The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-11-09 City Council Agenda Packet 1 11/09/09 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. Special Meeting Council Chambers November 09, 2009 6:00 PM ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL/ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation against the City of Palo Alto by United States Department of Transportation Authority: Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(B) SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Susan Thom for Her Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Library Advisory Commission ATTACHMENT 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. 3. Approval of an Enterprise Fund Contract for Professional Engineering Services with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. in the Amount of $3,828,680 for the Design and Construction Management Services for the Reservoir, Pump Station, and Well at El Camino Park and Mayfield Pump Station Augmentation Project WS-08002 CMR 424:09 & ATTACHMENT 11/09/09 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. 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 three minutes per speaker. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters 4. Public Hearing Adoption of a Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval of an Architectural Review Application for the Demolition of an Existing 9,740 sq. ft. Building and Construction of a Four-Story 50-Unit Affordable Housing Development in a Single 63,885 sq. ft. Building with One Level of Below Grade Parking and Associated Street Improvements, and Associated Record of Land Use Action for the Project at 801 and 841 Alma Street CMR 426:09 ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 5. Approval of the Conceptual Alternatives for the Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Department Oregon Expressway Improvement Project CMR 421:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 6. Public Hearing Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District), and Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in the Downtown Area CMR 420:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). 11/09/09 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. CLOSED SESSION Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS. 7. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu, Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Marcie Scott) Employee Organization: Unrepresented Employee Group Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Authority: Government Code section 54957.6(a) 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. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO SUSAN THOM FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION WHEREAS, Susan Thom has served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Library Advisory Commission from April 2007 through September 2009; and WHEREAS, Susan Thom provided excellent leadership as Chairperson from February 2009 to September 2009; and WHEREAS, Susan Thom served as liaison to the Palo Alto Library Foundation in 2008 and demonstrated a ready willingness to support numerous outreach efforts and in so doing earned the respect of a wide community of library supporters; and WHEREAS, Susan Thom consistently advocated the vision within the Commission’s Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations Report for the Palo Alto City Library to guide the planning for facility improvements at the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and the Main and Downtown libraries; and WHEREAS, Susan Thom gave tirelessly of her time and talent to bring forward and keep library issues before elected officials by means of presentations, conversations and written communications; and WHEREAS, Susan Thom has consistently addressed community interests on behalf of residents of Palo Alto with vision and commitment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation and the appreciation of the community to Susan Thom for her dedicated, excellent and effective service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: NOVEMBER 9, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________ ______________________ City Attorney City Manager TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2009 REPORT TYPE: ACTION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 421:09 SUBJECT: Approval of the Conceptual Alternatives for the Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Department Oregon Expressway Improvement Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oregon Expressway is part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, and is designed to relieve local streets of commuter and other non-neighborhood traffic. Oregon Expressway connects US 101 to State Route 82 (EI Camino Real) and to Interstate 280. In 2003, the County adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study that provided a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system. The plan included specific improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant Street and US 101. The study area for this project is illustrated in Figure 1. Currently, the signalized intersections along Oregon Expressway have less-than ideal lane configurations and operate with relatively older equipment, which restrict the opportunities to optimize the signal timing patterns. Most of the signalized intersections operate with split phasing, meaning the two side-street approaches to Oregon alternate green phases. The County would like to improve the efficiency of each independent intersection and also improve coordination between all traffic signals within the Oregon Expressway corridor by implementing protected left tum lanes and phases, which allows for the pedestrian crossing phases to occur simultaneously. Currently, most local approaches to Oregon Expressway have lanes that are shared by both left and through moving vehicles. The County recommends several improvement measures (Attachment A) that would allow for more efficient phasing operations, and would result in lower cycle lengths and increased opportunities for coordinating traffic flow between each signal. