13, is different than adding the three cars from the Medical 3
Center base from going from 12 to 15. So going from ten to 13 is different from going from 12 4
to 15. It also has to do with the cross streets and all that other kind of complexity, but essentially 5
what you start off with results in different delays. Nonetheless, delay from ten to 12 plus a delay 6
from 12 to 15 is going to be same sum as the delay from ten to 15. 7
8
Mr. Struecker: Correct. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Okay. Does that help people? Thank you. 11
12
Chair Garber: Are we ready to continue? Please. 13
14
Mr. Struecker: So a little bit on the methodology. The background traffic numbers that we were 15
talking about in 2015 and 2025 are from the Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model that 16
the City recently updated. The project impacts are based on City of Palo Alto criteria as well as 17
Santa Clara County congestion management criteria. Project trips are forecast using the IT trip 18
generation rates for the Shopping Center components being the Shopping Center, the hotel, and 19
the restaurant. For the hospital and medical office buildings they are based on surveys conducted 20
by the applicant. It is a little bit more unique land use. 21
22
Next slide. The significance criteria. If we fall below Level of Service D then E or F is a 23
significant impact. There is a lot of detail there. If we are already operating in E or F the impact 24
is associated with an increase of four seconds of delay and an increase of .01 in the volume to 25
capacity ratio. Other significance criteria are queuing and overflows of storage, an increase 26
greater than one percent of the freeway capacity for adjacent freeways. Another impact of the 27
City is impeding a development or function of planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 28
29
Transit impacts are associated with increased congestion that affects transit movements, 30
inadequate onsite parking, safety hazards, and inadequate emergency access due to congestion. 31
The City has residential street criteria called a TIRE Index. TIRE stands for Traffic Infusion in 32
Residential Environment and it is a measurement of the perception of traffic by the surrounding 33
residents. 34
35
The trip generation for the two projects, Shopping Center on the left, 137 additional AM trips, 36
546 additional PM trips. For the hospital it is mid to high 400s in the AM and PM in 2015 and 37
the mid 700s in 2025. Those are not additive those are inclusive. 38
39
The impact methodology, Santa Clara County requires the use of a program called TRAFFIX to 40
estimate intersection delay. I spoke about the TIRE Index for the City of Palo Alto guidelines, 41
percentage contribution for freeway segments, parking supply versus expected demand, and the 42
effects on non-automobile mode such as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. 43
44
Future No Project Conditions to spend a minute with this slide. This shows you the expected 45
congestion on local streets without any development from these two projects. In the AM 2015 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 9 of 66
six intersections, in the PM of 2015 a total of 15 operation at E or F, 2025AM is also 15 and 1
2025 PM is a total of 23 intersections operating at Level of Service E or F. 2
3
Just a little bit of the impacts of the project. SSC only, no impacts in the AM, six in the PM and 4
for the hospital four in the AM and eight in the PM. For the two projects five in AM and 11 5
impacted intersections in the PM. 6
7
Chair Garber: I am going to interrupt you just briefly. There is a question on this particular 8
slide. Commissioner Keller. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Can you go back to the previous slide? The ones in 2025 are those 11
cumulative of the ones in 2015 or are those additional ones? 12
13
Mr. Struecker: Those are cumulative. 14
15
Commissioner Keller: How many are there in the current baseline? 16
17
Mr. Struecker: Existing? 18
19
Commissioner Keller: Existing conditions. 20
21
Mr. Struecker: We do have that. There are five E’s or F’s in the AM and six in the PM. 22
23
Commissioner Keller: Okay. When you go down to the last line on there it says 18 intersections 24
operating LOS F in 2025. So that is the baseline condition saying that without either project we 25
will have horrible traffic at 18 intersections compared to eight in 2015 in the PM and you said six 26
or so now? 27
28
Mr. Struecker: Well, we lumped the E’s and the F’s together in the slide I am looking at. A total 29
of six E’s or F’s in the PM today. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: Okay, so you have six E’s or F’s now. You have 15 E’s or F’s in 2015 32
without either project, and you have 23 E’s or F’s in the afternoon without either project in 2025. 33
34
Mr. Struecker: Well, we have been talking about PM so I think you said six but it would be 15 35
in 2015. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: You said six currently. 38
39
Mr. Struecker: Yes, okay. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: I am always talking about PM. So you said six now on the current 42
baseline. You have 15 operating E and F in 2015 in the afternoon, and you have 23 operating at 43
E and F in 2025 without either project. 44
45
Chair Garber: So again that is six, 15, 23. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 10 of 66
1
Commissioner Keller: Six, 15, and 23 in the PM peak hour in terms of the ones that are E or F. 2
So it seems that we are projecting a lot of traffic in the baseline over the next 16 years. 3
4
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 5
6
Commissioner Keller: What I am wondering is to what extent is the rest of your analysis, like 7
the analysis on slide 22 the next slide, is the deltas over the future projects. Is that right? The 8
delta over the future no project alternative. These are deltas over the previous ones, right? 9
10
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 11
12
Commissioner Keller: So to the extent…. 13
14
Mr. Struecker: No, well these are the impacts. So these are the intersections that are impacted 15
by whichever project is listed there in the bullet. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Right but they are based on the baseline of 23 intersections. In the 18
previous slide you had 2025 PM peak hour there are 23 intersections at E or F. 19
20
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 21
22
Commissioner Keller: So what you are talking about here is that there are 11 intersections in the 23
PM that are impacted. That is based on the existing 23 intersections that are impacted. 24
25
Mr. Struecker: It is based on the traffic volume that is through those 23 intersections. Actually 26
we are in 2015 here so we are kind of mixing things up a little bit. 27
28
Commissioner Keller: Okay, sorry. 29
30
Mr. Struecker: You add the project traffic to the background conditions to determine the 31
impacts. If you have congested conditions without the projects it is more likely that you are 32
going to have project impacts because you are adding more traffic to a congested condition. A 33
couple of slide ago we talked about what the impact is when you are already at congestion and 34
that is four seconds of additional delay. 35
36
Commissioner Keller: So for example on your slide 19 you had being added by the Medical 37
Center 746 PM trips, right. 38
39
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 40
41
Commissioner Keller: Then do you have an idea how much additional traffic there is? Maybe 42
somebody can do this. How much additional traffic is there in the baseline of additional trips 43
that compares with? Does that make sense? I am trying to understand because it seems to be 44
that the calculation you are doing is very, very sensitive to your baseline conditions. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 11 of 66
Mr. Struecker: It is. 1
2
Ms. Likens: What you are asking is what is the growth rate included in the model output, is that 3
what you want to know? Basically the growth rate that is assumed in the model is 1.6 percent 4
per year. That was derived from looking at the VTA model growth rates, looking at our own 5
City model growth rates, and looking at realistically what growth could be accommodated on the 6
roadway network as it exists. So we did a very detailed analysis of the roadway network and 7
looking at the growth rates and actually based our model projections on the 2025 growth rate of 8
1.6 percent. In the model and in the VTA model there is a higher growth rate to 2015 than to 9
2025. It seems quite extraordinarily high so we did recalibrate it and assumed a 1.6 percent 10
growth rate throughout the years from today to 2025 11
12
Chair Garber: Thank you. Anything else? 13
14
Ms. Likens: Not right now. If you need more detail we can provide it either at this meeting or 15
after this meeting. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Well, I have a little bit more detail. If you look in the EIR document, 18
Figure 2-2a, and if you look at intersection 11, which is El Camino and Embarcadero-Galvez in 19
the PM southbound direction on El Camino, there is 1,031 cars in the current condition going 20
southbound at that intersection. Then if you look at the background project 3-3a, intersection 11, 21
that has grown from 1,031 to 1,965 at that very same intersection as a baseline without any 22
additional traffic. Then if you look at the baseline for 2025, which is on 3-4a, it has gone from 23
1,031 to 1,965 to 2,670 cars southbound on El Camino at the Galvez-Embarcadero Road 24
intersection. So in other words we have essentially doubled the number of cars going through at 25
that intersection in the afternoon and that number of cars swamps the number of cars that are on 26
this chart from the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center. So essentially what 27
we have done is say that we have this relatively small amount of cars from these two projects and 28
a huge amount of cars from doing no development in the city. So I question whether – the 29
interesting thing about compound annual growth rates is they have this very funny characteristic 30
that they blow up very quickly. I frankly am skeptical as to whether the people in Palo Alto 31
would allow any development in Palo Alto if the projection is that we would double traffic on El 32
Camino and at that intersection. So I question that baseline and it seems to me that everything is 33
based on that baseline. 34
35
Chair Garber: I suspect there will be more comments on that shortly, however, Commissioner 36
Fineberg did you have a question related to this specifically? Then let’s move on. 37
38
Commissioner Fineberg: I want to make sure I am understanding the chart number 23 which 39
Commissioner Keller was asking about. So just to confirm, I am going to jump back to chart 21 40
the Future No Project Conditions. Yes from the PowerPoint presentation, slide 21, where it says 41
Future No Project Conditions. If I am reading this correctly, and I am going to stick to 42
Commissioner Keller’s scenario of looking at the PM the 2025 PM peak hour would have 23 43
intersections failing with an LOS of E or F. Is that correct? 44
45
Mr. Struecker: That is correct. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 12 of 66
1
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Let’s jump ahead then to slide 23 and look at the 2025 2
projections in the PM both projects. What number am I supposed to look at? The SSC/SUMC, 3
which would be 21 or the sum of the two cumulative impacts 20 plus 11? 4
5
Mr. Struecker: It is probably easiest to look at the 21 that is both projects and compare back to 6
the no project baseline, which we referred to in a previous slide. 7
8
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so in 2025 if the cumulative impacts of the Medical Center have 9
20 peak hour impacts is that assuming that the mall is not built? Okay. So then if the hospital 10
improvements are not done and the mall is built you get 11. So why isn’t it 31 and why when 11
they are both built is it only 21? If you have less building how you can fewer impacts? 12
13
Mr. Struecker: We are mixing up things. It can’t be compared that way. The second bullet 14
where the 21 PM peak hour impacts are that is both projects built compared to the no project 15
base. Now the third bullet where we have the 20 PM peak hour impacts that is the effect of 16
adding the hospital to the 2025 baseline and comparing it to the 2025 baseline that also includes 17
the Shopping Center. So it is a different base. If you have a different base it could cause you to 18
have more or less impacts. Your project growth is two projects in the second bullet. Your 19
project growth is only one project in the third bullet but it is compared to a higher base. 20
21
Chair Garber: Perhaps it might be helpful to describe why you would look at them one way or 22
the other. Commissioner Keller. 23
24
Commissioner Keller: Perhaps we could help this by in slides 22 and 23 is it correct to say that 25
an impact is an intersection or roadway impacted? 26
27
Mr. Struecker: Yes the title of these are Intersection Impacts. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Therefore what you have in slide 23 is that is 21 intersections that are 30
impacted for both SSC and SUMC. Therefore when you go from the cumulative impact of 31
SUMC and the cumulative impact you are just counting intersections that get worse. If the same 32
intersection gets worse twice you count it once in the SSC plus SUMC. So you don’t count the 33
same intersection twice if one intersection gets worse in each project. 34
35
Mr. Struecker: No, no, 18, 21, 20, and 11 they are assuming the same intersections in many 36
cases. I am certain that El Camino and Embarcadero are probably in every one of those. 37
38
Chair Garber: Yes. Commissioner Lippert. 39
40
Commissioner Lippert: I don’t want to get into a protracted discussion or question here in terms 41
of this. I think I understand it pretty well. Commissioner Fineberg had asked a question about 42
why it is not cumulative if you took the two of the together and why wouldn’t they be added 43
together? The point is there is some overlap in trips and perhaps people who are going to 44
Stanford Hospital might also be going to the Shopping Center or vise-versa as they do everyday. 45
Somebody may work there and then they go to lunch there. So again it is not netted out or 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 13 of 66
cumulative. So what I would like to try to do is get through the presentation and then come back 1
to the questioning if we can and then try to get a handle on this. What this is really doing is 2
fragmenting the presentation and I really want to get through the presentation and then get into 3
the questions. 4
5
Chair Garber: I am with you. I hear you and would also like to do the same thing. I also know 6
that it is going to take awhile for us to get through some of these things for some of us. So with 7
that we will try again to continue with the rest of the presentation. 8
9
Mr. Struecker: So did we go through this slide, Steven? Not yet. Okay. Other potential impacts 10
as we have discussed freeway impacts, residential street impacts, transit service impacts caused 11
by congestion, emergency vehicle delay caused by congestion, restricting pedestrian and bicycle 12
movements, and then access to the site for materials or workers or the effect of construction that 13
requires closure of some type of transportation facility for awhile. 14
15
Potential mitigation measures. Physical roadway improvements will be identified for all 16
impacted intersections. They will concentrate on turn lanes, which are easier to do than a 17
through lane. For a through lane for instance where do you start and stop it? Where turn lanes 18
are a little bit easier to accommodate. Most mitigation measures will probably be found to be 19
somewhat in feasible and Palo Alto has a General Plan policy against most roadway widening. 20
Additional improvement of intersection operations can be found by installing traffic adaptive 21
signals and we will also consider SMART planning such as the Village Concept alternative. 22
23
Continuing with mitigation measures, transportation demand management techniques which 24
reduce drive alone trips, expansion of transit service, installation of traffic signal overrides by 25
emergency vehicles, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and safety enhancements, and access 26
mitigation plans to accommodate construction impacts. 27
28
TDM programs for the two projects, provide onsite TDM coordinators, a guaranteed ride home 29
which is a big thing for people that use alternative transportation so that they can get home in an 30
emergency, show are bicycle storage facilities for people that bicycle, and annual monitoring to 31
assure that we are getting the mode split that was expected. 32
33
The GO Pass is something that is being considered as a mitigation measure. It is a provision 34
where all employees are provided a pass on Caltrain. The estimated cost in the future if the 35
hospital was to do this is a little over a million dollars. If the hospital were to achieve a 36
participation rate on Caltrain usage that is similar to what the University has it would in effect 37
reduce 65 percent of the new trips that are being added by the project. Now the reason that 38
number is so high is because some of the existing trips are now being accommodated by 39
Caltrain. So it would be 65 percent of the new trips but that is because some of the existing trips 40
would be converted to Caltrain ridership. 41
42
Looking at the TDM measures in the AM we can go to zero impacts, it used to be five. In the 43
PM, that says 10 AM it should say 10 PM, used to be 11. You can see how nine used to be 16 44
and 17, used to be 21. Then at the bottom of the slide if we go with additional traffic adaptive 45
then again that 9AM should say 9:00 PM, it was 10 it goes down to nine by doing traffic 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 14 of 66
adaptive, and the 17 goes down to 15 in the PM by doing traffic adaptive signal technology. It 1
gives you an idea of the effect of those mitigations. 2
3
The Village Concept alternative would incorporate housing into the project. So you have 4
housing for workers adjacent to the hospital. It reduces incoming trips in the AM because the 5
work trip that used to be a trip from Menlo Park for instance to the hospital now is a walk trip 6
from the nearby housing. The outbound PM is also improved. Overall vehicle miles of travel 7
should be reduced and the last bullet is this analysis is ongoing to understand the exact effect of 8
the Village Concept. 9
10
A large part of the study area is in Menlo Park. We have met with Menlo Park two or three 11
times so far and we are continuing this coordination effort with Menlo Park. 12
13
That is the end of the presentation. 14
15
Chair Garber: This would be the opportunity for the applicant to make a brief presentation 16
before we go to comments from the public. I am also being reminded that there are some 17
additional slides at least in our handout. Are those going to be presented some other time? 18
19
Mr. Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director: I think those were just intended to be additional 20
information not for presentation. If there were questions related that those might help answer 21
then we can just pull them up. If you see something on there you would like to have explained 22
we will be glad to do that. 23
24
I also wanted to note Steven did want to make mention of what they received tonight at their 25
places. 26
27
Mr. Turner: At places this evening you received a memo from Staff correcting some of the data 28
that is in the Staff Report. You also have that came along with your packet a correction for the 29
tables, the tables that were in the bound Transportation Analysis were printed incorrectly, and so 30
you have the full tables as part of your packet. We also handed out a terms and definitions sheet 31
that is also available at the back table as well that describes some of the typical traffic terms that 32
are used throughout the report. 33
34
Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Phillips, would you like to make your presentation? You will 35
have 15 minutes. Will you need it all? 36
37
Mr. Bill Phillips, Applicant: No I won’t. Thank you Chairman Garber and members of the 38
Commission. I would like to make a few comments about AECOM’s draft traffic analysis and 39
the City’s accompanying Staff Report. These remarks are on behalf of the hospitals. I am doing 40
that and covering this because they know how much I love going through 100 pages of traffic 41
analysis and jargon and tables and charts. I was just flowing with all of you tonight up there. 42
43
The traffic consultant for the hospitals and the Stanford Shopping Center, Fehrs & Peers has also 44
reviewed the transportation analysis and Staff Report. A short memo noting a change to both 45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 15 of 66
that needs to be addressed was sent to Staff yesterday morning and is attached to a copy of my 1
notes here tonight, which I will leave with the clerk. 2
3
My comments really come down to four. First the presentation of impacts without a full 4
understanding of the net measured benefits of feasible mitigation offers you and us an 5
incomplete picture of traffic outcome and one where true discussion and input on the City’s 6
approach to mitigation measures lacks the necessary context and information. 7
8
Second it is important to understand the assumptions that go into this analysis and you have 9
begun to do that. In this case, a critical assumption separate and apart from these projects was 10
that background traffic growth would grow by what we formerly knew to be two percent a year. 11
I accept Gayle’s explanation and clarification that we are now down to 1.6 percent per year on 12
the recalibration. Still this is a very high number. The analysis states that the model background 13
conditions were based on Santa Clara County regional forecasting model with ABAG projections 14
of housing and employment. In your recent work on the Comprehensive Plan Update process 15
you had Applied Development Economics revise the ABAG employment numbers to what ended 16
up being a much more reasoned growth level of 0.6 percent per year, so six-tenths of a percent 17
per year from 2008 to 2020. In addition ADE chose to use Palo Alto’s population and housing 18
unit growth factor of about a half a percent per year from 2005 to 2020. If these growth factors 19
are closer to being correct than ABAG’s projections then a 1.6 percent growth rate would have to 20
assume a huge amount of traffic wafting through Palo Alto due to outside factors and issues. So 21
we think the model’s growth assumption is very, very conservative resulting in an absolute worst 22
case type of analysis when it comes to the number of intersections operating at gridlock before 23
one takes into account the project impacts. You heard some thoughts about that already. When 24
one layers project traffic on top of already congested intersections then significant impacts are a 25
foregone conclusion. While the result is that the EIR will look at the largest possible array of 26
intersections to see whether they might be improved through mitigation it is important to 27
understand that the number of impacts disclosed in the Traffic analysis based on that model are 28
not likely to come to fruition. 29
30
Third, we have told City Staff that the calculation of a TIRE Index impact for Hamilton Avenue 31
is incorrect due to an acknowledged in the traffic analysis likely overstatement of the combined 32
projects daily traffic. This is addressed in the Fehr & Peers memo. 33
34
Then fourth and last, the Staff’s report listing of potential mitigations can only bring forward real 35
discussion and input when we know the amount and degree of benefit they provide. In this 36
regard only the GO Pass program has really been identified to such an extent. 37
38
Then finally, several of these mitigations are suggested based on presuming impacts that have 39
not been shown, have not been studied, have not been analyzed as far as we know in either the 40
traffic analysis or any other analysis we are aware of. Thanks very much. 41
42
Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners we have two persons from the public who wish to 43
speak. I am thinking that rather than asking questions and asking those two to wait let’s have 44
them talk and then we will continue. That being the case we will open the public hearing. The 45
first person to speak is Tina Peak and the second will be Michael Griffin. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 16 of 66
1
Ms. Tina Peak, Palo Alto: Hi, thanks for letting me talk before you got into all your questions. I 2
realize that it is very difficult to understand all the little details of this traffic report. I spent a few 3
hours on it and tried to glean a few things from it. Before I get into some of the things that 4
bothered me I would just like to say I think it is important to take a big picture look at this 5
project. As the Planning Commission, as a citizen of Palo Alto and a resident here who lives 6
near Downtown I would really like you to decide if this project is really ultimately the best 7
project for Palo Alto. Maybe it isn’t. 8
9
I think that if this report shows anything it shows that traffic is already bad, it is getting worse, 10
and these huge projects are just going to make it unbelievable in my opinion. The report also 11
mentioned that 75 percent of the Medical Center trips were going to be regional and not local. 12
All along I felt that this is a regional facility that Stanford is proposing on their core campus. 13
Their core campus is not setup for regional facilities and regional traffic. Perhaps what we need 14
to suggest to them is that they need to build a community hospital that is more appropriate for 15
this area and look elsewhere for a site for regional facility, one that would be closer to a freeway 16
or aircraft or helicopter pads or something like that. So that is just a thought. 17
18
As far as mitigations I am sure we will hear all sorts of stuff about how they are going to mitigate 19
it and get people to do all this and that but ultimately common sense tells you a project of this 20
size can only be mitigated to a certain extent. So please keep common sense in mind. 21
22
Now I am not a traffic analysis person by any means but I noticed a few things in this report. I 23
think it is very nice that the projected trips get this 35 percent reduction. If you look in there 24
they adjust the trips for passing by trips by ten percent, then they adjust them for diverted trips 25
by 15 percent, then they adjust them for hotel, retail, mixed use by ten percent. So just off the 26
top all these trips are discounted by 35 percent. They do the same thing when he mentioned in 27
his slides the ‘right sizing’ of the building. So suddenly instead of accounting for number of 28
trips from the Medical Center that is going to be 1.2 million square feet and they discount that by 29
445,000 square feet and suddenly you are left with a project that is only 855,000 square feet. So 30
they have given the Stanford Medical Center project also a 35 percent reduction before they 31
looked at any of the trips there. So I found that rather interesting. 32
33
Also I had trouble comparing the estimated trips from the hospital because I couldn’t in the 34
report that I saw online find what the current trip numbers were anywhere. Perhaps I missed it. 35
36
I think you should also keep in mind the effects on residential traffic as well as emergency 37
vehicles that with all this extra traffic won’t be able to get to hospital. I see I am about up so I 38
will stop there. Thank you. 39
40
Chair Garber: Thank you. Michael Griffin and if there is anyone else that would like to speak 41
on this topic please fill out a card and you will be heard next. 42
43
Mr. Bill Griffin, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I enjoyed your repartee and 44
questions that were presented to the applicant. They were quite enlightening and I encourage 45
you to keep up the good work. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 17 of 66
1
This traffic report’s conclusions don’t really come as a huge surprise to anyone that has followed 2
these projects. That doesn’t make the findings any more pleasant mind you as the prospect of 3
near total gridlock in the future is certainly not something that any of us would wish on Palo 4
Alto. There is a price to be paid for adding a 1.5 million square foot project in the middle of our 5
lives here. I hope taxpayers start paying attention and darn soon to what is coming at them down 6
the road. Actually I was hoping to see the Chamber of Commerce here tonight to proclaim alarm 7
at the prospect of 23 failed intersections before the projects are even built, if I understand the 8
dialogue that has taken place here, causing streets to become ever more jammed, causing 9
additional grief for both their employees as well as customers alike. After all there are 10
commercial centers here in town in addition to the Stanford Mall. Are independent business 11
people paying attention to all of this? What about Menlo Park and Mountain View? Maybe it is 12
time for local media to take the time to help get this entire project up on the radar so folks can 13
digest what these projects are going to bring. 14
15
Digging into the report itself there were a few items that I think bear further investigation. I 16
guess I am going to wind up echoing some of Ms. Peak’s comments here. The logic behind pass 17
by trips and diverted trips that provides a 25 percent reduction to the Shopping Center car trips 18
and the hotel, retail, mixed use reduction of another ten percent, all of this need elaboration. 19
20
Furthermore the Shopping Center trips are divided into 30 percent regional and 70 percent local. 21
How can this be when the Shopping Center is well understood to be a regional shopping 22
destination? I was just astounded to read that. Then there was a comment that some of this was 23
based on the City of Palo Alto’s data. 24
25
Then there is the ‘right sizing’ adjustment for the Medical Center, reducing the square footage 26
used to make traffic calculations by 29 percent. I am perplexed by all this discounting and would 27
appreciate greater justification for it. 28
29
I am also under-whelmed by the mitigations that were shown in the slides tonight. I just can’t 30
believe that any of these suggested mitigations are going to come anywhere close to being able to 31
solve the traffic volumes that we have been looking at. 32
33
Also, who is going to pay for these mitigations? I have heard from the Stanford folks that they 34
don’t have any money budgeted for it at least currently and I am just wondering who is going to 35
be printing it. 36
37
Media attention, I think we need a wakeup call. The communities around here I don’t think are 38
sufficiently alive to what is going to be happening to us. 39
40
Finally, I would ask the City of Palo Alto to make sure that they are approaching their colleagues 41
in Menlo Park and Mountain View. I am amazed that nobody is here tonight. Where is 42
everybody? No one seems to be paying attention to this and I find it scandalous. Enough of that. 43
Thank you for your attention. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 18 of 66
Chair Garber: Thank you. I have no more cards from the public. Does anyone out there have 1
anything they would like to add? If not, we will go to questions from the Commissioners. 2
Before we do that let me just ask the Commissioners, it is almost 7:20 do you think we can get 3
through our questions and comments by ten o’clock? Shall we aim for that? Commissioner 4
Keller you are the only one coughing. 5
6
Commissioner Keller: Let me put it this way. I think that we may run out of dialogue at ten 7
o’clock but I am not sure that we will have all our questions answered by then. 8
9
Chair Garber: Well, perhaps we can target getting them stated at least. 10
11
Commissioner Fineberg: It also depends on how long the answers are. 12
13
Chair Garber: Let’s aim for ten o’clock and see how well we do. I have light from Lippert and 14
then Keller. Commissioner Lippert. 15
16
Commissioner Lippert: I am very perplexed by one thing here, which is when I go through and 17
look at the Levels of Service and they are rated A, B, C, D, etc. I know we are focused in on 18
levels E and F but level D isn’t really much better either. Can you talk a little bit more about the 19
Level of Service D? 20
21
Ms. Likens: I will let Dennis answer the technical part of it but you are aware I am sure that 22
Level of Service D is an acceptable level of service in the City of Palo Alto. That is our standard 23
in the Comprehensive Plan. 24
25
Commissioner Lippert: Just to give you an idea, recently I went out to the Stanford Medical 26
Center area myself. In identifying and going through these intersections I actually went through 27
some of the D Level of Service intersections and they were almost virtually at a standstill. Now 28
maybe a level D is moving at a snail’s pace but when you are trying to get there for a medical 29
procedure at a very early hour of the morning what am I supposed to do, ride my bicycle? 30
31
32
Ms. Likens: Dennis, would you like to discuss the difference between Level of Service D and E 33
and F in terms of delay? 34
35
Mr. Struecker: Yes. Level D has an average delay that varies from 35 seconds to 55 seconds per 36
vehicle so anywhere from a little over half a minute to almost a minute to get through an 37
intersection on average. E goes from 55 seconds to 80 seconds and F is anything over 80 38
seconds. So that is the numerical definition of Level of Service. 39
40
Commissioner Lippert: It is purely anecdotal but I found myself waiting something on the order 41
of 15 minutes to get through an intersection. 42
43
Mr. Struecker: This is an average for all vehicles. So there are some movements such as if you 44
are on a side street trying to get off there is not as much traffic so the denominator is not as high. 45
There can be cases where delays go higher for the side streets, yes. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 19 of 66
1
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I will move on to the next Commissioner. 2
3
Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller followed by Holman and then Fineberg and 4
then myself. 5
6
Commissioner Keller: I think earlier we talked about the consideration that the calculations of 7
the impacts are very sensitive to the baseline data. I understand these by looking at individual 8
intersections and trying to understand what is going on. So if we take a look at intersection 7, 9
which is Sand Hill Road and El Camino. If we look at that intersection in all cases I am going to 10
look at the southbound PM traffic on El Camino. So if you go to Figure 2-2a, the PM existing 11
traffic volumes it has a baseline southbound of 810. By the way northbound in the AM is 1,514. 12
So it seems like there is a lot of traffic in the morning going northbound, going southbound, and 13
not very much in the evening going southbound. Then when you go to the Figure 3-3a, which is 14
2,015 background without project volumes, the 1,514 is exactly the same but the 810 has gone 15
up to 1,118. Then when you go to Figure 3-4a which is a 2025 background without project 16
volumes the 1,514 is exactly the same and the 1,118 has gone up to 1,557 which is just not quite 17
but pretty close to double 810 there. 18
19
Now what is interesting to me is the rule of 72, but the rule of thumb that I know is that you take 20
the interest rate of compound average growth rater and you divide it into 72 and you get the 21
doubling rate. So what happens is that for 1.6 compound annual growth rate you wind up with 22
45 year doubling rate. If we are basically doubling from 2008 to 2025 we have a 17-year 23
doubling period. A 17-year doubling period means we have a 4.25 approximately percent 24
compound annual growth rate. So it looks like the growth rate we have is somewhere in the 25
order of 4.25 divided by 1.6? What is that 3 or 4? So in other words the growth rate that is on 26
here is dramatically more than it is supposed to be. If you put the baseline – that is two and two-27
thirds higher, 4.25 is about two and two-thirds higher than 1.6. If you have this compound 28
annual growth rate that involves doubling in 17 years it means that you have a lot more baseline 29
and some when you add a handful more cars it makes a difference but the amount of difference it 30
makes is dramatically dependent on your baseline. So I notice that Mr. Phillips from Stanford 31
mentioned the idea of 1.6 percent being reasonable but here I think it is 4.25. Could you address 32
that please? 33
34
Mr. Struecker: Well I believe the 1.6 was a model average for a cordon around the city. So it is 35
not consistent to every movement. 36
37
Commissioner Keller: Then we follow along to the traffic volumes in 2025 with both, which is 38
Figure 3-17a. So that has gone from a baseline of 1,557 cars going southbound on El Camino in 39
the PM to 1,602 cars going southbound on El Camino. So basically we have about 50-some odd 40
cars. That is kind of interesting. This notion of doubling on El Camino and the fact that some 41
numbers have a compound annual growth rate and some others don’t have a compound annual 42
growth rate so the baseline is exactly the same and some are increased. It just seems weird to 43
me. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 20 of 66
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, as perhaps a follow up maybe another way to ask a similar 1
question is how do the models reconcile these points within it, the intersections within it, that 2
obviously don’t track to the overall? Are there ways of understanding the relationships between 3
those two that might help us? 4
5
Ms. Likens: Dennis could answer and then I would like to call upon Sam Peiris, the Traffic 6
Engineer for the City too. He has been working most directly with our model to explain the 7
process that went into the model update and perhaps be able to answer some of these questions 8
technically. 9
10
Chair Garber: Thank you, Gayle. As you approach please identify yourself. 11
12
Mr. Sam Peiris, Traffic Engineer: Good evening. The model, the 1.6 rate is distributed 13
throughout the city. It is not going by each intersection by intersection. Then again at 14
intersections traffic will be based on the trip distribution also. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: So following up on that let’s say if we take a look at the intersection 17
which is 16, you basically at intersection 16 are going from a current southbound at rush hour of 18
1,450 in the evening for current existing to a new one of 2,457 which then goes up slightly in 19
terms of Figure 3-7. What I am wondering is there are a couple of things going on here. First of 20
all what you are saying is in some sense when traffic increases it increases on arterial and major 21
thoroughfares more than it increases on local streets, but on the other hand what I am wondering 22
is why it goes up exponentially. If traffic were to increase within the whole city by 1.6 percent 23
on a compound annual growth rate then what you are doing here is you have a compound annual 24
growth rate where it is increasing at a faster exponential rate on certain things. I would expect it 25
to be more linear rather than exponential. 26
27
Mr. Peiris: That is correct. However, again the distribution of the traffic is changed on each 28
roadway segment to segment. So based on the distribution some intersection will have more 29
than 1.6, and some intersections may have less than 1.6, but if you look at the overall from the 30
base year right now to 2025 the total growth rate is 1.6. Then again this 1.6 rater based on the 31
land use data is based on the 2005 land use data. 32
33
Ms. Likens: Also, I would comment that the model also recognizes that a very large percentage 34
of the traffic growth is regional traffic growth that Palo Alto will experience as traffic moves 35
through the city. It is not just the growth that is going to occur in Palo Alto. The VTA mode and 36
our model have to recognize that there is regional growth and that is going to impact traffic 37
volumes as they enter the city and move through the city. So it is most likely the case that the 38
major street system is going to experience a high level of traffic growth. 39
40
Mr. Peiris: Correct. Especially on a street like El Camino Real because the regional traffic 41
growth is way higher than the Palo Alto growth. So what is going to happen on 280 or 101 when 42
they are congested that traffic is going to go through Palo Alto to Menlo Park. So then El 43
Camino Real traffic volume goes way high. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 21 of 66
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, I am just wondering if we can get a few more questions in 1
before we…. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: I am trying to understand this and trying to explain what my issue it. Let 4
me put it this way. Suppose we have 10,000 cars in the whole city just to give a number. Then 5
we have a compound annual growth rate of 1.6 percent. Then basically in 17 years that 10,000 6
cars will go up to approximately 12,000 or 13,000 cars based on a compound annual growth rate 7
of 1.6 percent. We then have a street like El Camino and what you are basically saying is that El 8
Camino instead of going from say 1,000 it basically goes to 2,000 and that almost all the extra 9
traffic winds up on El Camino. The interesting thing about that is when you extrapolate that out 10
you wind up as the compound annual growth rate increases at a 1.6 percent, when you get to the 11
tail of that you get a situation where it increases over a slow rate. So if we basically say that El 12
Camino goes from 1,000 to 2,000 and the citywide traffic goes from 10,000 to 13,000. Then 13
next time what happens is the traffic in the whole city in the next 17 years goes from 13,000 to 14
16,000 and El Camino has gone from 2,000 to 4,000 because it has doubled in those 17 years. 15
Similarly when the traffic in the rest of the city has gone from 16,000 to 20, 000 you suddenly 16
have the traffic on El Camino going from 4,000 to 8,000 because it is doubling every 17 years. 17
At that rate the traffic on El Camino will exceed the traffic in the rest of the city because the 18
growth rate on El Camino is two and a half times or more faster than the rest of the city. So in 19
some sense from my point of view it doesn’t make sense to do extrapolations that way because 20
you are doing an arithmetic extrapolation using a geometric or exponential approach. So the 21
consider is that if you basically say overall traffic grows at a certain rate and you say that in a 22
short period of time the traffic on a small part of that grows at 4.5 percent it is not going to keep 23
on growing like that over time it is going to dampen down. For one reason, you can’t fit all those 24
cars on El Camino so they are going to go somewhere else. So the idea that you can just double 25
in 17 years on El Camino, and some things double, some things don’t, some things don’t even go 26
up at all just doesn’t make sense to me. 27
28
Chair Garber: Planning Director. 29
30
Mr. Williams: I know I understand what Commissioner Keller is saying and it is a fundamental 31
issue to the model. I don’t think the intent of the model is that it designates to exponentially 32
grow in traffic. I think what the model does is it distributes that 2,000 or 3,000 extra trips above 33
the 10,000 in a way that finds its way most easily to El Camino. There is some point at which it 34
is so difficult to travel on El Camino that that ends up further clogging Middlefield or Alma or 35
some other north-south type of route. So it is a distribution thing and in this timeframe that is the 36
way it seems that a large percentage is ending up on El Camino. I think the issue is that it is a 37
fundamental part of the model and we have gone round and round with our Staff, VTA, talked to 38
Menlo Park, talked to other people about model assumptions, and believe this is the best 39
approach to this model. The alternative unless you assume a lesser growth rate is to try to force 40
traffic on other north-south streets. I am not sure where to take this other than to acknowledge 41
Commissioner Keller’s concern about it and pass it along and have our folks reanalyze that again 42
and see if there is any reason to make a change. I think it has been vetted very extensively on 43
our level and this is the result that it yields which is a lot of traffic on El Camino in the future 44
unless for some reason this regional traffic does not materialize, it is going to be going back and 45
forth through Palo Alto. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 22 of 66
1
Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman followed by Fineberg and myself. 2
3
Commissioner Holman: I very much appreciate the line of Commissioner Keller’s questions. 4
He is much better at digging at those numbers than I am but I appreciate the questions to know 5
where he is headed. The model assumptions, I have a couple of questions about those. One is 6
when were they adopted? 7
8
Ms. Likens: In terms of adoption there was no formal adoption by any body. It is a technical 9
analysis and we did a lot of calibration of the model. Sam can discuss the calibration process. It 10
was a very iterative process with our modeler, our modeling consultant, and working with the 11
VTA and looking at their model. I think Sam can discuss the calibration process. 12
13
Commissioner Holman: Let me perhaps clarify the question. When I say adopt it I don’t mean 14
that it went through a formal review process. Actually the question is perhaps it should have 15
although I know Staff has its own reasons for how and why it was done the way it was. But it is 16
a very, very complex system. I think that model in itself justifies a public explanation and 17
description of the numbers and where they came from and how that plays out over the term of 18
the Stanford build our projections for example, having nothing to do with Stanford frankly. It is 19
very complex. I was trying to find out when you had arrived at this conclusion, let’s put it that 20
way, as opposed to adopted. When did you arrive at the conclusion that the numbers you are 21
using are the numbers that you are going to use? 22
23
Mr. Peiris: First of all, the original model was adopted for the City of Palo Alto in 2004 based 24
on 2002 land use data. Then when this model, the existing model right now we use the 2005 25
land use data and then we ran the model and look at the base year. What the base year means is 26
the right now year and then we compared the existing traffic volumes on the roadways and see 27
how the model output traffic volume and the real traffic volume on the roadway. Then we 28
compared that see if any percentage or any adjustment needs to be done. So when we do that we 29
complete the base year. Then after that we ran the model for the future year, in this case 2025. 30
Then you look at the screen line process and what means is you check the base year traffic 31
volume to see if there is any percentage you need to add or subtract. We do that for the future 32
years add or subtract at that particular location. That is the way we do the model calibration. 33
Then we model again to validate with total employment and housing numbers with the ABAG 34
projections. We see that we are under those ABAG projections also. 35
36
Ms. Likens: We had a very iterative process working this issue with our consultant, with 37
Stanford’s traffic consultant looking at the numbers. We had a very vigorous discussion about 38
this. I think it was early in 2008 that we concluded that process approximately, I don’t have the 39
date. We do intend to have a technical appendix to the EIR for the Traffic Study that will 40
explain the model methodology. I am sorry we don’t have it for you here tonight but that is 41
something we will present and document all of the assumptions and all of the methodology that 42
we used to arrive at the overall growth rate. 43
44
I would comment that the growth rate used in our model is much lower than the VTA model. It 45
is much lower than the C/CAG model used in San Mateo County. So we did factor in looking at 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 23 of 66
the particulars of our community and looking at the growth rates and what we actually think the 1
street network could actually handle. Would you also like to comment on the four points that we 2
used? 3
4
Mr. Peiris: Okay. What we did was after we ran the model and got the horizon years to 2025 we 5
looked at the traffic volume as the VTA regional model traffic volume. Then within the City of 6
Palo Alto we picked four different locations like control points and we constrained the traffic 7
within Palo Alto. That shows whatever traffic in the future years, those traffic volumes we 8
distribute based on the distribution. So those control points that we constrain the model traffic 9
volume within Palo Alto. 10
11
Commissioner Holman: Gayle, you mentioned that these numbers that Palo Alto used are lower 12
than the numbers that San Mateo County used for instance. How do they compare with Santa 13
Clara County or with Mountain View? 14
15
Ms. Likens: We will provide the background, the exact data in an appendix. But just looking at 16
the growth rates for 2015 in the VTA model the average annual growth rate in the AM was two 17
percent, in the PM was 2.4 percent. In 2025 the annual growth rate in the AM in the VTA model 18
was 1.84 percent and in the PM was 2.1 percent. In these models it recognized that there is more 19
growth between now and 2015 than from now to 2025, which is why the growth rates through 20
2025 were lower than those in 2015. 21
22
Looking at our model output we looked at the 2015 growth rate was going to be 1.85 percent in 23
the AM and 2.2 percent in the PM, but then the 2025 model output showed 1.6 percent average 24
growth rate in the model in 2025 and 1.6 in the PM. So looking at those numbers and 25
recognizing that the VTA growth rates are very, very high, higher than we have historically 26
experienced in Palo Alto that the 1.6 percent growth rate was a fairer number to use. That was 27
where we settled. 28
29
Commissioner Holman: So to go to former Commissioner Griffin’s comments about why people 30
are not here. I can’t intuit that but I can say that I think the more concise and simple that this 31
information can be expressed is really, really, really important. Like the baseline numbers rather 32
than having to discover that it should be presented for instance. I found when I was reading the 33
Staff Report I thought it would have been really much simpler to just present the description of 34
what the table presented on the same page as the table instead of having to flip back and forth, 35
and back and forth. It would have taken no more paper. Just some things like that to just make it 36
as simple as possible. Make it direct. Not assume that everybody knows what a TIRE Index is 37
because we are presenting these reports not just for Commissioners and Council Members we are 38
presenting these reports for the public. So I think that is a really, really critical point to make and 39
to if you don’t mind my assertion here to adhere to. I will pass for the moment. 40
41
Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 42
43
Commissioner Fineberg: I will start with a couple of conceptual or process questions and then 44
drill down to some detail questions. In the presentation and in our Staff Report it does not 45
include the detail mitigations and you mentioned that those detailed mitigations would be 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 24 of 66
available in Chapter 4 of a future presentation. Can you explain? I understand we don’t have the 1
EIR now but why is it that we discuss some of the potential mitigations but others now? 2
3
Mr. Williams: The reason we do is because some of them have essentially been, in particular the 4
GO Pass, has been offered or proposed by the applicant as part of the project. So we pretty much 5
know that that is a given mitigation. We also know that it has a significant effect on the traffic 6
numbers so we can sort of make some indication about that now. The other ones generally we 7
have tried to outline what they might involve and that kind of thing. We know which 8
intersections for instance, and I think the engineers know pretty much what the improvements 9
would be on those intersections, but we also feel like most of those are probably not feasible in 10
terms of being consistent with our Comprehensive Plan policies. 11
12
The intent of this meeting, if some of you will recall that we talked probably more than a year 13
ago or so, about couldn’t we bring forward as we have virtually never done before but 14
recognizing the scope of this project, bring forward the traffic study prior to fixing the mitigation 15
measures before you and doing that analysis, could we come basically with the data, explain it, 16
outline maybe some of the mitigation but still leave this open-ended enough for you to provide 17
input to us on your take on those mitigations. If there were some things that we thought we 18
hadn’t captured that you wanted us to look at as mitigation measures, if there were some that you 19
thought you preferred over others given if they both had the same effectiveness, this is sort of the 20
opportunity to do that. That is what I think generated the Study Session and what we are hoping 21
that you at some point here tonight get a chance to give us some comment on. So that is why it 22
is kind of a work in progress and we didn’t want to get too locked into any other mitigation 23
measures. As we mentioned, the GO Pass is a very significant one the applicants have suggested 24
that. So we did move forward with that. At least the traffic adaptive one I think is something 25
that is a no-brainer in many respects. It is a useful thing and it doesn’t have impacts on 26
intersections and neighboring properties and those kinds of concerns with it. There were a 27
couple that make sense to go ahead and let’s plug them in now. The rest we wanted to get your 28
input before we go back and get more specific about those mitigation measures and do that final 29
analysis and then drop the Draft EIR to the public. 30
31
Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. You touched on my second question, which relates to the 32
Staff Report page 8, the paragraph in the middle where it says some of the project mitigation 33
measures include physical improvements to intersections to achieve acceptable traffic operations. 34
However, due to adopted City policies, right-of-way issues, and other agency requirements 35
physical improvements to most intersections are infeasible. Therefore it may be necessary to 36
consider other mitigation measures. Since we are looking at this before the EIR why are we 37
coming to a conclusion that measures are infeasible? For instance you mentioned we have a 38
Comprehensive Plan policy against widening intersections. Would this be a time to review that 39
policy or others to determine whether it would make sense to amend the Comprehensive Plan to 40
get the appropriate mitigations? Not just saying widening intersections but maybe there are 41
others. We are considering a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the project itself so to me that 42
sets precedence that the Comprehensive Plan is not a locked document. If the necessary 43
mitigations require Comprehensive Plan amendment when have we decided to take that tool off 44
the table? 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 25 of 66
Mr. Williams: The Comprehensive Plan Amendments that you are looking at that have been 1
proposed are very project specific to the areas that are proposed for development. The 2
Comprehensive Plan policies that we are talking about, and there is one in particular that talks 3
about not widening roadways to essentially the detriment of neighboring properties, taking 4
properties away, impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety along those roads, etc., etc. That policy 5
is a citywide policy. So if you amended that you would be amending something citywide not 6
specifically for one project. So what generally has happened on previous projects and this is 7
most dramatically in the Comprehensive Plan when it was done and the EIR was prepared for 8
that is it identified quite a number of intersections that would be impacted and that would have 9
intersection improvements that could ameliorate those impacts, and the Council’s action on that 10
was to override as the California Environmental Quality Act allows you to do in an EIR, to 11
override the impacts because we have these policies and basically say we are not going to 12
implement those. We don’t consider those to be feasible mitigation measures. So we have a fair 13
amount of precedence in the Council applying those policies. I don’t suppose there is anything 14
legally that prevents that Comprehensive Plan policy from being amended or maybe that also the 15
Council doesn’t have to apply that policy and find them infeasible either. They could say these 16
are feasible and relatively this is consistent with our policies. We will go through and outline 17
what those intersection impacts or improvements are and ultimately it will be up to you to 18
determine whether you think it is consistent or not with Comprehensive Plan policies. 19
20
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So one clarification. You said that the Comprehensive Plan 21
Amendment will be project specific. Isn’t it something that will apply to the hospital zone, that 22
would apply to any hospital built throughout the city? So in fact we will be amending the 23
Comprehensive Plan for the entire jurisdiction of the city for any hospital that is built? 24
25
Mr. Williams: No, I don’t think we are amending the Comprehensive Plan for the hospital. 26
27
Commissioner Fineberg: Aren’t we creating a hospital zone? 28
29
Mr. Williams: We are creating a zone but the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation is still 30
the Major Institutional, which includes the hospital. 31
32
Commissioner Fineberg: So that zone would only apply at that site and there will not be other 33
sites in the city zoned with that underlying use? 34
35
Mr. Williams: That is the intent, yes. 36
37
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so back to your answer then. I don’t know whether the right 38
answer is to widen any intersections and I don’t know if there are other policies that would go 39
against feasible mitigations. I was pleased to hear that you are saying that the analysis will detail 40
what those would be so that there can be a day lighting of the consideration of whether or not … 41
42
Mr. Williams: Yes, we are required by CEQA to do that. 43
44
Commissioner Fineberg: Great. Previous Commissioners have talked about how the 45
calculations for future traffic projections are impacted by the baseline data. The baseline data 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 26 of 66
right now is based on what I will call some distortions or gamesmanship in how counts are 1
conducted. Specifically, we have folks that park at the perimeter of campus or away for campus 2
and take shuttles. I am wondering if there is any way that the models in the future growth 3
predictions deal with that. As we are looking at TDMs and other mitigation measures like 4
having more shuttles throughout town are we going to just be pushing the traffic problems and 5
the trips to other parts of town? Technically they won’t be on the lands in consideration. Are we 6
capturing that somehow? 7
8
Ms. Likens: I will ask Dennis or Sam to comment but I don’t think the model is at the fine 9
enough level of detail to deal and address the issues of parking versus taking a shuttle and not 10
coming into the campus. The model is at a much higher level so I am not sure that the model can 11
address that. I am sorry I need you to ask the rest of the question again. 12
13
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So for instance in College Terrace, we hear again and again 14
from many of the residents that there is a tremendous amount of parking in that neighborhood 15
from folks who then walk to Stanford. So the baseline numbers and the counts won’t include 16
those trips from other towns across the highways, across the streets where the trips terminate say 17
near California Avenue or in College Terrace. So those neighborhoods are having the traffic 18
impacts, the congestion, the parking problems, shortages, the merchants’ customers are 19
competing for parking spaces. So there are impacts in those neighborhoods with the commercial 20
businesses but yet in the baseline those trips are not counted because technically they don’t exist 21
today but we know they are there. So can there be some way that the models calculate that? If 22
we have let’s say more shuttles to instead of just College Terrace and California Avenue and if a 23
shuttle goes let’s say further south there may be more people just driving to that more southern 24
location or more northern location and then taking that last leg to campus. We are still going to 25
have the trips through town. How can we capture that? 26
27
Ms. Likens: I will see if Sam can answer the question about increased transit and how increased 28
transit in the future might be addressed through the model. I think the rest of the question deals 29
with localized trip ends, what happens at the trip end as opposed to how you put the trips on the 30
network. When you get into neighborhood parking issues you are off of the network that we are 31
looking at. We are looking at the major street system for the most part. 32
33
Mr. Peiris: The model already has a mode split based on the VTA guidelines. Yes we can 34
change some mode split and look at how the traffic is going to be changed. We can do that but 35
we need to rerun the model with the higher mode split ratio. 36
37
Commissioner Fineberg: A higher what ratio? 38
39
Mr. Peiris: The model already has a mode split. That means the way traffic like buses and 40
shuttles we call mode splits. So we use the VTA guidelines to run the model that way. If we 41
have the specific values and different ratios then we can run the model, yes. 42
43
Ms. Likens: Just to follow up on your question about these are the types of things we would like 44
to understand your interest in terms of increased transit as potentially mitigation that would 45
address some of the concerns you are raising in the future as part of this process. So right now 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 27 of 66
we are using the VTA mode split. If we are talking about as mitigation increased levels of transit 1
or local shuttle to alleviate any impacts that is something I think you are getting at. 2
3
Commissioner Fineberg: I think I may be getting at the opposite that the shuttle trips decrease 4
the traffic on campus but shift the burden to other parts of town and then we are missing that. 5
Does that make sense? Or we can talk about that offline. 6
7
Ms. Likens: We will consider it. 8
9
Chair Garber: Your question is, is that true? 10
11
Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. On the PowerPoint slide page 9, you got to that question earlier 12
so I will skip that. On page 9, slide number 18 it talks about an inadequate onsite parking. So 13
can you explain what those significance criteria would look like with the current projects? It 14
seems that if we are having to have all the TDM programs and the GO Passes that we are 15
assuming that is triggered but I don’t remember seeing it anywhere in the Staff Reports or the 16
other reports. Are we going to see that in an EIR or did I just miss it? 17
18
Mr. Struecker: The EIR will have an analysis of the amount of onsite parking that is being 19
proposed by each project and whether that amount of parking is inadequate, not enough, or 20
whether it is too much. Then the Commission can provide input on that whether less parking 21
than the demand would otherwise indicate is a good thing or a bad thing. You can make 22
arguments probably both ways. If there is not convenient parking for everybody it would tend to 23
encourage people to maybe use other modes of travel or it could go back to your other point that 24
they park in the neighborhood and walk or grab a shuttle. So it could be argued both ways. But 25
those numbers will be presented. 26
27
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. We had a couple of residents earlier talking about 28
the trip reductions and the right sizing of the structure. I would like to understand more about 29
the rationale for why we do that and how these assumptions are arrived at to determine the 30
presented percentages. 31
32
Mr. Struecker: The diverted trips and the pass by trips are something that is associated with the 33
Shopping Center only. None of the other land uses would have diverted trips or pass by trips. A 34
pass by trip is simply somebody that is driving down El Camino Real coming from Redwood 35
City going to their home in Mountain View and decides that it is very convenient for them to 36
turn in the Shopping Center and do some shopping, and then continue on their way. Those 37
values are pretty well documented and it is based on the size of the facility. So there has been 38
historic data collected throughout the country as contained in the trip generation statistics that are 39
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. So it is a pretty well established value. 40
41
Diverted trips are similar to pass by trips but they are not on El Camino Real for instance they 42
are on Middlefield Road going south from Menlo Park and they are again going to Mountain 43
View and they divert over from Middlefield Road to the Shopping Center, do some shopping, 44
and then they continue on their way. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 28 of 66
So those trips are not added to the entire network but they are added to the surrounding streets 1
because they still come through Palm and University for instance, if they came through town on 2
University. So those diverted trips do impact the immediate intersections but they are not 3
additional traffic that is added to Middlefield Road for instance if that is where they are diverted 4
from. 5
6
Now the right sizing that deals with the hospital. There are generally two ways you can calculate 7
traffic for a hospital. One is based on square footage and the other one is based on number of 8
beds. The current facility is very much undersized and the data that was collected for that 9
facility on a square footage basis would have a higher rate than a new facility, which relieves 10
some of the overcrowding. So the statistics that were presented by the applicant were based on a 11
more trips per unit than ultimately they will have when they have a facility that better 12
accommodates their needs. 13
14
We looked at those statistics and compared them back to a trips per bed, which a bed is a bed, 15
and found that the statistics in terms of trip generation that were submitted by the applicant were 16
in fact conservative, meaning probably higher than they actually may be, which is generally the 17
tendency of an EIR analysis. If it does err it errs on the side of conservancy. 18
19
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so I guess I should wish for the diverted trips. When my 20
husband is heading up to Menlo Park he can stop at Tiffany’s. 21
22
My last question is about the assumption of the population growth rate. If I heard you correctly 23
you said 0.5 percent per year. I am sorry maybe I misheard. Let me start over. What is the 24
assumed population growth rate per year in the model? 25
26
Mr. Peiris: We used 1.6 percent for the forecasting year all the way up to 2025. 27
28
Commissioner Fineberg: Is that for the traffic growth or the population? 29
30
Mr. Peiris: That is for the traffic. 31
32
Mr. Williams: The model doesn’t assume a specific population growth but the traffic growth is 33
based off of I think we used ABAG 2005 projections which are considerably less in the future 34
than the 2007 most recent projections with starting basis with the VTA model. Take VTA’s 35
model and plug those numbers in and then work from there in terms of the 1.6 percent traffic 36
growth being generated. That doesn’t necessarily mean population because a lot of the trips 37
were from outside the city. 38
39
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I may have heard the five from the 2005 and that just struck me 40
as too low. So thank you for that correction and those are all my questions. 41
42
Chair Garber: We have been going for two hours now. We will take a brief break and be right 43
back. We will make it four minutes, Commissioners. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 29 of 66
Let’s reconvene. Our Planning Director, Curtis Williams, has some clarifications to make before 1
I have my questions. 2
3
Mr. Williams: Yes, thank you Chair Garber. Commissioner Fineberg asked a question about the 4
mitigation measures before and why we were not looking at or had not brought back more details 5
of them. One of the comments I had was related to this GO Pass idea. I just wanted to clarify 6
that that’s on the table because we have discussed that with the applicants and suggested it for 7
analytical purposes but I wanted to clarify that is not something they have necessarily committed 8
to and proposed at this point in time. We have been discussing it so we did want to look at it and 9
see what the impacts of that might be and that is why we presented it to you. 10
11
Chair Garber: Go ahead, Mr. Emslie. 12
13
Mr. Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager: Thank you very much. The concept that the City and 14
the applicants entered into is that nothing would be agreed to until the final package is done. As 15
you know the mitigations are not complete for the traffic section and for many others. So since 16
that is still under development there are no commitments from either party in terms of what 17
mitigations would be imposed or what additional measures would be imposed above and beyond 18
the mitigations. I want to make that very clear. 19
20
Chair Garber: It appears we have some comments. Just one? If the Commissioners would allow 21
it we have one other person that would like to speak from the public. It is slightly out of order 22
but let’s allow it. Harlan Pinto if you would like to speak you will have five minutes. 23
24
Mr. Harlan Pinto, Palo Alto: Thank you for allowing me to address the Commission. In 25
reviewing the draft plan I was struck by just a few things. One was that our Comprehensive Plan 26
had planned to put forth some analyses for residential arterials. A residential arterial concept 27
was one that looked at protecting residents that lived along arterials. That process for many of 28
the arterials has not run its course from our prior Comprehensive Plan. This analysis uses just 29
intersection counts rather than looking necessarily at total traffic volume. Now the TIRE Index 30
looks at residential impacts in terms of total traffic volume and the residential arterial concept 31
attempted to try to bring some of those considerations to the residential arterials. So I just 32
wanted to say that we have been hoping that the residential arterial plan might actually work its 33
way and get adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. It has not happened yet and this 34
is an example where that may be important. 35
36
Now specifically in terms of the intersection number 17, which is in front of my house, there are 37
actually a couple of real details about the maps that are drawn that really don’t address some of 38
the local problems like the map actually has two lanes entering Palo Alto but it immediately 39
merges into one. There is a bus stop and buses block that traffic flow fairly commonly. Now 40
even though the traffic counts look at actual numbers that take that into effect there are some real 41
problems with geometries related to existing conditions that are quite unacceptable and 42
moderately dangerous. We were hoping that the Comprehensive Plan might fix those and to the 43
extent that they get imbedded in this we may lose an opportunity to fix some of those problems. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 30 of 66
I guess the second thing I was concerned about is the peak hours that are looked at don’t really 1
address necessarily the peak traffic flow. The peak numbers from past traffic counts on 2
University Avenue suggests that the maximum number of cars occur from 10:00 AM to 2:00 3
PM. This analysis, which looks at intersection backups looks at peak commute hours ignoring 4
kind of the peak number of cars. Although most people look at traffic backups in terms of 5
intersection impacts on University Avenue the historic data suggests that the peak number of cars 6
actually occurs from that 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM period of time. I am suggesting that this 7
analysis needs to look at some of those aspects, which might have been incorporated in a kind of 8
residential look at just number of cars. Thank you very much. 9
10
Chair Garber: Thank you. I am next with questions at which point Keller, Holman, Lippert, and 11
Fineberg will go. 12
13
The fiscal analysis that was presented just recently and the expectations for growth that were 14
made part of that analysis, did those have a specific relationship to the growth analyses that the 15
parking study does or are those separate independent of each other or do they relate? 16
17
Mr. Williams: You mean the analysis for the Comprehensive Plan that you just saw? 18
19
Chair Garber: Yes, for the Comprehensive Plan. Now it was focused on houses obviously but 20
part of the analysis was developed from ABAG numbers, which was then modified by Staff to 21
address Staff’s best understanding of local conditions. 22
23
Mr. Williams: Pretty consistent with this. In other words, starting with that 2007 but then 24
backing that down closer to where the 2005 ABAG numbers were like the model has done. 25
26
Chair Garber: So the Staff is using the same data or the same sources. 27
28
Mr. Williams: Yes, very close. If you are looking at fiscal issues then there will be a fiscal 29
analysis specific to this project too. 30
31
Chair Garber: Let me ask you some questions about the trip distribution diagrams, which follow 32
pages 3-31 in AECOM report. So Gayle let’s look at Figure 3.5 for the moment which is the 33
Medical Center Trip Distribution, the regional view. Do I understand that the numbers both on 34
the regional view and if I flip the page to the local it is really the same map I am just looking at 35
arterials, secondaries, etc.? Or is that a question for Dennis? 36
37
Mr. Struecker: Figure 3-5 is the regional distribution so that shows traffic that is really leaving 38
the area and what the major routes are that they would take. For instance 21 percent going south 39
on 101 are coming from northern 101. 40
41
Chair Garber: Sorry, not to interrupt you here but 3.5 and 3.6 again there is no difference in the 42
data. We are just looking at different scales in the data on the same map. 43
44
Mr. Struecker: No, 3.5 is regional data so it is the traffic that wants to go to regional facilities 45
and what those regional facilities are. Figure 3.6 is the local traffic, the traffic that stays more in 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 31 of 66
the immediate area and what the general routes are within the local area. The maps are the same, 1
you are correct. They show the same geographic area. 2
3
Chair Garber: Let me put it differently. If I put the same arrows that were on 3.5 on 3.6 would 4
the map still hold true? 5
6
Mr. Struecker: Yes they would it would just be a little more confusing. 7
8
Chair Garber: Okay, so you separated them for clarification. 9
10
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 11
12
Chair Garber: Okay, then let’s just focus on 3.5 for a moment here. Just as you were beginning 13
to explain in 101 between Oregon Expressway intersection and points south 21 percent of the 14
traffic that is going or leaving the Medical Center goes on that particular route? 15
16
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 17
18
Chair Garber: So if I am looking at this and just sort of walking around the 21 percent that is on 19
south 101, the 11 percent that goes over the bridge, the 15 percent that is north on 101, the 13 20
percent on 280, and 11 percent they are almost evenly distributed with the largest 21
communication to the Medical Center being the southern portion on 101, correct? 22
23
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 24
25
Chair Garber: So if I skip down, and again I am just trying to understand this I don’t have an 26
implicit question here yet. If I go down to Figure 3.7, which is the Shopping Center Trip 27
Distribution-Regional, what jumps out on this page is that 46 percent, almost half of the trips that 28
come to the Shopping Center come from the north on 280. Am I reading that correctly? 29
30
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 31
32
Chair Garber: If I flip over and look at the regional again the largest numbers here are 20 33
percent of trips that go to the Shopping Center are coming down Alameda de las Pulgas and 25 34
percent are on Santa Cruz Avenue. Is that correct? 35
36
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 37
38
Chair Garber: So just a question then what does the Marguerite system or what systems support 39
– just a point of clarification before I ask that question. These numbers are simply cars. This 40
does not incorporate any bus trips or Marguerite trips or any of the other sort of mitigating 41
systems that are in place today. 42
43
Mr. Struecker: Right, this is assignment for vehicles, yes. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 32 of 66
Chair Garber: So then for instance does Marguerite come all the way out to 280 right now or is 1
it primarily focused? 2
3
Mr. Struecker: It is primarily focused in around the campus and to the Caltrain stations. 4
5
Chair Garber: Are there other systems other than perhaps just the VTA buses that connect points 6
along Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa Cruz and the Shopping Center right now? 7
8
Mr. Struecker: I am going to refer to the transit graphic. I don’t believe there is a lot of local bus 9
service that would go into Menlo Park at those specific locations, no. 10
11
Chair Garber: That is what I am trying to understand. I have more but let me yield my time to 12
Commissioner Keller and we will come back around. 13
14
Commissioner Keller: To follow up on the questions that Chair Garber brought up, with respect 15
to Figures 3-5 and 3-6, which both refer to the Stanford Medical Center trip distribution with 3-5 16
being regional. It looks like on the previous page, 3-21, it says that SUMC trips are divided into 17
75 percent and 25 percent local. So am I correct in the assumption that the percentages on 3-5 18
add up to 100 percent and the percentages add up to 100 percent? 19
20
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 21
22
Commissioner Keller: But if you were to combine them together for the Medical Center the ones 23
on 3-5 would actually be three times as large in volume. So a four percent for example on 24
Central Expressway coming to and from Central Expressway sort of in South Palo Alto, that four 25
percent is actually a lot more than the five percent that comes on Alma Street in 3-6? 26
27
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: It is more than double that amount. 30
31
Mr. Struecker: Right. These are the percentages used to assign the traffic but the traffic is 32
broken up into the 25/75 before it is applied to these, yes. 33
34
Chair Garber: If Commissioner Keller will forgive me, is it the same for both the Medical 35
Center as well as the Shopping Center, that it is 75/25 for each? 36
37
Commissioner Keller: The Shopping Center says it is 30 percent regional and 70 percent local 38
on 3-31. So the weighting would be two to one there in one direction. The Shopping Center is 39
weighted towards local and the Medical Center is weighted towards regional with kind of makes 40
some sense at least. Although I remember when there was a presentation on the regional stuff on 41
the Shopping Center they said that it did draw from a wide range. 42
43
I just wanted to address that but let me go into the things that were where I was going to go. I 44
just figured I would follow up on your comment. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 33 of 66
Chair Garber: Thank you. 1
2
Commissioner Keller: Let us take a look at a couple of pages earlier than that, page 3-23, which 3
is Table 3-2. I will just pick an intersection say number 11, which is Embarcadero and Galvez. 4
First of all it says in existing conditions 49.3 for average delay in seconds, and 0.816 in Crit V/C 5
and 52.7 in Average Crit Del (sec). Could you tell us what those mean? 6
7
Mr. Struecker: LOS, the first column, is Level of Service. Avg Del means Average Delay so 8
that is delay for all vehicles going to the intersection. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: In all directions? Weighted average. 11
12
Mr. Struecker: In all directions, correct. Crit V/C is Critical Volume to Capacity. So critical 13
movements, you were talking about El Camino Real before and some of the directionality on El 14
Camino Real. If there are 1,000 vehicles going northbound and 500 going southbound the 1,000 15
vehicles going northbound are critical because that the time you have to have to serve those. The 16
other 500 get by for free in a manner of speaking because it takes less time for the 500 than the 17
1,000. Then Ave Crit Del is Average Critical Delay so that is delay just for the critical 18
movements. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So what we have here is the baseline on Table 3-2 goes 21
from an average delay of 49.3 seconds and an average critical delay of 52.7 seconds. 22
23
Mr. Struecker: I’m sorry, which number intersection again? 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Number 11, which is El Camino Real and Embarcadero-Galvez. Then in 26
2025 in the baseline condition that goes to 137.5 minutes average delay. We have critical 27
vehicles divided by capacity of 1.238, which means we are trying to fit more cars through there 28
than can possibly get through in that amount of time, 23 percent more cars than actually fit. 29
Then the average critical delay for the peak, where the problem is the worst, goes up to 160.6 30
seconds. Then that in going down to page 3-96 on extra stuff we were given, one we can read, 31
which is Table 3-13 in the extra packet of stuff because the other one had a scaling problem with 32
readability. It is Table 3-13. 33
34
So what we have is under 2025 PM it says F is the Level of Service, 137.5, and 1.238, and 160.6 35
which is the baseline which is exactly what you expect is the last figures we just had. Those are 36
the same figures we just saw a moment ago. Then adding the Stanford Shopping Center and 37
Stanford Medical Center traffic we get an average delay of 150.4, and the critical vehicles 38
divided by capacity has gone to 1.265, and the average critical delay has gone up to 1.715. So I 39
am just trying to understand this because I work best when my intuition is working and I am still 40
trying to get my intuition going. So what is going on here is what we have seen from the data 41
earlier that we looked at that the biggest problem with this intersection is all the cars that the 42
world is trying to blam down El Camino. Okay? Now those cars are somehow people going 43
through the city or going somewhere or whatever, in other words this El Camino has a 44
disproportionate growth in people trying to travel across it. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 34 of 66
Now we have Stanford traffic. My guess is Stanford traffic is mostly going to go across El 1
Camino from either Embarcadero through to Galvez or from Galvez through to Embarcadero but 2
I guess if I am trying to get to Stanford I am going to basically try to get across El Camino 3
because El Camino is going to be basically a parking lot. So getting across it seems like a good 4
idea and then drive on campus to get to where I want to go. Okay? That is what I would. I am 5
assuming most people would do that if they are coming from somewhere as opposed to trying to 6
avoid El Camino at all costs. 7
8
So what happens here are a couple of things. First of all, my sense is that if traffic is really 9
horrible which it is on El Camino adding a little bit of extra traffic to El Camino makes it that 10
much more horrible faster. In other words, a little bit of extra traffic to a horrible situation has 11
sort of an exponential effect on how horrible it gets. Is that reasonable? 12
13
Mr. Struecker: Well if you add any traffic to any of the critical movements through that 14
intersection the delay is going to get worse whether it is on Embarcadero or El Camino. 15
16
Commissioner Keller: Right. So before you are critical it has sort of a linear growth and then 17
once you get to critical it gets kind of an exponential growth? Is that a fair way to sort of 18
indicate what is going on? It grows much faster once you have reached a critical point – the 19
delay grows much faster as you add more cars. Is that a fair analysis? 20
21
Mr. Struecker: No, the critical is the highest movement. So if you are looking at critical delay 22
you can add traffic to an intersection in the non-critical direction and the value wouldn’t change 23
at all. 24
25
Commissioner Keller: Right. That is very interesting. So in the critical direction adding a little 26
bit of extra traffic in the critical direction has exponential growth. 27
28
Mr. Struecker: Particularly if you are operating at poor conditions. 29
30
Commissioner Keller: Right but adding extra traffic in the non-critical direction has almost no 31
impact. 32
33
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: So what is interesting to me is that we are adding traffic crossing El 36
Camino, which essentially has little impact, and we are adding a little bit of traffic on El Camino, 37
which is basically having all the effect is essentially what this data is saying. 38
39
Mr. Struecker: No. There is a critical movement on crossing too. There is a critical movement 40
in both directions across an intersection. There is a critical movement for El Camino and there is 41
also a critical movement for Embarcadero-Galvez. You have to give green time to 42
Embarcadero-Galvez and whichever the highest volume is on that movement is the critical 43
movement. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 35 of 66
Commissioner Keller: Well, if we go back to the data which is why I love having this raw data it 1
makes it so much easier to figure out what is going on. what we wind up with is the 2
Embarcadero traffic which is looking at the 2025 background, the El Camino traffic going 3
straight is 2,670 southbound and 2,221 northbound. So it looks like the southbound direction is 4
the worst one in the PM. Going east and west 417, 489 no big shakes. So in some sense the 5
critical direction you have two lanes going straight through on that intersection and you have 6
three lanes in each direction going straight through on El Camino. So you are trying to fit 7
several times much more traffic on El Camino. I would assume that that is the critical direction 8
on El Camino southbound. 9
10
Mr. Struecker: No, there is a critical movement on El Camino and there is also a critical 11
movement on Embarcadero-Galvez, whichever the highest movement is. You have to give green 12
time north-south. Whichever is the highest volume needs the most green time so that is the 13
critical movement for El Camino. You also have a critical movement east-west. Whichever is 14
the highest movement needs the most green time east-west. So there is also critical 15
Embarcadero-Galvez. So in traffic engineering language the highest movements, the highest 16
volumes, are north-south on El Camino, correct. But there are critical volumes in both north-17
south and east-west. If you want to get into it the left turns also play into critical movements 18
with the highest northbound left versus southbound left and eastbound left versus westbound left. 19
20
Commissioner Keller: Okay, that is very helpful. I realize that you are not tasked to and we 21
wouldn’t expect you to be tasked to try to figure out what the extra traffic would be for 2025 for 22
the Shopping Center and the Medical Center but against 2008 baseline data because nobody does 23
that. They always do it against projected baseline data. 24
25
Mr. Struecker: You are talking about an existing plus project analysis? 26
27
Commissioner Keller: An existing plus project analysis but without the projection of what 28
happens with increased traffic in Palo Alto over the next 17 years. 29
30
Mr. Struecker: So essentially you would be taking the project trip generation that is in the 31
document, the distribution of that project, and add it onto an existing counts and then comparing 32
those two to see what the impacts would be. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: Right. 35
36
Mr. Struecker: There are some jurisdictions that do an existing plus project analysis believe it or 37
not. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: I am sorting of wondering if we were to do that analysis do you have an 40
idea what the effect would be on that analysis versus the base plus? 41
42
Chair Garber: Let me guess, horrible? 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Actually, I would like to know would you expect there to be more 45
intersections affected, would you expect there to be fewer intersections affected? 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 36 of 66
1
Mr. Struecker: Fewer, fewer, without a doubt fewer. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Okay. So what is interesting is that by having a higher base we wind up 4
with more intersections that are adversely affected by the increase in traffic. Okay? So that is 5
the first part of my intuition. Now let’s get to the second part of my intuition. That’s great that 6
that validated where I am going. The second part of my intuition is let’s suppose we have some 7
arbitrary intersection that is affected by the Stanford traffic. Okay? We try to evaluate what are 8
the mitigations on that intersection. Okay? Now because the baseline says oh, it is really 9
horrible. Okay? How effective would mitigations be on a horrible intersection based on a very 10
high base versus an intersection that assumed a lower base and wasn’t nearly as horrible? Would 11
those mitigations be more feasible because you are starting with a less horrible base case? 12
13
Mr. Struecker: Not necessarily because to reach a level of less than significance all you have to 14
do is mitigate it back to that horrible condition that was in the 2015 or 2025 base. You don’t 15
have to go back to a Level of Service D. You just have to go back to less than the impact prior to 16
the project. So I am not sure I think it could vary depending on the intersection. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: Okay. What this tells me is a few things. I am going to try to come up 19
with some conclusions from this. The first thing is that the analysis is clearly very sensitive to 20
the base case. I think we are all agreed on that and whether you agree on the base case or not it 21
is clearly very sensitive to the base case. 22
23
The second piece of analysis is that it is actually unknown whether the mitigations are more 24
effective or less effective depending on what the nature of the base case is. It is sort of a chaotic 25
system so it is hard to figure that out. 26
27
The third thing is that because the situation here, because the nature of the background level is 28
essentially the delta in background is much greater than the delta from the project. It says that 29
the concept of in lieu mitigations makes a lot of sense. The issue is if you have to take 500 cars 30
off the road for example in order to not have any impact that it is about as well to take 500 cars 31
off the road that are somehow getting there from somewhere else versus the 500 cars on the road 32
that are getting there through this project. Either of those works pretty well because there are so 33
many more cars that are from the existing project. So I want to let that sit for awhile before I sort 34
of follow up on other stuff. It is interesting that the base delta actually swamps the amount of 35
cars from this project is at least my analysis. 36
37
Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, if I may follow up for just a moment. If I am 38
understanding your thread here I think two of the things I just learned are, correct me if I am 39
wrong. One, that given the existing circumstance there is greater capacity for impacts in traffic 40
crossing El Camino than there is traffic going along El Camino. Is that a correct statement? 41
There is greater capacity for the existing infrastructure, the streets, etc., to absorb impacts that 42
would cause traffic going across El Camino than there is going along it. Is that true? 43
44
Mr. Struecker: No, I don’t think so. El Camino has more lanes north-south on most streets than 45
east-west. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 37 of 66
1
Chair Garber: I thought I was hearing that if there was an incremental add to the traffic going 2
along El Camino that would have a greater impact than there would be to have incremental adds 3
going across El Camino. Am I misunderstanding something? 4
5
Mr. Struecker: Not necessarily, no. 6
7
Chair Garber: Depends on the intersection? 8
9
Mr. Struecker: Depends on the intersection and they both have an effect. There is a critical 10
movement both directions. You have to satisfy the highest volume. Generally you get more 11
green time on El Camino so it can handle more traffic north-south than east-west. 12
13
Chair Garber: Okay, thank you. The second thing that I think I am hearing is that if in fact the 14
greatest impacts are a result of growth that are either part of our community or region, etc. but 15
not the project the actual project impacts relative to that growth are smaller. 16
17
Mr. Struecker: The project impacts are what the project impacts are given that you have a base. 18
19
Chair Garber: I am interrupting you only because I am going to a conclusion here and that is that 20
the impacts that the City would then be approaching the applicant to help mitigate presumably in 21
one scenario would be just the project impacts, which are lesser than the impacts that we would 22
have to deal with that are non-project related. 23
24
Mr. Struecker: Yes. If we were going to do an intersection improvement mitigation it would be 25
to, and let’s just throw some numbers out, if we have 80 seconds of delay through intersection A 26
in the background condition we would be in Level of Service E I believe, almost F, and if the 27
project added five seconds of delay so we went to 85 seconds there would be an impact at that 28
intersection because of that. If we could add a right turn lane in the eastbound direction for 29
instance and it brought that delay down to 79 seconds, it would still be a congested intersection 30
at 79 seconds of average delay but the impact of the project would be mitigated because the 79 31
seconds is less than the 80. 32
33
Now if this is what you are kind of getting at if we didn’t have the 80 seconds of delay, if we 34
didn’t have the base as high as it was, but instead the delay was 45 seconds and the project added 35
five seconds to take it to 50 seconds it wouldn’t be an impact in the first place. If that is where 36
you were trying to go. 37
38
Chair Garber: In part. If I may, Commissioner Lippert. So this then gets back to your scenarios, 39
right? Because you are trying to isolate what the impacts of just the projects are in a couple of 40
different circumstances. Could I ask for you or Gayle to look specifically at the scenarios and 41
help us understand what it is we are learning from those specific impacts that are trying to isolate 42
the project from the background data? Planning Director. 43
44
Mr. Williams: I will let Gayle respond to that if she can but I think it might be very difficult to 45
respond to because it is so specific to different areas or intersections. I just wanted to sort of on 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 38 of 66
an overarching sense get back to the issue of what is happening with the model is that it is 1
creating this situation where we are having to essentially breakdown on certain routes such as 2
101 probably being one of the primary ones, and I think the model recognized that and then 3
shifting that traffic over to these other roads. So as you have been saying you get to these 4
intersections and they are very bad, horrible, whatever word you would like to use for them and 5
so we are looking at that without the projects. So these projects I think the fundamental 6
questions that come out of it are is the project in themselves of certain community value that help 7
outweigh that but number two, what mitigation may be mitigation above and beyond what would 8
typically be looked at as mitigation can we do that would help overall improve the transportation 9
system, which isn’t going to happen without the projects? So there are opportunities to look at 10
some of these things and we talked about in lieu mitigation so that something else is done 11
somewhere else in the community that helps improve traffic. Then what other community 12
benefits beyond just traffic are associated with the project. We can try to look at the specifics of 13
how does an intersection or a corridor or something like that how can we specifically address 14
that, but I just wanted to sort of keep the bigger picture and recognize that without these projects 15
the situation is going to be bad. You unfortunately have not seen the mitigation yet but there are 16
opportunities here to actually hopefully help the overall system. It may not result in every 17
intersection being improved but it probably will result in some of them being improved. It may 18
result in some community-wide transportation network that is improved over what we otherwise 19
would have. 20
21
So Gayle, with that did you have a response? 22
23
Ms. Likens: I didn’t quite understand. Did you want us to go back over the different seven 24
scenarios and go back over those and discuss what they mean? 25
26
Chair Garber: Let’s hold that answer for a moment. We will get to Commissioner Lippert and I 27
will try and focus my question a little bit if I want to continue it. Commissioner Lippert. 28
29
Commissioner Lippert: I was going to go in a similar direction as that. In looking through the 30
raw data here, for instance if I were to look at the intersection of University Avenue and 31
Middlefield Road and it think that was a level D. In my book D isn’t acceptable but that is not 32
according to your coding. If I were to go one block over to Middlefield Road and Lytton that is 33
level F, which is not acceptable. Part of the reason why that intersection isn’t acceptable is that 34
you have traffic that comes down Middlefield Road from Redwood City, it is not allowed to turn 35
into Downtown North so there is a bottleneck there were you have a two block section of Lytton 36
at Middlefield Road which narrows down to just two lanes. There is not even room for parking 37
on that street at that portion. Then it widens and at that point the Level of Service is probably if 38
you were to look at each intersection succeeding the Level of Service probably increases 39
significantly. It is not necessary to look at each of the blocks along Lytton. 40
41
On the mitigations would we look at alternative ways of reconfiguring or reusing those streets 42
without necessarily re-improving them? I am just thinking off hand maybe during morning 43
hours the mitigation for that intersection might be that that two-block section might in fact be 44
turned into a one-way direction allowing for two lanes of traffic to head west towards the 45
Medical Center and allow for people who are commuting to the Medical Center to get there 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 39 of 66
easier. Now the people in Downtown North frankly have multiple ways of getting out of their 1
neighborhood the issue is coming into the neighborhood off of Middlefield Road. So could 2
mitigations in fact just look at reconfiguring streets differently during different times of the day 3
or using them differently at different times of the day? 4
5
Ms. Likens: I will take a first crack at that. I think typically we look at capacity improvements 6
such as Dennis mentioned, adding lanes, changing the intersection geometry typically adding 7
right turn lanes or through lanes to address the peak hour conditions. Looking at something like 8
you are suggesting I guess is something that could be looked into but that could have some 9
operational infeasibility issues in terms of how you have reversible lane, I think is what you are 10
talking about on Lytton in the morning there is more traffic going westbound, there is more 11
traffic in the PM going eastbound. You need those two lanes in one direction in each period. 12
How that could be accomplished I don’t know the precedent for that. Perhaps Dennis has 13
experience with those types of operations. 14
15
Commissioner Lippert: The Golden Gate Bridge is an example of that and even if a third lane 16
was put in there you could have two lanes in one direction in the morning and two lanes in the 17
opposite direction in the evening. 18
19
Ms. Likens: That would be something we would have to look into because that would be an 20
ongoing operational maintenance issue and how that could be accomplished even if it could 21
address the impact, and the impact may be the capacity problem on Middlefield more than 22
anything else. 23
24
Mr. Struecker: I guess it is a possibility. The transitions are difficult. You have to be able to get 25
into it and get out of it. Really the only one I know of on an arterial or collector street is I think 26
is Lafayette in Santa Clara where in the off peak hour it is the two-way left turn lane that is in 27
center of the road. In the AM it goes northbound I guess in the PM it goes southbound. When it 28
is being used as just a left turn lane there is a red X above the lane and when it is being used as a 29
through lane in one direction or the other there is a green arrow showing. It is the transition 30
areas that would be difficult to stop and start it. 31
32
Commissioner Lippert: I guess where I am going with is that I think that there are ways of using 33
the streets that are different that we might want to look at as mitigations. To give you another 34
example, this doesn’t really have specific bearing on an intersection, but for instance in the 35
Downtown area which again is an arterial going through towards Stanford in the morning. 36
Trucks are allowed to park and they double park and they block traffic and people try to get 37
around them and it gets to be a real mess in certain places. You have one truck that decides to 38
double park and it holds up the whole works. Part of it might be to simply just take parking off 39
of University Avenue or prevent parking on University Avenue until say after eleven o’clock and 40
simply use those lanes as traffic zones to get out to Stanford until nine o’clock, thereby 41
increasing the level of capacity on another street. 42
43
Ms. Likens: Those types of issues may be feasible, may be something that could be pursued 44
with or without this project. Again, we are looking in this analysis at specific intersection 45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 40 of 66
impacts and whether the types of things that you are suggesting could mitigate the intersection 1
impact would have to be looked at. 2
3
I wanted to get back to using TDM and all of the other commute alternative concepts might be 4
another way of addressing some of these concerns that you are raising rather than physical 5
improvements, which is what we have been talking about other ways to mitigate that would not 6
necessarily involve physical changes to the roadway system. 7
8
Commissioner Lippert: I was just going to follow up on that. I know parking for the merchants 9
is a real issue in terms of being able to provide parking that is almost immediately next to a store 10
because it invites commerce. But we have two brand new parking garages that are under utilized 11
to a certain extent that were not there ten years ago. We are trying to get people to use those 12
more and more. So maybe a market rate parking system for instance that might in fact force 13
people into those parking garages and after they get used to that then the street parking spaces 14
don’t become as valuable in terms of merchant parking and they are willing to let that go and 15
they can be used to vindicate the traffic impacts that we are talking about. It is right on the same 16
timeline in terms of the years that we are looking at here. 17
18
Then one last comment I want to make before the Chair goes onto the next Commissioner. Will 19
these mitigations be recalculated back into the numbers? So in other words, when we look at 20
those mitigations will they recalculate themselves and we will see the difference in terms of the 21
performance of those intersections? 22
23
Ms. Likens: Yes, in the mitigations chapter of the EIR you will see a detailed analysis of how 24
each of the proposed mitigations effects the Level of Service, the V/C, and whether there is still a 25
significant impact or not, and what the benefit derived from that particular impact is. Is that 26
correct, Dennis? 27
28
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 29
30
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you and sorry to get into the specificity of the detail but I think 31
that is the only way of being able to give an illustration of how to think about some of this. 32
33
Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman, then Fineberg. 34
35
Commissioner Holman: Going back to the maps that Chair Garber had referred to, the Trip 36
Distribution Maps, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, and 3-8. When it says Trip Distribution Regional are those the 37
regional trips or are those from further away or the regional trips that are also only on the 38
regional roadways? 39
40
Mr. Struecker: Well, really both. They are the trips that are from further away and they 41
ultimately need to get onto these regional roads to get to their destination. 42
43
Commissioner Holman: The reason I ask is because I need a little bit of clarity because if it is 44
the regional trip distribution to get to the Medical Center or the Shopping Center if you are on 45
280 then you also have to go on Sand Hill or Page Mill but those are not indicated here. The 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 41 of 66
only trips that are indicated on those roads are indicated as local trip distribution so I am a little 1
bit confused there. 2
3
Mr. Struecker: Well, yes, we are trying to show information here without getting too cluttered 4
on exactly where everything goes. There is an appendix that I realize has not been provided to 5
you that has a table in it that actually shows the percentage that would go say from southbound 6
280 onto Sand Hill Road. Essentially all the traffic that is coming southbound on 280 really has 7
to go onto Sand Hill Road unless they want to go out of their way and drive around a little bit. 8
There is a table in the appendix that has been created that shows that. What we are trying to do 9
here is jut show the general patterns. As I said for northbound 280 to get to and from that you 10
really have to go onto Sand Hill but there are others for instance northbound 101 where we are 11
showing 15 percent of the traffic. We have assigned some of that traffic to go through 12
Downtown north, jump on Willow Road and go north or continue on Middlefield to Marsh and 13
jump on Marsh. So there is a lot more detail shown in the appendix that shows you routes that 14
have been used. 15
16
Commissioner Holman: Okay, that is helpful to know. I think it might help if you have the map 17
on slide 7 up from your presentation this evening. I am not sure if it will be perhaps. I am 18
looking for a map that shows the routes into the Medical Center or near to it. 19
20
Mr. Struecker: How about this one? 21
22
Commissioner Holman: I can’t read the street names there but one of them I think is Durand. 23
24
Mr. Struecker: Durand is the one that sticks out and has the red around it. It is kind of in the 25
middle on the left side. There is Durand right there. There is a future street that doesn’t come 26
into play until the 2025 analysis. 27
28
Commissioner Holman: Okay, that explains why there is an ‘N/A’ by the data on that. The main 29
entrance to the Medical Center would be considered what? Or is the Durand going to be the new 30
main entrance? 31
32
Mr. Struecker: Well, the main entrance from Sand Hill would be Durand and still Pasture and 33
then the parking structure I believe is right here. There is access into a surface lot here and 34
actually Durand continues on through a four-way intersection. It is off various parts of Welch 35
Road. 36
37
Commissioner Holman: What I am trying to get at here is that with a concentrated build out in 38
2025 it seems like the numbers on the tables don’t correlate to my mind of the intensity of that 39
build out in terms of intersection impacts. The other trips are distributed out into the arterials, 40
local, regional, whatever. If you are headed there though, and I understand we are only looking 41
at peak hours so maybe that is the critical point here, but it seems like if that is where you are 42
headed though there is going to be a concentration of impact on those few intersections. 43
44
Mr. Struecker: You are right. The project traffic is going to be more at this intersection and this 45
intersection and this intersection than really any other intersection, correct. It comes down to a 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 42 of 66
focal point. I guess the reason that any one of these other than Sand Hill Road at any of these 1
other intersections is really no regional traffic it is all project traffic. That is probably one reason 2
it operates a little bit better. You don’t have somebody going from Mountain View to Redwood 3
City for instance as they do on El Camino Real that is causing some of the other background 4
numbers to be higher and then they are more readily identified as an impacted intersection. 5
6
Commissioner Holman: Gayle. 7
8
Ms. Likens: I would suggest that Dennis could also comment on the distribution for employees 9
based on the location of parking structures during the peak hours. Much of the employment is 10
not necessarily going to be driving exactly to the main medical hospital buildings because there 11
will be parking at these other facilities including the parking facility at the Hoover Pavilion. Is 12
that correct? 13
14
Mr. Struecker: Very good point. Yes, when we assigned the traffic we assigned some of the 15
traffic to the front door, for instance somebody that gets dropped off and then they go leave a 16
patient off and then go park the car. A lot of the traffic they drive directly to the parking 17
structure and so that is where the majority of the traffic is assigned. The parking structure up 18
here at Hoover Pavilion, there is a parking structure access back here, and the one that is off of 19
Pasture, and there is another parking structure in this general area here with Lucile Packard. So 20
that is where the concentration of project traffic is assigned to and the same principle holds for 21
the Shopping Center as well. 22
23
Commissioner Holman: I brought up recently the part-time employees versus full-time 24
employees. It seems reasonable to think that there would be more part-time employees than 25
comparable work done by fewer full-time employees. So when calculating these numbers was 26
there – there have been numbers presented that indicate how many full-time employees and how 27
many part-time employees. So were those part-time employee trips or the compounding impact 28
of those, were those considered in doing this calculation or was it just done a straight per square 29
foot here is what hospitals generate in terms of trips? 30
31
Mr. Struecker: The hospital trips were based on data collected from the existing hospital, 32
parking lots for the existing hospital. So any unique trip making characteristics of the future 33
hospital are – those reflected are the existing operation. 34
35
Commissioner Holman: That is helpful. 36
37
Commissioner Holman: Mitigations, I look to Staff on this. Would there be any difficulty in 38
putting mitigations in place or ensuring that mitigations were in place prior to occupancy of any 39
of the expanded space? The reason I ask is obvious because sometimes we have projects that get 40
built, get occupied, and the mitigations don’t happen then for a period of time. 41
42
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. I think that one of the important things we will need to pay attention 43
to is when, and we can put all that in the conditions of approval, development agreement, 44
wherever, but when all mitigations are to occur. Some of them may be before occupancy of one 45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 43 of 66
phase of the project and another set of mitigations before another phase of the project. That 1
certainly is achievable. 2
3
Commissioner Holman: Then similar to the questions asked earlier by Commissioner Fineberg, 4
in the Staff Report I think is where I read this, there is the tunnel from Downtown North at 5
Everett that is being proposed. It is similar to the College Terrace situation. So people can park 6
in Downtown North if they can squeeze another car onto the streets that are already overloaded 7
there and then take the tunnel underneath to go to the Shopping Center or go to the hospital. I 8
don’t see any mitigations or anything indicated for preventing that activity. 9
10
Ms. Likens: That is something that I guess could be looked. I think you are presuming that if 11
the tunnel were built and there was no prohibition about all day parking that potentially some 12
neighborhood parking intrusion could occur if there was adequate transit access that would make 13
it convenient for people to walk either to the new facilities or whatever. We have not looked at 14
that yet as looking down the line perhaps that is something we can take into consideration as we 15
look into this. 16
17
I would say that that tunnel is proposed in the Bicycle Transportation Plan regardless of whether 18
these projects move forward or not. That is a project that has been incorporated into the Bicycle 19
Plan. It has been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan as an Addendum and is a project that 20
stands on its own merits as a completion of a bicycle boulevard concept along Everett through to 21
El Camino. 22
23
Commissioner Holman: I understand that but when you build something very large on the other 24
side the impetus for or opportunity for having that additional parking is rife. I would have to say 25
that additional concern would be that the Caltrain parking lots might also be consumed by people 26
also wanting to use that tunnel. Again, it is the exact same situation as Commissioner Fineberg 27
described. If we are looking at an employer who wants to reduce or contain the number of trips 28
or parking places consumed onsite there are other alternatives, which are the Caltrain parking 29
lots and Downtown North neighborhoods for instance. 30
31
The comments by Harlan Pinto, a member of the public, can Staff comment about his concerns 32
both having to do with the Comprehensive Plan residential arterial program for University 33
Avenue and also peak hours versus peak flow because that will be affected? Then also the two 34
lanes converging down to one, again that has to do with flow not necessarily intersection. 35
36
Ms. Likens: Right. Well, University is one of the residential arterials identified in the 37
Comprehensive Plan. The study of our residential arterials and traffic calming on the residential 38
arterials is a project, and the first project that is underway is the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor 39
project. We have implemented the Charleston segment. The Council has authorized the 40
continuation of that. We are in the process of determining what the next step will be on 41
Arastradero Road. That is the only currently funded residential arterial traffic calming project. 42
Middlefield, Embarcadero, and University are the other three remaining projects that are yet to 43
be initiated. He is correct there is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, there is a program, but at 44
this point we are still working on the first of the five. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 44 of 66
I will ask Dennis to comment, but the intersection analysis deals with the intersections. Then 1
after the intersection as with many arterial streets, many of our streets, you have capacity at the 2
intersection and you can go down, reduce a lane, beyond the intersection and that is a different 3
issue than the intersection capacity level of service analysis. Dennis, would you like to add 4
anything to that? 5
6
Mr. Struecker: Well, maybe yes I will. The lane utilization for that right turn lane that drops 7
coming into town on University is probably not as high as the left turn lane because of that 8
people have to merge over. Those two lanes do allow more traffic to get through the 9
intersection. So the analysis does show those two lanes through the intersection. But as I said it 10
may not be as efficiently used as if it continued two lanes all the way to Middlefield or wherever. 11
12
Commissioner Holman: I also was interested in Page Mill and I-280. That isn’t one of the 13
intersections that is studied. While the most direct route if you are on 280 would be Sand Hill 14
Road there are challenges at both Page Mill and Sand Hill. So it would seem to me that people 15
might actually want to use Page Mill but it wasn’t one of the intersections studied. Although, 16
Page Mill and Junipero Serra was and Page Mill and El Camino was. So I was a little confused 17
as to why Page Mill and 280 was not. 18
19
Mr. Struecker: It wasn’t a conscious decision to leave it out. It is not signalized. Generally the 20
analysis looks at signalized intersection although there are a few unsignalized intersections. So I 21
guess that is maybe the best reason I can think of. If it is something of a concern it can be added. 22
It is a matter of collecting the existing traffic counts and just expanding the analysis. You are 23
right, we did take traffic through Junipero Serra, and it does go out that way so we do know what 24
we expect the project traffic to be at that location. 25
26
Commissioner Holman: Just from personal experience I can say that at some times of the day 27
especially in the morning Page Mill and 280 is really a mess. So to exacerbate that situation 28
without studying it I think would be an oversight. I have a couple more but we can skip to the 29
next person. 30
31
Actually, let me ask one more question. The University Avenue because that is in such direct 32
line with both of these projects I am presuming that undertaking of that project or at least partial 33
funding of the Comprehensive Plan University Avenue project could be something that is 34
considered as part of the Development Agreement. 35
36
Mr. Williams: Yes it could. 37
38
Commissioner Holman: Is there any list that exists so far of things that are being considered? I 39
know there has been a suggestion list put out but I presume that there is nothing to be published 40
yet about what is being considered. 41
42
Mr. Williams: That is correct. 43
44
Commissioner Holman: I will pass it on. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 45 of 66
Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then myself. 1
2
Commissioner Fineberg: We received an email several days ago from Sandy Eakins, former 3
Mayor, regarding her concerns about traffic on Welch Road. I should also state she was a former 4
Planning Commissioner. I don’t find that at places today. Was that email made available to the 5
public and I would like Staff to comment on it, please. 6
7
Ms. Likens: I just saw it today. It was an email from Sandy Eakins? 8
9
Commissioner Fineberg: We received it via Zariah. 10
11
Chair Garber: It went out this morning at 9:13 and it was received by the Planning Department 12
yesterday. So it is not likely that there has been any time for it to be part of the public. 13
14
Commissioner Fineberg: Usually when we receive emails they are also made available at places 15
and to the public. Will that happen at some point? We received the email this morning. It was 16
received by Planning Commission yesterday. Typically when we receive emails from Zariah 17
that way they are then at places and at the back table for the public. Did other Commissioners 18
get them at places tonight? 19
20
Mr. Williams: No, they were not at places tonight. That was an oversight and 99.9 percent of 21
the time Zariah has them all for public and for you. 22
23
Commissioner Fineberg: My concern isn’t that it didn’t happen but how will her questions and 24
her comments be made available to the public? 25
26
Mr. Williams: We can distribute them to you and then also have them for the Council when we 27
go to the Council with this item. 28
29
Commissioner Fineberg: Fantastic. Also, I don’t know if Gayle has had time to review that and 30
if there are any comments about what analysis has been done and what if any of the analysis in 31
this report deals with the pedestrian needs along Welch Road. 32
33
Ms. Likens: We have been looking at Welch Road fairly extensively both with regard to 34
vehicular capacity and also some of the issues that she raised in that email having to do with 35
driveways and crossings and pedestrian safety we will take into consideration. We will be 36
looking at that. I don’t believe that there is a direct response in the traffic study yet to those 37
issues. Dennis, do you have anything? 38
39
Mr. Struecker: I have not seen the email. 40
41
Mr. Williams: I do know that as part of the whole pedestrian/bicycle network related to the 42
Village alternative that we are looking at improved crossings of Welch Road and improved 43
pedestrian access along there. So I don’t know the specifics of that but that is definitely on the 44
radar as far as that issue goes. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 46 of 66
Commissioner Fineberg: Will that come to us in the EIR? 1
2
Mr. Williams: Yes it would because the Village Concept will be in there and analyzed as well 3
including the transportation aspects. 4
5
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Could one of the issues dealt with in that entire analysis also 6
include the offices that will convert from medical offices where people drive to see a private 7
physician, those offices if I understand it correctly will be converted to Medical Center use? So 8
the patterns of the people who visit those locations will change. So now instead of someone 9
driving to the doctor’s office it might be staff walking back and forth across the street. So the 10
usage of pedestrian trips may look very different from the car trips. If that can be considered in 11
the kind of overarching review of that area. 12
13
Ms. Likens: Yes, we have been looking really seriously at Welch Road and in particular 14
crossings of Welch Road where they are now, where they might need to be with the proposed 15
new roadway, signalized intersection at Durand and Welch that will provide another opportunity 16
for crossings. We are still looking at that. That is going to be further discussed I am sure. 17
18
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. Some of my questions have been picked up already by 19
fellow Commissioners. I would like to concur with Commissioner Holman’s comments that the 20
study area does need to include Page Mill and 280. I think that will be a good improvement. 21
22
I would like to echo Commissioner Keller’s comments that the traffic analysis model needs to 23
mathematically model something that is a real condition. I think it is a quantitative error to have 24
a model where the compounded growth rate along El Camino ends up mathematically 25
outstripping the total traffic capacity in the rest of the city. It simply isn’t a real model if you 26
take it out over time. I can’t profess to explain what the correct model would look like but it 27
should not be one where if you take it out over time it creates a situation that can’t possibly exist 28
in the real world. So I would like to see that addressed for future models. 29
30
I would like to have and I don’t know if now is the right time but a really clear definition of what 31
mitigations, I don’t want to use the word ‘required,’ but what CEQA will define as the 32
mitigations to bring it from the projected condition back to what? We have the seven scenarios 33
so are we going to look at for instance the University going from the 2025 build out where the 34
mall is already assumed and they only have to bring it back to 2015 conditions or do they have to 35
bring it back to 2009 conditions? So just some real basic language of what is going to get 36
mitigated, from where to where, and over what time to what time. So it is easy for the public to 37
understand and just clean definitions. 38
39
I am holding thoughts right now and I am struggling with understand the scale of the impacts and 40
the scale of the mitigations. I understand that the EIR will have the full list of mitigations but I 41
think if the public, without understanding that those mitigations are not defined, the list of 42
possible mitigations we see just don’t seem to match the scale of a common sense understanding 43
of impacts. So I think any future memos or Staff Reports need to stress that there will be 44
consideration of other mitigations that will come forward in the EIR. Otherwise the scale just 45
doesn’t have common sense to it. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 47 of 66
1
We have talked tonight about a couple of other mitigations and I would like to stress that I think 2
there be some kind of place to collect all the potential mitigations and in a creative process where 3
even if they are outlandish that we just collect them. It may be that something that is out of the 4
box is the thing that is going to make it work. Things I have heard widening the streets, 5
changing the Comprehensive Plan, not saying they are right but get them on the table and rule 6
them out later. Satellite parking facilities, maybe under-rounding intersections, monorails, there 7
are probably dozens of other things like that and I would like to see the process go forward 8
where they are considered and ruled out rather than assuming that they are infeasible from the 9
start. I think we are capable as a city of managing a process so we yield a really good project, a 10
great hospital, and as minimal as possible impacts on the traffic and the residents. I don’t think 11
we need to give up and say we can’t get there. I think we have the power and the capacity to 12
think big and try to figure out ways to make that happen. So I was disappointed to see the 13
assumption that some things were not feasible. I would rather see us approach it for how can we 14
get there. Thank you. 15
16
Chair Garber: Let me come back to the scenarios. I think one of my key takeaways here is that 17
the scenarios listed here have helped you analyze the situation as opposed to they are not solution 18
sets or alternatives or something of that sort. So the key unit of measure here is the intersection. 19
It is the key intersections that have been highlighted in this report. Actually, let me just validate 20
that. Is that in fact a correct understanding of what the scenarios are doing for you here? Are 21
there key learnings that we should know other than just simply tallying what the impacts are in 22
each one of those scenarios? 23
24
Mr. Struecker: The scenarios define what the traffic volumes are through the intersection either 25
for the base or for the project. The cumulative impacts, the last two, are really in my mind 26
driven by CEQA. That is what a lot of these are. It is a CEQA requirement that you look at a 27
cumulative impact. 28
29
Chair Garber: Which is in fact the net result of all of this? 30
31
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 32
33
Chair Garber: So in a certain sense we should just go to the bottom line and look at those 34
relative to the overall impacts, right? Knowing the other analyses helps us to understand what 35
we might want to do in terms of spreading out the mitigations over time, yes? There are some 36
things that you are going to want to do in 2015 that are going to help you get to 2025. 37
38
Mr. Struecker: Yes, correct. 39
40
Chair Garber: Relative to the overall impacts we should just go to the cumulative analysis. 41
42
Mr. Struecker: Well, I am not a CEQA expert on that so I don’t know that I have the right 43
answer or could give you an answer on that. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 48 of 66
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Chair Garber, CEQA requires you to look at 1
both project impacts and cumulative impacts. Then the project should be required to mitigate 2
just its portion of the cumulative impacts. There is a different analysis of for project level 3
impacts versus cumulative impacts and the traffic analysis looks at both of those scenarios. 4
5
Chair Garber: I am getting that. Not specific to CEQA, which I understand is what is driving 6
these various analyses, but relative to the impact on our community what is being proposed are 7
the full cumulative impacts. Ultimately that is what we are looking at. 8
9
The other key understand that I want to test here and confirm is that the base growth has a 10
significantly greater impact on our community over this same period of time than the project 11
does. Correct? I am not saying the project has none. I am just saying that the amount of impact 12
that the regional growth has that the city participates in is significantly greater. 13
14
Mr. Williams: Right, is much greater than the projects. 15
16
Mr. Struecker: Yes. 17
18
Chair Garber: Those impacts the city would have to look to mitigate regardless if there is a 19
project or not. 20
21
Ms. Likens: In the absence of projects that generate – there could be traffic from outside the 22
city. We can’t mitigate that because that traffic is coming from elsewhere. So future projects, if 23
they have significant impacts, will have to mitigate those impacts. 24
25
Chair Garber: I can try it more specifically. If there were other projects we could look to 26
“mitigate” them but the City would have to deal with the impacts in one way or the other, either 27
by realizing them or finding other ways to pay for them. They may not be project mitigations 28
but they may be transportation projects at that point. 29
30
We have gone through two cycles. We will go through one more cycle. We have about 30 31
minutes to meet our target of ten o’clock. That gives us each about six minutes. Hopefully we 32
can get through questions and any other comments. Commissioners, let’s give it a shot. We are 33
going to Commissioner Keller, then Lippert, then Holman. 34
35
Commissioner Keller: I don’t think we are going to make it by ten o’clock. Let me say this. 36
The first thing to address is something that Commissioner Lippert said. I think the one thing that 37
is related to that is the potential for having Lytton be one way from Middlefield towards Alma, 38
the entire length and Hamilton be one way from Alma to Middlefield the entire length in those 39
directions. That would deal with traffic. I am not sure what the impacts of those would be but 40
that is a very feasible way at all hours of day to have the traffic flow more effectively. 41
42
When the Stanford GUP was done there was money set aside for mitigations to parking in 43
College Terrace. I think it is worthwhile as part of this to consider mitigations for Downtown 44
North and mitigations for University Avenue in terms of a study and mitigation as part of this 45
project particularly since there is potential impact there. 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 49 of 66
1
With respect to Welch Road and the comments in the letter that was sent to us one of the 2
interesting things is that Welch Road is one-lane each way street. Sand Hill Road is a two-lane 3
each way street. Quarry Road is a two-lane each way street. Campus Drive in the vicinity of 4
this is a two-lane each way street and then you have this bottleneck getting down to the Medical 5
Center through Pasture and Welch that are one-lane each way. So that addresses the comments, 6
which are on here about the potential for bringing traffic through. The issue of having a 7
continuity from Roth Way and Pasture Drive and the issue is circulation into this when you have 8
congestion of how people get to the hospital particularly the emergency room and things like 9
that. I am quite concerned about that particularly how it is placed behind this network of narrow 10
streets. Providing one more path to that may be helpful in that regard. 11
12
I third the idea if you will or I agree with the idea of Page Mill Road and 280 being studied. 13
14
Let me get to some broader questions and then narrow it down a little bit. The broader issue is 15
essentially we have a big problem. Traffic is going to be horrible in 2025. People in 2025 will 16
basically be looking for who to blame. In some sense you figure out who to blame and that is 17
who gets somehow you back date that who to blame and that is who tries to fix it. It seems to me 18
that the biggest portion of the blame based on the base conditions is ABAG. ABAG basically 19
says the Bay Area will grow, you will have more traffic, live with it. They are telling Palo Alto 20
to build more housing. They are telling all the other communities to build more housing. This is 21
the net result of that and that gets to a larger discussion. I am really looking forward to 22
understanding how this affects our 2020 end point for the Comprehensive Plan. I just want to 23
address that for a moment. It seems to me that we have looked at a bunch of different things. In 24
some sense I am looking at this data with the baseline conditions and I was protesting it because 25
it looked so wild. But thinking about the amount of growth that ABAG is forcing down the 26
throats of people in up and down the peninsula and elsewhere in the Bay Area you may well be 27
exactly right, which means that Palo Alto for the Comprehensive Plan really needs to understand 28
traffic more than we have. I am not sure whether understanding traffic and dealing with traffic is 29
as high on the list for Comprehensive Plan issues at it perhaps should be. It has not been on my 30
radar until looking at this report. This is the first time it has gone on my radar. So in some sense 31
you are getting flack because of my shock at how bad the data is. So I apologize for giving 32
pushback on that but I basically am shocked by how bad the data is in the baseline. So take it at 33
that. 34
35
Going into assessing blame in some sense some of this blame is attributed to ABAG and ABAG 36
is not going to help us with it they are just going to shove it down our throats in some way. In 37
terms of Stanford, to the extent that blame is attributable to Stanford, Stanford has to provide the 38
mitigations. The question is what is Stanford. Well, we have two projects, the Shopping Center 39
and the Medical Center. Now suppose there is ten units worth of blame to attribute to a 40
particular thing. That amount of blame that is attributed to some particular thing is let’s say ten 41
units worth of blame that is attributed to Stanford. Now the threshold for blame of significance 42
based on these incremental things may be six units worth of blame. Okay? So there are two 43
projects here, there is the Shopping Center and the Medical Center. So it is quite possible that 44
the Shopping Center has five units worth of blame, the Medical Center has five units worth of 45
blame, the overall project of the two combined has ten units worth of blame which is above the 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 50 of 66
threshold of six units worth of blame but each pieces gets off scott-free because incrementally 1
they are not significant. So it is quite possible that the combination of the projects is not 2
significant but the two projects taken apart which are treated as separate projects for the purposes 3
of mitigation may be below the threshold even though the combination is above threshold. 4
Okay? So what we have to do in terms of this mitigation is not only understand how much to 5
blame Stanford but how much to blame each of these projects. So I really want to understand the 6
issue to the extent of the mitigations. Are they mitigations for one project? Are they mitigations 7
for the overall? I think that really needs to be understood when we are doing this mitigation 8
because it is a matter of who pays for it. I am sure that Stanford is going to try to say there are 9
two different pieces so they would like the idea that the two halves are below threshold even 10
though the combination is above. I think that is going to be an important issue. I think quite a 11
number of those things will be in between. 12
13
What I would like to do is pass the baton. I would like to come back one more round and in 14
particular in the last round what I would like to do in my comments is comment on the potential 15
transportation mitigation measures in Attachment B and specifically comment on those 16
measures. I just wanted to give some hirer level comment first and then pass the baton. 17
18
Chair Garber: Before we get to Commissioner Lippert, Commissioner Fineberg did you have a 19
follow up? 20
21
Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I would like to ask that as a question to Staff. Does the fact that 22
there are two legal entities engaging in the two projects affect the responsibility to mitigate the 23
overall impacts? 24
25
Mr. Williams: It does not affect them. There still is a responsibility to implement mitigation. 26
That is why we are looking at each one individually, the two of them together, and then 27
cumulative scenarios to try to address when impacts will occur and then ultimately there will 28
have to be some apportionment of those mitigations. I don’t know if our City Attorney wants to 29
add to that. 30
31
Commissioner Fineberg: So let’s say if there are ten impacts or ten levels of responsibility. So 32
100 percent of that ten has to be mitigated. Then the question is which of the two entities is 33
responsible but all ten must be mitigated. 34
35
Ms. Silva: I think I understand your question. The mitigation monitoring plan will describe 36
which entity is responsible for implementing certain mitigation measures since the EIR does 37
analyze both of the projects together. So there will be some shared responsibility on some of the 38
mitigation measures and other mitigation measures will be implemented by only one entity. 39
40
Mr. Struecker: If I could, on intersections for instance that are affected by both projects you will 41
be able to tell in terms of which project adds how much traffic. If they both add traffic to the 42
intersection one may be 40 and the other 60 or there is some percentage. So the traffic 43
contribution would be an easy calculation to do and then a cost for the improvement could be 44
based on that percentage of traffic contribution. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 51 of 66
Chair Garber: Forgive me Commissioner Lippert. There is one more question to be directed to 1
our City Attorney. Commissioner Keller. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Sorry. Just to put a fine point on this. Suppose that the Shopping Center 4
project impact is not significant on a particular issue and the Medical Center impact on a 5
particular issue is not significant based on CEQA thresholds or whatever, but the combination of 6
the two projects together exceeds the threshold. The question is is mitigation required for the 7
combination when the individual pieces are below threshold? 8
9
Ms. Silva: Yes. It is required and that is picked up in the cumulative analysis. Each individual 10
project’s contribution to the impact will have to be mitigated. 11
12
Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Holman. 13
14
Commissioner Lippert: My head is actually hurting more than my arm at this point. In listening 15
to Commissioner Keller’s comment with regard I was going in the direction of maybe out of the 16
box thinking in terms of these mitigations and maybe a ring road is the approach where we do 17
create something around Hamilton one direction and Lytton the other direction. I am not married 18
to any one idea. What I am trying to do though is to begin to think out of the box in terms of 19
mitigations. To give another example, as you drive down Middlefield Road for instance, there is 20
parking allowed on Middlefield Road but during specific hours of the day maybe that parking is 21
not permitted. It becomes an encumbrances or something that we have imposed on neighbors 22
but in order for us to facilitate the free flow of traffic and to alleviate some of these problem 23
intersections this will help create alternative routes and increase capacity. Thereby make those 24
intersections work a little bit better. 25
26
Now, I joined the Planning Commission right at the time when the Commission – actually I 27
joined before the Commission voted on the Downtown North traffic calming and I have not 28
commented on it. I do know that as a result of that there are unintended consequences. Again 29
going back into the whole Lytton intersection unintended consequence of the increased 30
unsuitability of that intersection at Lytton and Middlefield Road might be in fact due to the fact 31
that there is no right turn through Downtown North during certain commuting hours. I am not 32
saying that we should undo it but what I am saying is that in every single neighborhood we go 33
through in trying to accommodate a lot of the residents, we try to accommodate and solve 34
problems, which create other impacts or other problems. All that I think we need to do in terms 35
of our analysis here begin to look at how to think outside the box in terms of trying to solve some 36
of these problems. It may require us in order to be able to make all of this work have to live with 37
some inconvenience in our lives. That is the net result of traffic. 38
39
I am not saying that that’s – these numbers are very helpful in terms of going through and 40
analyzing that but inconvenience is not the same thing I believe as – I am trying to find the right 41
word to frame it – hamstringing us completely into a solution that is totally unworkable and it is 42
not going to get us what we need our community and allow the community to grow and flourish. 43
Change is a very difficult thing to be able to digest, tolerate, adjust to, and accommodate. 44
45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 52 of 66
There are a couple of things that I did notice on one of the overheads here. Durand right now 1
doesn’t exist and that really wasn’t figured into this calculation I believe, these numbers here, 2
correct? It was figured into the future but not into the existing. 3
4
Mr. Struecker: Only 2025. 5
6
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. This plan also calls for Pasture Drive going through. Does that 7
look at Pasture Drive as going through and connecting up to Stanford’s ring road? 8
9
Mr. Struecker: The plan does not have Pasture go through to Campus Drive West as a public 10
street. The proposal by Stanford is that a connection between Campus Drive West and Pasture 11
not be a public street. 12
13
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. What sort of ability do we have in the mitigations to begin to 14
look at things like that? Again, what I am beginning to think about is yes we have a certain 15
burden in terms of getting people through Palo Alto to both Stanford Shopping Center and the 16
Stanford campus but it is Stanford’s responsibility to move traffic through the campus, around 17
the campus, distribute around the campus. 18
19
I guess what I am thinking about is in certain, and I am going to use the term loosely, ‘Italian 20
cities’ Northern Italian cities that I like to go to there is no traffic in the old town. Motor 21
scooters, some delivery vehicles, but the residents don’t drive their vehicles in the city and 22
tourists definitely not allowed to drive in the cities. They provide a series of buildings, parking 23
garages that you pull into and you simply have to take public transit throughout the entire city. 24
The same thing here might in fact be worth looking at where you actually go to a parking 25
structure on the periphery of Stanford campus and have to put yourself in the hands of public 26
transit while you are on campus thereby curtailing a lot of the traffic that is trying to get from 27
one end of Palo Alto to the other. It might be simpler if you are coming from San Jose and going 28
to Stanford Medical Center to park on the south end of campus or in a satellite parking structure 29
anywhere and just take a shuttle bus. That is the way you get to work. Or you go to a satellite 30
parking structure, park your car and you get on your bicycle, and you bike to where you need to 31
be on campus. Simple as that. So I am just looking for other ways to mitigate and facilitate 32
traffic. 33
34
Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman then Fineberg and then myself. 35
36
Commissioner Holman: Will Staff be incorporating all of our questions and comments into a list 37
without us having to go back and repeat them all at this point? 38
39
Mr. Williams: Steven says yes. 40
41
Commissioner Holman: Okay, so I would lodge concurrence with everything that has been 42
stated with three exceptions just to be on the record. I would with due respect to other 43
Commissioners on all of my dissenting comments here. I would not want to amend the 44
Comprehensive Plan to look at changing the aspects that have to do with widening intersections 45
and adding lanes. There are so many benefits to not doing that. Curtis, I think you mentioned 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 53 of 66
some of them like pedestrian access, bike lanes, there is also the trees that we have at 1
intersections and that sort of thing, frontages to buildings. There are all manner of things that 2
have to do with the character and quality of life in Palo Alto that I would not want to put on the 3
drawing board to rehash all of that. So that is one that I dissent on. I am getting the dissentions 4
out of the way first and then I will go onto the other stuff. 5
6
The other two, one by Commissioner Lippert and one by Commissioner Keller that I disagree 7
with are two lanes coming into Downtown North. If you have those that change from different 8
times of day and such usually are situations where they are for events or certain times of day and 9
they are monitored such that cones are laid down or some traffic person there to direct the traffic. 10
I think otherwise it is just planning an accident and waiting for it to happen. 11
12
Having to do with Commissioner Keller’s comments if I understood correctly about making the 13
entire length of Lytton and Hamilton as one-way, I think there is an impracticality to that 14
because it is not exactly the same situation because it is more commercial but traffic very 15
typically – living on a one-way street I can say for sure that traffic on a one-way street speeds up. 16
It is a little different situation because Homer and Channing are not quite as commercial until 17
you get to certain parts of them as are Lytton and Hamilton. I think there are other difficulties 18
and challenges that these would introduce. One of them is wrong way traffic. 19
20
Other than that I pretty much do concur with the questions and comments made by other 21
Commissioners this evening. I think perhaps the biggest concern that these projects have raised 22
from the very beginning from a traffic perspective and intersection perspective is that they are so 23
large that the numbers we are looking at are significant and their impacts are going to be 24
significant. So I also have experience that sometimes mitigations can be almost worse than the 25
impacts. So I have some reservations about us being able to mitigate fully the impacts. 26
27
As far as statements of overriding considerations are concerned the City Attorney can help me 28
with this. Those statements can only be made, and I bring this up every once in awhile when this 29
topic comes up, is that those can only be made when all reasonable and feasible alternatives have 30
been considered. So I just would hate to think that people maybe walk away thinking we can 31
always make a statement of overriding considerations when some of the other considerations that 32
are reasonable are a reduced project or the Village Concept or any number of other project 33
alternatives that we have talked about before. The City Attorney is not correcting me. 34
35
Ms. Silver: Yes, that is correct and the EIR will go through that analysis. 36
37
Commissioner Holman: In our Attachment C on page 1-9 one 1.8 on that page talks about the 38
traffic impact significance criteria. It has a whole list of things that would be considered 39
significant impacts. Are those consistent with CEQA or are these impacts data that the City has 40
adopted because it doesn’t consider that lowering the service level of an intersection from B to C 41
for instance that is not a significant impact according to this as I read it. 42
43
Mr. Williams: Right. The City has its significance criteria. The state doesn’t prescribe specific 44
criteria generally, in some areas they do but generally they don’t, and allow a City to use that. 45
This is our standard list and the D level of service comes from the Comprehensive Plan as 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 54 of 66
defined in the Comprehensive Plan as to be used as the acceptable level of service in this kind of 1
review. 2
3
Commissioner Holman: Then I will retract an earlier statement. There is something in the 4
Comprehensive Plan that I would like to readdress. I absolutely want to concur with the 5
comments Commissioner Keller made this evening about ABAG and the forecasts. 6
7
Separate from this project I think it would behoove us as a community to get that analysis and 8
those thresholds, those intersection analyses, to get that to the City Council and out into the 9
public on a sooner rather than later basis. As previously stated it has to do with our 10
Comprehensive Plan Update, the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, it has to do with 11
how the City Council might choose to respond to ABAG. There are all manner of reasons why I 12
think this needs to be in the public realm and clearly stated. 13
14
I do believe that the EIR is also going to analyze the carbon load of the data we are seeing 15
tonight. That would be separate but included. 16
17
Satellite parking, the comments that were made earlier about satellite parking all of them tended 18
to talk about satellite parking at the perimeter of Stanford. That means the traffic is still coming 19
into Palo Alto. That to me says we are going to alleviate the trips on the Stanford campus and 20
around the Medical Center but Palo Alto is still absorbing all of those trips. Comments have 21
been made about how both of these are regional projects, which I don’t necessarily think it is a 22
bad thing to have satellite parking, but I would like to see that satellite parking further out than 23
the perimeter of Stanford lands. There has been conversation about that at previous times for 24
other projects. 25
26
I note on the schedule in our Staff Report that is on page 11 of our Staff Report that the ARB is 27
going to be reviewing the projects from January to June. My understanding was that the Study 28
Sessions had already been conducted on the projects and they had been looking at different 29
aspects of the project. So what is going to be happening between January and June at the ARB? 30
31
Mr. Turner: You are correct. Study Sessions and preliminary reviews have been conducted by 32
the Architectural Review Board. We are pretty much at the end of that process with both 33
applicants and the Board. We are going to be going to the step where the applicants are going to 34
be making their formal proposals to the ARB for their recommendation to the Planning 35
Commission and City Council for the site planning and design of certain aspects of their projects. 36
For the Shopping Center it is going to be simply the Design Guidelines that the Shopping Center 37
is developing and the detailed projects will come much later. For the Medical Center they are 38
asking for specific design approval on their hospital buildings to be approved during this process. 39
So the ARB will be looking at the formal plans for recommendation of approval. 40
41
Commissioner Holman: The reason I bring this up is it has been stated from the very, very get-42
go of this that what we have seen happen in the past is that when projects get fully developed and 43
go through the formal ARB process then they go before the Planning Commission and City 44
Council and there is a real reluctance to, the word ‘tinker’ has been used several times. So that is 45
a concern because there is so much invested in a final outcome that people don’t want to monkey 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 55 of 66
with that. Maybe that is a strategy maybe it is not, maybe it is a practicality of timing, but I have 1
serious, serious concerns about that. What if the City decides that the full build out isn’t what 2
they want to do that we are not going to be able to mitigate all of it, not just traffic but the 3
various aspects of it, we decide to go with one of the alternatives then we start from scratch on 4
the formal review process. So I have raised this from the very, very beginning so I hope other 5
Commissioners will support that perspective because it has happened to the City many times. 6
7
I think that concludes my comments and questions combined with the other Commissioners 8
except for the noted exceptions. 9
10
Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, Keller and then myself and I think we will be done. 11
Commissioner Lippert, do you have anything else? You did? Okay. 12
13
Commissioner Fineberg: I am thinking about the Comprehensive Plan policy of not widening 14
roads and I would agree wholeheartedly that the spirit of that Comprehensive Plan policy is 15
prudent and wise. We do not want to be taking people’s front yards. We do not want to be 16
taking people’s houses. However, I don’t think it is prudent to fail to plan the best possible 17
project by eliminating that tool from our toolbox. I can see for instance the strip of roads 18
immediately adjacent to the parking lots, they are short roads, they are one-lane roads, and they 19
back onto larger feeder or arterial roads. If for instance there is a backup on a one-lane road in 20
each direction into a parking garage and that then backs up onto Sand Hill we are preventing the 21
flow to the mall and we are preventing other employees from continuing. If we added let’s say a 22
1,000 foot long turn lane and it allowed the cars to continue around it we are not taking yards, we 23
are not taking homes, we are not plowing portions of our community but if it allows the traffic to 24
move through a critical intersection it is huge. What we learned in our last session was that the 25
borders of where it is City land versus County lands are very contorted in that area. So if we can 26
keep that as a tool with prudent forethought that the benefit outweighs a small loss of open space 27
that is adjacent to a significant project I would hate to lose it because we have a policy. 28
29
I would also like to concur with a former comment by a Commissioner regarding the idea of 30
using the upcoming new GUP with Stanford to provide potential mitigations for parking impacts 31
in areas that might be adjacent to something like the new underground tunnel at Everett. If we 32
have precedence that we have done that with College Terrace it would make sense to mitigate 33
those impacts. Am I correct that that would then be negotiated? We could request that it be 34
negotiated by the County in the new GUP? Obviously it is not in our purview to enforce it. 35
36
Mr. Williams: Well, if we are talking about the Everett tunnel in Downtown North that is not 37
really a GUP issue. The GUP is the development in the County and we are talking about 38
development here in the City. So if there was something where we thought there was going to be 39
an impact then it is something that would be more appropriate in this Development Agreement 40
than in the General Use Permit. You don’t want it to go through the County to be enforcing that. 41
42
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So let me just ask for clarification then. It was referred to 43
before that Stanford was contributing monies to mitigate traffic in College Terrace. Where did 44
that negotiation come from? What document or act triggered that? 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 56 of 66
Ms. Likens: That was in the GUP but that was because the impacts were associated with GUP 1
development and the impact on the College Terrace neighborhood as opposed to impacts that 2
were generated within the city limits. 3
4
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay so if the impacts are from the specific projects it is within the 5
City’s purview that it be linked with the project. Okay, so we don’t need to go through the GUP 6
it would just be with the EIR. Thank you. 7
8
Chair Garber: Clarifying question, Commissioner Holman? 9
10
Commissioner Holman: Yes, the money that Stanford is providing for College Terrace and 11
traffic as it relates to the GUP that is a traffic study as opposed to a traffic calming. Correct me 12
if I am wrong. 13
14
Ms. Likens: One was from the 2475 Hanover project and that was for the traffic calming study 15
in College Terrace. Then the parking is from the GUP, the residential permit parking program 16
funding is from the GUP. Yes, just $100,000 for the study. 17
18
Commissioner Holman: So just to be clear, both of those are studies. There is no 19
implementation of any kind of mitigations from either one of those just so people don’t have 20
kind of a misperception that these are already in place. Is there a confirmation of that from 21
Staff? 22
23
Ms. Likens: No, there was $100,000 for the implementation of the College Terrace traffic 24
calming project. I will have to double check there is funding for the implementation of the 25
College Terrace traffic calming project as well. 26
27
Commissioner Holman: Provided by Stanford or City funding? 28
29
Ms. Likens: I will follow up and get you the information. 30
31
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller then Lippert and then myself, and then I think we are done 32
for the evening. 33
34
Commissioner Keller: So let me just follow up on a couple of loose ends that are there. Stanford 35
mitigation from the 2000 GUP was for the College Terrace parking, correct? 36
37
Mr. Williams: Permit parking. 38
39
Commissioner Keller: Permit parking. I believe that there was actually money in that to 40
implement the permit parking program but that is going to be confirmed. 41
42
Mr. Williams: Right. 43
44
Commissioner Keller: In terms of a new County GUP for Stanford that is likely to happen in 45
about 2017 when they run out of the current allocation, is that right? 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 57 of 66
1
Mr. Williams: Yes. 2
3
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to get that out of the way. 4
5
I kind of feel like the boy with the finger in the dike. We have all this traffic that is behind the 6
dike that I am trying to keep out of Palo Alto and there are a bunch of us that are trying to put 7
our fingers in the dike and ABAG is pouring more water behind the dike and we are going to get 8
flooded by it like global warming is going to flood the eastern part of Palo Alto. That is sort of 9
my analogy of what is going on. 10
11
With respect to Commissioner Holman’s comment about Lytton and Hamilton I just want to 12
observe that 19th Avenue in San Francisco has a very effective two-way mitigation for traffic 13
speeds through traffic lights. It is a lot easier to time traffic lights in a one-way direction to limit 14
speeds so that if somebody decides to drive at more than 25 miles per hour they are stopped by 15
each and every light along the way. So it is very easy by light timing to control traffic speeds 16
especially in a one-way street. 17
18
With respect to I hear a lot of people in Palo Alto who have lived here for awhile complain about 19
the increase in traffic in the last ten or so years. I am just curious and I am not sure where this 20
goes but I am curious how much of that increase in traffic is indigenous to Palo Alto because we 21
have that much more development within Palo Alto and how much of that is because of regional 22
growth. I think that might be useful in terms of understanding what happens in the next 23
Comprehensive Plan. Do you have a response to that? 24
25
Mr. Emslie: Yes, I think that you are actually headed in a way that the numbers that we have 26
been chewing over tonight indicate. To put all the “blame” on an agency that is essentially there 27
to predict and give forecast to its member agencies is one way to look at it. Certainly when you 28
add more housing you add trips and so forth and that certainly is a factor. 29
30
I think what we are seeing in the numbers just to share some of our observations is that there is 31
an unsustainable growth pattern that is happening in our region that is essentially going to break. 32
There is not the infrastructure. This is a convergence of regional growth and traffic. If we don’t 33
add another car to the street, another development what the model and what the regional agencies 34
are telling us is that we are going to have breakdown in our streets because through no action of 35
our own traffic is going to increase, it is going to increase in an unsustainable way, it is going to 36
be more single passenger vehicles traveling on freeway systems that are going to be undersized, 37
and there are not going to be any alternatives for people to take other means of transportation. 38
There is no increase in rail or light rail or anything that is factored in this model. That is why 39
you are seeing this. It is a complete breakdown because of the path that we are headed. So I 40
think it is also important to look internally, what is happening with our own policies certainly 41
those are the ones that we control, we have absolute land use authority over, but I think we also 42
have to consider that we are part of a larger region that has certain policies and actions that I 43
think we need to pay attention to. It is coming at us one way or another whether we end up 44
successfully fighting the ABAG projections or not. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 58 of 66
Commissioner Keller: So what is interesting about this is that in some sense ABAG is both the 1
predictor of this increased growth as well as a cause of the increased growth by creating these 2
growth directives. 3
4
What was interesting from my personal point of view is some 20-some odd years ago if my life 5
had gone in a different direction I would be in Los Angeles teaching at some university down 6
there. I wound up in Palo Alto and amazingly enough without moving I am going to wind up in 7
Los Angeles in 15 years. So at least ABAG is trying to turn us into Los Angeles. I think 8
Commissioner Holman wants to interject a comment or a question. 9
10
Commissioner Holman: Yes. Just a clarification if could. This discussion has led me to ask this 11
question. The criteria that Palo Alto uses to determine its level of significance is there any 12
reason that we couldn’t as a part of this analysis look at the intersection impacts for A to B, B to 13
C? Is there any reason we couldn’t look at that although the Comprehensive Plan says that D is 14
an acceptable level of service if we look at environmental impacts those are indeed 15
environmental impacts. 16
17
Mr. Williams: Well, they are not defined as significant environmental impacts under CEQA 18
unless they exceed the thresholds of significance. So that is why we stick to that. Yes, 19
technically you could look at that information and it becomes information but I don’t think you 20
could make a finding that determines that there was a significant impact by going from C to D 21
and thereby impose additional mitigation or make any additional negative finding about the 22
project. I think we are held to that unless the City actually went in and changed that level in the 23
Comprehensive Plan to something else. In that case it would be more of a perspective type 24
application than applying here. 25
26
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarification. Based on Steve Emslie’s comments I 27
think we are all going to be at Stanford Hospital gasping for air. 28
29
Mr. Williams: I think what concerns me about some of the discussion that I have heard is to try 30
to limit or restrict growth extensively at least in Palo Alto is moving in a direction I think that 31
fosters this kind of vehicular movement and we can never get away from it. Whereas if the focus 32
is on sustainable development that concentrates on transit and options and more mixed use and 33
pedestrian orientations and those kinds of things there may be an alternative to Los Angeles that 34
we can look at and try to accommodate. I understand that takes getting to that effort. You don’t 35
just assume it is going to happen there is a concurrent effort that has to go on to make that 36
happen and the Comprehensive Plan is one place that we can work on making that happen. So I 37
think they kind of go hand in hand but if we don’t, like Steve said, ABAG doesn’t need to tell us 38
to do anything and there will still be growth here to some extent and growth around us to a large 39
extent and very crowded roadways and no real alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. So 40
that is my perspective. 41
42
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller do you want to continue and finish up? 43
44
Commissioner Keller: Yes. The interesting thing about putting higher density growth in order to 45
promote transit use reminds me of the line of the company that was losing money on every 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 59 of 66
transaction but making it up in volume. Considering that fewer than ten percent of the residents 1
of Palo Alto who commute do so by transit if we add more dense housing we are going to still 2
wind up with a little bit more transit use but we are going to wind up with two-thirds more cars 3
of those people driving with single occupancy vehicles, which is the standard for the city. So if 4
we increase that ten percent to 20 percent and we decrease the two-thirds to 50 percent you still 5
have a lot more cars from that additional development. So I am not sure that that calculus works. 6
7
Be that as it may, let me just go into a few other issues. First of all, a few months ago I heard a 8
wonderful discussion by Simon Group about the competitive factors with respect to the Stanford 9
Shopping Center and the regional shopping centers. They were talking about how I believe it 10
was Valley Fair in San Jose that is growing by so much and that is going to really impact us and 11
draw people away. So if that anecdotal information holds then it opens the question the Stanford 12
Shopping Center distribution of 30 percent remote and 70 percent local. So I just know how to 13
jib the comments by the guy from Simon and this traffic analysis. I don’t know how they fit 14
together. I am not sure what the impact of that is but I am confused about that. 15
16
Secondly, I think that not withstanding the amount of additional traffic that happens as a result of 17
Stanford Shopping Center or the Stanford Medical Center I am still shocked by how much 18
additional traffic there is going to be on El Camino. I understand the issues of not widening 19
roads in residential areas. I think there is a slightly different issue, which is that one might think 20
about widening intersections slightly differently than widening roads in residential areas. One 21
might think about widening nonresidential road like El Camino differently from widening a 22
residential road. So I think that there is some nuance that could be provided there. Furthermore, 23
a good portion of El Camino from Galvez on south, so you start at Galvez-Embarcadero and you 24
go down to Page Mill Road there is parking allowed along most of that. I would suspect that 25
even if we weren’t going to do these projects that based on the growth of traffic projected along 26
here we basically say that traffic benefits very few people, adding an extra lane of traffic instead 27
benefits a lot more people let’s convert that parking into traffic. The main people it would hurt 28
are the people, the biggest impact on that would the people who drive to Paly and don’t pay for 29
parking at Paly but park across the street. Those people would not be able to do that people 30
would be driving along that route instead. So my guess is that if we are going to do this traffic 31
analysis it might be worthwhile figuring out if you reconfigure the lanes, get rid of all the 32
parking from that entire stretch and see if you can have four lanes going from the northern city 33
boundary all the way to Page Mill Road, see if the road allows for that and see the impact that 34
that would have on the amount of traffic and delays and such on El Camino since that seems to 35
be the most critical street in the area. Do you want to follow up to that Commissioner Fineberg? 36
37
Commissioner Fineberg: If I could. You mentioned a couple of other scenarios where very 38
limited and prudent street widening may provide significant benefits. Another scenario where I 39
think that might be a considered option in an area like Welch where it could yield benefit if you 40
widen Welch slightly narrowing the lanes of traffic and providing a pedestrian island and tree 41
plantings in the middle. All the street calming measures you mentioned like they are analyzing 42
along Charleston. If there were corridors where widening the overall width gave you options to 43
provide outdoor rooms or sitting areas or a grand avenue maybe consider it. Certainly not 44
University or through Downtown but there might be places to consider. So just keep that open 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 60 of 66
Ms. Likens: I should have interjected this earlier, as part of the project Welch Road is proposed 1
to be widened in order to allow for a continuous center left turn lane that would take the left 2
turning movements into the many driveways out of the through movements, and maintain the 3
one lane in each direction, and could also provide benefits for crossings that would allow for 4
pedestrian refuges in the middle of the street. I wanted to get that on the record. That would still 5
allow for bike lanes plus a three lane plus adequate sidewalks and planter strips and that is part of 6
the project. 7
8
Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: So now that I have basically gone through a lot of stuff at the 50 or 11
25,000-foot level let me get to the more detailed things in Attachment B. My personal 12
preference is the highest priority is transportation demand management programs. In terms of 13
helping Stanford employees in the Medical Center and perhaps in the Shopping Center to use 14
transit to get to the Medical Center. That has the highest impact plus the issue is it is just taking 15
cars off the road to Stanford, less parking, less cars going through Palo Alto, fewer cars going 16
through Menlo Park. It seems to me that that certainly should be the highest priority. 17
18
Obviously if you increase that transit use one of the things about that is the consideration to 19
which there is the impact of that and obviously the transit service mitigation if you are increasing 20
Caltrain use you are increasing Line U use, essentially Caltrain use that capacity is going to have 21
to be increased. So certainly those issues make a lot of sense for line A and line B, that kind of 22
stuff. 23
24
The next issue is a consideration in terms of integration. One of the problems with transit use in 25
general is every time somebody has to change a bus or change or mode of transportation from 26
one to other you get timing issues, you get conflict issues, you get drop off from the more times 27
you have to change a medium. Now, what is nice about the Caltrain to Marguerite Shuttle is that 28
Marguerite Shuttle goes sufficiently frequently that that essentially meets practically every 29
Caltrain that comes by in rush hours so that connection works pretty well. 30
31
Some of the public transit agency buses like the 35 bus the question is to what extent does it go 32
far enough in to campus or far enough into the Medical Center or the Shopping Center. Are 33
there things we can work with VTA in terms of having it be a better connection so people could 34
take the 35 bus? That is something to think about further. 35
36
In terms of the Palo Alto Shuttle one of the things is that the Palo Alto Shuttle is a fairly effective 37
way for a number of people, 175,000 people a year, 175,000 trips a year to get essentially to 38
Downtown or elsewhere in the system. But it is actually very inconvenient to go from the Palo 39
Alto Shuttle to get to the Stanford Shopping Center. It is not very easy to go from the Palo Alto 40
Shuttle to the Marguerite. You essentially have to go under the train station, come out on the 41
other side and there are some safety issues with that. Plus there is a delay in the buses are not 42
synchronized or whatever, and therefore, one of the things that is worthwhile to consider is the 43
degree to which those systems can be integrated so that one can not only from Downtown but 44
actually from elsewhere in Palo Alto get into the Shopping Center or into the Medical Center so 45
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 61 of 66
that you don’t have to do that switch that will encourage people to drive because the delay will 1
be that much more. 2
3
Consider the projections that Palo Alto is going to be graying. I would suspect that more and 4
more of our citizens would prefer to take transit from Palo Alto to the Shopping Center and 5
Medical Center if it were convenient to do so than drive, especially with traffic getting worse and 6
worse. So I think the desirability of that continuous connection would increase over time from 7
this. 8
9
With respect to the issues of the pedestrian and bicycle mitigations I think that those mitigations 10
seem to be very reasonable and seem to be relatively inexpensive. At least the ones that are 11
presumed for Stanford seem to be relatively inexpensive. The direct correlation between exactly 12
how they deal with the traffic mitigations is unclear but on the other hand we need to understand 13
those impacts that lead to these mitigations. 14
15
Finally, I think that the consideration is that we are going to continually see the VTA trying to 16
cutback on service in Palo Alto. The handwriting is on the wall. There is a meeting in a couple 17
weeks. If you look at the 88 bus ridership, which I have done a fair amount of analysis of that 18
what is happening is that the ridership overall looks pretty good in terms of the vehicle boardings 19
per hour. But then they decide to slice that into the amount of vehicle ridership per for Gunn 20
High School which is phenomenal and vehicle ridership per hour for non-Gunn High School 21
trips which is lousy. When you average the two you get a pretty good number but when you 22
divide it out you wind up with six boardings per hour, which is way below threshold. So it is 23
pretty clear that the VTA strategy is to slice this up and try to eliminate more and more of the bus 24
service for Palo Alto. We started out when Palo Alto joined VTA back in 1972 we had a lot 25
more routes, we had somewhere between 82 and 88 or something like that. We had a number of 26
routes through Palo Alto which have slowly but surely been dissipated as transit service goes to 27
more dense areas that seem from VTA’s measure to use it more like in San Jose and places like 28
that. Therefore there is going to be an increased need for us to provide our own kind of bus 29
services. To the extent it makes sense for those to be feeder routes into Stanford it makes sense. 30
After all, there are 2,000 people who live in Palo Alto who work on the Stanford campus itself 31
that is the campus side not the city side. So an integration of the Marguerite and the Palo Alto 32
Shuttle would allow for some of those trips to go away to the benefit of the Stanford GUP 33
situation. So I do think it is worthwhile for us to be creative in terms of how to promote both 34
people who work at Stanford Medical Center to use transit to get those cars off of the road, as 35
well as think about how to integrate and improve transit service from Palo Alto into the 36
Shopping Center and Medical Center, and on campus generally in order to remove some of those 37
cars off of the road. 38
39
I do recognize the point made by Commissioner Fineberg and that is to the extent that you do 40
that you do risk the potential for cars parking not on the periphery of College Terrace but parking 41
in the periphery of elsewhere in Palo Alto. I don’t have an answer to that, I am not sure how to 42
measure that, but perhaps it would spread the load. I am not sure what the effect of it would be 43
but it is certainly interesting to consider and I think would be of general utility depending on the 44
kind of impacts that we reduced. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 62 of 66
To close, it is not currently as far as I understand a City policy that has been adopted by the City 1
Council to have no new net trips for the Stanford project but on the other hand it wasn’t a policy 2
of Santa Clara County to have no new net trips for developments. Yet when Stanford University 3
did its development project with the County in 2000 a limitation was put of this no new net trips 4
for Stanford as part of the 2000 GUP on Stanford even though there wasn’t a specific policy 5
generally applied for no new net trips. I think that Palo Alto has the opportunity if it wishes to to 6
take that as a precedent and say that regardless of whether there is a policy in the City in general 7
for a project to have no new net trips we have to realize that this project for the Shopping Center 8
and the Medical Center especially is of such scale as to be unprecedented as a single project. 9
Therefore having a policy like no new net trips applied to that kind of development makes sense 10
even if such a policy is not applied to considerably smaller developments around the city where 11
it is a lot harder to measure. So I do think that it does make sense for Palo Alto to impose a no 12
new net trips limitation allowing for in lieu mitigations on these developments. Thank you. 13
14
Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 15
16
Commissioner Lippert: In thinking this through there are a number of things that my fellow 17
Commissioners have said that I agree and disagree with. To start off with, first of all as far as 18
my comments with regard to the mitigations and suggestions I think it is important that we look 19
outside the box. My suggestions were not meant to be specific only in the sense that there are 20
ways to I believe look at infrastructure and re-improve it especially where you have physical 21
limitations. I believe that in this area of growth that we are going to be seeing that there is no 22
place to go. There is no place to widen roads. If you just simply look at the Oregon Expressway 23
and where it narrows down to go under the railroad tracks there is no way to widen that and 24
make that work. You have to rethink how that intersection or how that underpass at Alma Street 25
is used. So my free thought or suggestion here is not meant to be specific in the sense that it 26
should be taken seriously but what should happen is that my suggestions are meant to provoke 27
thought. That thought thereby begins to tinker with the system a little bit. 28
29
The flip side of that is I live in Downtown North and I would welcome a tunnel under the 30
railroad tracks there. I would go and use Stanford Shopping Center a lot more if I could walk 31
from my house to Stanford Shopping Center or take a bicycle easily. In fact, I do actually 32
bicycle out that way but not to go shopping. It would begin to connect the neighbors of 33
Downtown North to Stanford Shopping Center and further on to the campus and the hospital. 34
What I am even beginning to think is maybe people that work at Stanford Medical Center might 35
want to live in my neighborhood and walk to work. In fact, there are people that do. With that I 36
don’t know the last time Commissioner Keller has been to the train station but there is an 37
underpass now underneath the Palo Alto transit center that is illuminated that is not a danger and 38
is actually a delight to walk through. 39
40
I think the point that I am trying to make is that it is important for all of us to innovate and think 41
outside the box in order to solve these problems because there is not going to be any one 42
mitigation here, there is not going to be any one solution here that is going to solve these traffic 43
problems. It is going to be a variety of approaches to looking at how we mitigate traffic and the 44
demand that we are going to see in terms of this growth. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 63 of 66
I guess what I am beginning to think is I would really like to see people get out of their cars. I 1
would like to see less traffic on the roads in Palo Alto. Can anyone tell me how much time it 2
takes to take the train from downtown Redwood City to Palo Alto? Chair Garber can because 3
we have taken the train together. It takes somewhere from six to eight minutes depending on 4
how many stops there are. That means that people who live in downtown Redwood City can 5
easily commute to Palo Alto by train and walk to standard Shopping Center to not only work but 6
also to shop. It means that perhaps the way to think about mitigating some of this traffic is to 7
charge for parking, a nominal fee, at Stanford Shopping Center. That fee would go into 8
subsidizing the people that take the train. If it is a buck an hour every eight people that shop at 9
Stanford Shopping Center they would be able to reimburse one person that takes the train and all 10
they need to do is have their ticket validated the same way you have parking validated. So 11
similar to going to the movies in downtown Redwood City, which I think we all have done. 12
They validate your parking if you go to the movies there. 13
14
Lastly, one thought that I don’t know if we have actually brought up is Stanford is moving a 15
large part of the hospital already to Redwood City. They are moving the orthopedic medicine to 16
Redwood City. There are a large number of people that would normally be living in Palo Alto 17
and using the Medical Center and going to orthopedic medicine normally that will now be going 18
to Redwood City. Again, the flip side of that is a way for them to be able to get there and 19
perhaps there is a way to look at Marguerite Shuttle in terms of its connection from Palo Alto 20
transit. You take the train to Redwood City there is a Marguerite Shuttle from Redwood City 21
that takes you to the osteopathic medicine clinic and back. By the same token I think what 22
Commissioner Keller had suggested earlier in terms of the Palo Alto Shuttle not connecting with 23
the Marguerite Shuttle, maybe it is time to actually look at the two and make the two work 24
together as one. So that is another way of mitigating transit. Those are my parting comments 25
here. 26
27
Chair Garber: Thank you. Several comments. First a couple of clean up ones from some of the 28
other Commissioners here. I will close the public comment session. 29
30
Does the traffic model consider the additional trips at the VA expansion? Is that part of the 31
model or does the model incorporate that expansion? 32
33
Ms. Likens: I am not sure. Can we get back to you on that? 34
35
Chair Garber: Sure. 36
37
Ms. Likens: We will get back to you on that. 38
39
Chair Garber: Also, could you go to slide number 12, please? The question was Hamilton, why 40
is Hamilton outlined in blue, the one little segment? 41
42
Ms. Likens: That was the residential street segment that was studied for the TIRE Index 43
thresholds. During the initial phases of this project the neighborhood raised issues about through 44
traffic. 45
46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 64 of 66
Chair Garber: That was an area of sensitivity that you were looking at. 1
2
Ms. Likens: Right, so we had to select a location along Hamilton to study in the Crescent Park 3
neighborhood and that was the block that we studied because it is part of the through alternative 4
route. 5
6
Chair Garber: Follow up, Commissioner Holman? 7
8
Commissioner Holman: Yes. So then it is only that one long block. So how does that influence 9
or not influence what might or might not be determined for the rest of Hamilton as you feed 10
towards the Shopping Center or away from it? 11
12
Ms. Likens: I will let Dennis comment on that. 13
14
Mr. Struecker: That is the block we studied but by inference if there is an impact of the projects 15
in that block there would be an impact of the projects closer to the projects. It is a representative 16
study. 17
18
Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. 19
20
Chair Garber: Several other comments. First a set of comments regarding communication. This 21
is an instance where communication equals knowledge/education, and we probably don’t need 22
Edward Tufte to remind us of that. I think it would be very help in our next iteration to have 23
some portions of the report that are not just in chart form but might take more graphic forms to 24
help us understand and communicate some of the information. Potentially, specifically 25
something that allows us to reconcile or understand where the different growth factors are either 26
by various agencies that are in play and then over time so that we can see that clearly. Another 27
one might be something that shows us the relative growth impacts by region/county versus the 28
city versus the specific intersections so that we can have a conversation about what is really 29
impacting the project versus other things. 30
31
I would support Commissioner Holman’s underlying concept that planning comes before 32
projects and that there is potentially a process issue if we are giving the impression that we are 33
approving projects via the ARB. Granted it is not an approval, they are recommendations, etc., 34
but we need to address that especially if that is occurring before the EIR occurs. 35
36
The topic about the growth in transportation relative to the city that is not attributable to the 37
project that has clearly taken some focus here. There has been some conversation about it is 38
impacting the Comprehensive Plan and that sort of discussion I think is informing and worth 39
considering. I am more interested in the impacts that that has relative to the immediate financial 40
analysis that is going on. If there are impacts there that should be included. Even more 41
specifically if there are issues that the various area plans that are being developed should be 42
incorporating relative to compensating for those issues, and if they should how that becomes part 43
of the whole thing. I am not asking for an answer here I am just saying that if there are impacts, 44
if those area plans should be responding to this as an issue, Commissioner Keller’s point I think 45
is well taken in that transportation has a significant impact and we have some things going on 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 65 of 66
right now that we can begin to take a look at what those specific impacts to our neighborhood 1
and our community are. 2
3
Relative to adding to the page of mitigations, relative to the trip distribution diagrams it seems to 4
me if there are opportunities to find ways to support or reduce the automobile travel where we 5
have the highest percentages of transportation being indicated be they from 280, Menlo Park has 6
a large project there, the Hyatt Hotel. I suspect there is probably some TDM project in place that 7
probably does not include opportunities for us to be there, but maybe there are some 8
opportunities that we don’t know and they could certainly support reduction of traffic into our 9
community. Also, for that matter I was really very surprised to find the amount of traffic that is 10
contributing to the Shopping Center from Santa Cruz Avenue versus other places. That would be 11
another obvious place to look for opportunities for mitigations. That seems to me might be fairly 12
easy, direct, and more convenient, and would support getting traffic off of El Camino. 13
14
May I see slide 11, please? My final comments here are much broader. They again sort of 15
address the larger impacts here and may not be specifically project related. Maybe the starting 16
point of my comments here are Planning Director, Curtis Williams’ comments, which is 17
basically that in our community which is built out you don’t have opportunities to make black 18
and white decisions. All of your decisions are shades of gray and you have to manage between 19
very finite issues in order to create impacts. The impacts that Deputy City Manager mentioned 20
that we are going to end up not only with a built out community but a community whose 21
infrastructure is not going to support the regional growth in a short amount of time does give a 22
lot of credence to Commissioner Lippert’s desire to try and find ways to think out of the box. 23
24
I know that mitigations typically do not include creating study projects as opposed to specific 25
projects that impact intersections for instance, or underpasses, or things of that sort. However, 26
development agreements could easily incorporate such things. I suspect that in no large measure 27
one of the key areas of Palo Alto in dealing with some of these larger transportation issues is 28
going to be the knuckle that exists at El Camino and University Avenue, Palm Drive, and the 29
whole transportation node that exists there. We have talked about, although we have not moved 30
that forward on our agenda, the opportunity to look at that particular area as supporting a 31
pedestrian transit type of zoning. I am not advocating for that specifically now however that area 32
plus how the University Avenue contributes seems to me is going to become more and more 33
critical for us to understand how that supports the additional transportation as well as the 34
additional focus for mitigations to create not only a sustainable and urban environment for Palo 35
Alto but also how it supports Stanford’s growth as well, and becomes in itself the area that will 36
require a significant study and significant ways of thinking about that differently. I believe that 37
here is the opportunity to tie that to the larger project that Stanford is doing in large part because 38
the outcome of that study will support not only our city but Stanford and their project as well. 39
40
One of the big recognitions from the review of the Stanford Sustainability Study was I believe 41
the recognition that Stanford is no longer a campus in a pasture and has become more and more a 42
part of the urban environment that Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the surrounding communities have 43
created. We need to see University Avenue and that intersection with El Camino and Palm 44
Drive and the other buildings and infrastructure that are on Stanford more and more as one thing 45
and less and less as independent and separate things that act upon each other. So I don’t know 46
City of Palo Alto January 21, 2009 Page 66 of 66
when it occurs but I suspect that the pressure will build greater and greater for us to really focus 1
in on that. I believe that pressure will become even greater as the Stanford projects become more 2
and more real to us. So with that of course Commissioner Keller I am sure has a comment. 3
4
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A lot of work went into this study and I appreciate the 5
amount of effort that went into that. I would just request that the next time we get one of these 6
studies that we have a little bit more time to digest this. I got mine on Friday and we had a long 7
weekend, and some of us had things to do some not, and it was pretty hard to digest this because 8
it was a lot of stuff. I am one who likes data but it is still hard for me to understand it so I would 9
appreciate having a little bit more time for the future studies so we can be more informed about 10
this when we are analyzing it for the Council’s edification. 11
12
Chair Garber: I am not sure there is enough time that we could ever give you. 13
14
Commissioner Keller: I am not saying time for us to analyze it during this meeting. I am saying 15
time before the meeting to analyze it. 16
17
Chair Garber: Unless there are any other comments I think we will conclude. I would like to 18
thank you. This was a very good effort and I think between this and the other studies that have 19
been we are beginning to get a fairly clear idea of what the goals of the City are relative to this 20
project. Thank you. 21
22
23
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. 24
25
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. 26
27
COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. 28
29
Chair Garber: I don’t believe we have any more business to conclude here. Zariah, 30
Commissioner Fineberg did volunteer to become the Commission Rep for February. 31
32
Anything else? 33
34
Mr. Williams: Just a reminder that Alma Plaza is at the Council on Monday and I think Karen is 35
the rep. 36
37
Chair Garber: Yes she is. 38
39
With that we are adjourned. Thank you. 40
41
NEXT MEETING: Meeting of January 28, 2009 42
43
ADJOURNED: 10:55 PM 44