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the County proposals and is in agreement with the County except for the recommendations for the plan at Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway and at Ross Road and Oregon Expressway, as described further in this repOrt~ CMR: 421:09 Page lof6 RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the following actions to the City Council at the nine intersections included as part of the Oregon Expressway Inlprovement Proj ect: 1. Support the preferred conceptual improvements as recommended by the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department (County) for implementation as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project at the following intersections: • West Bayshore Road • Indian Drive • GreerRoad • Louis Road • Cowper Street • Waverly Street • Bryant Street 2. Support PTC's recommended conceptual improvement for Middlefield Road which includes no widening of Middlefield Road and limits the northbound approach to one through lane only. Staff considers both the PTC's recommended improvements and an alternative which requires widening the street by five feet on the north-west quadrant as acceptable with the widening alternative as more beneficial for traffic operations and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. 3. Support the secondary alternative improvement for Ross Road which would include signalization of the intersection to provide a protected pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Oregon Expressway and facilitate the implementation of a bicycle boulevard along Ross Road. 4. Direct staff to work with the County, the neighborhood stakeholder groups, and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC) to develop detailed design plans and return to the Council with a report on the final design plans. 5. Direct staff to continue monitoring traffic conditions on Oregon Expressway after implementation of the improvements and to provide an update to the City Council six months after implementation. DISCUSSION As part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement project, the County would provide signal equipment upgrades, curb widening at some locations, and/or converting existing rolled curbs to preferred vertical curbs. These improvements, at most locations, are necessary to convert to the desired eight-phase signal operations. The County evaluated several different alternatives for each of the nine intersections along Oregon Expressway and selected a preferred alternative for each intersection. CMR: Page 2 of6 Currently, the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway is the most congested intersection, and is the bottleneck in the coordinated system. Improvements at this intersection would be necessary to implement the desired coordinated signal operations along Oregon Expressway. The optimal intersection configuration for traffic safety would require widening of Middlefield Road to install left turn lanes while maintaining two through travel lanes in each direction. In order to provide the additional width, four existing trees would need to be removed on the southbound approach on Middlefield Road. This intersection has been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a deficient intersection, and the City of Palo Alto has been collecting traffic impact fees to implement improvement measures which are similar to those proposed by the County. Unsignalized intersections along Oregon Expressway currently allow for full access (left and right turns onto Oregon Expressway) and the County recommends eliminating some of the more hazardous left turn movements to increase safety. These would provide safer, but potentially less convenient operations. These changes to the unsignalized intersections would result in a negligible effect on the desired signal operations and coordination along the Oregon corridor. At Ross Road, each of the proposed alternatives provides a configuration that would be consistent with a future Bicycle Boulevard project along Ross. Over the past year, Transportation staffhas held regular meetings with the County to develop the proposed improvement plans. The County has worked with Kimley-Horn Associates, a transportation consulting firm, to prepare the operational and safety analysis, improvement plans, and a benefit analysis. The County's report (Attachment B) shows that each of the signalized intersections would operate with approximately the same amount or a reduction in average delay. The Corridor analysis shows that the recommended improvements along with optimized coordination would result in a drop in average travel time and delay, and as a result, the average speed would increase slightly from 20 to 23 miles per hour. The traffic would continue to move slowly, but more smoothly. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On August 26, 2009, the PTC voted unanimously on a 5-0 vote (Commissioners Garber and Tuma absent) to recommend Council approval of staff's recommendation at each of the intersections with the exception at Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway. At Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, the PTC recommended limiting improvements to avoid any widening or tree removal, rather than the County preferred alternative of widening the street five feet. Seventeen merrlbers of the public addressed the PTC at the August 26th meeting, and there were approximately five written comments submitted to the City prior to the August 26th meeting. In general, most speakers and written comments were in support of the improvements at all of the locations; however, several concerns were raised, particularly with the potential removal of trees and reduction of the sidewalk planting strip on Middlefield Road. In addition, there was near unanimous support for a bicycle boulevard friendly traffic signal at Ross Road. CMR: 421:09 Page 3 of6 Although the PTC supported the alternative with limited improvements at Middlefield Road, the PTC raised a few concerns regarding the two alternatives proposed and discussed issues at the other intersections. In general, the common discussion items included: • The balance of needs of motor vehicle capacity with safer crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists. This also included the discussion of removing trees for vehicular capacity improvements. • The dangers of a right-turn only lane at Middlefield road for bicyclists and pedestrians in the northbound direction were discussed versus the widening of the north approach and reduction of the planter strip width. A dedicated right-tum only lane is less practical for bicyclists, and potentially creates more hazards for pedestrians waiting to cross Oregon Expressway. • The PTC and City Staff both support signalization of Ross Road to provide a bicycle and pedestrian friendly crossing, which differed from the County's original recommendation. The County's original recommendation of the unsignalized alternative was due to funding constraints. The County is supportive of the signalization if the budget allows. • The PTC is generally in agreement with the proposed improvements at the other seven intersections, especially at Louis and Greer. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies including: Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Policy T -25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway spaced by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 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. Policy T -28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. The recomnlendations are consistent with the Council-approved priorities for the Oregon Expressway as identified in the 2003 County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan. The County recommendation that was supported by staff for the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, as discussed earlier, is consistent with mitigation identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan which calls for construction of exclusive left tum lanes and two through lanes on Middlefield Road. It also is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan text describing Policy T -28 that specifically supports proposed intersection improvements at Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway. CMR: 421:09 Page 4 of6 RESOURCE IMPACT This proj ect is to be funded by the County using grant funds and County match funds totaling $3.5 million. Until the fmal design is completed and the engineer's estimate is prepared; it's not known if there will be sufficient funds to implement all of the improvements including the signalization of the Ross Road intersection. The City has been collecting Stanford Research Park (SRP) traffic impact fees to implement the improvements at Middlefield Road/Oregon and at two additional, intersections, Page MillJEI Camino and Page MilllHanover. The total estimated cost of these improvements in 2001 was $10 million, including $1.2 million for Oregon/Middlefield. Currently, there is a balance of approximately $2.5 million in the SRP impact fee fund. If the OregonlMiddlefield improvements are not recommended, the traffic impact fees can be targeted for another proj ect as long as it will mitigate SRP trips. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The County is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project. County staff has indicated that once the preferred conceptual plan for each intersection has been selected after input from the City Council, they will proceed with the environmental analysis and final design phase of the project. PREPARED BY: ~~US------------ Transportation Project Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS: A. August 26,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (w/o attachments) B. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Recommendations Memorandum C. February-April, 2009 Community Outreach Report D. County Arborist Report, April 2009 CMR: 421:09 Page 5 of6 E. Memorandum from City Arborist dated May 27, 2009 F. August 26, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes G. Excerpt from EIR for 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan on Mitigation Measures for MiddlefieldJOregon Intersection H. P ABAC Recommendation Letter 1. Correspondence 1. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives, Draft Report dated February 4,2009, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Hardcopies to Councilmembers only and can also be viewed at: http://www.sccgov.org/rdal006001 Oregon Expressway 2008 0501/report1.pdf COURTESY COPIES: Midtown Neighborhood Association Group Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee City/School Traffic Safety Committee CMR: 421:09 Page 6 of6 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Rafael Rius DEPARTMENT: Planning and Transportation Project Engineer Community Environment AGENDA DATE: August 26,2009 SUBJECT: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Review and Recommendation on the Conceptual Alternatives for the Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Department Oregon Expressway Improvement Project RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the request of the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department (County) for the City's preferred Conceptual Alternatives at nine intersections as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. Staff recommends the Commission recommend the following actions to the City Council: 1. Endorse the preferred conceptual improvements as recommended by the County for implementation as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project at the following intersections: • West Bayshore Road (Alternative 1 Modified), • Indian Drive (Alternative 1) • Greer Road (Alternative 1 Modified) • Louis Road (Alternative 1 Modified) • Cowper Street (Alternative 1 Modified) • Waverly Street (Alternative 2 Modified) • Bryant Street (Alternative 2 Modified) 2. Endorse the County-recommended conceptual improvement for Middlefield Road (Alternative 3 Modified) which includes widening of 5 feet which staff considers consistent with existing City policy. If the widening is not acceptable to the Planning and City of Palo Alto Page 1 , I Transportation Commission, the Commission should endorse Alternative 4 as the preferred concept, which limits the northbound approach to one through lane only and does not require road widening. 3. Endorse the secondary alternative improvement for Ross Road (Alternative 3) which would include signalization of the intersection to provide a protected pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Oregon Expressway and facilitate the implementation of a bicycle boulevard along Ross Road. 4. Direct staff to work with the County, the neighborhood stakeholder groups, and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC) to develop detailed design plans and return to the Council with a report on the final design plans and final environmental document. 5. Direct staff to continue monitoring of traffic conditions on Oregon Expressway after implementation of the improvements and to provide an update six months after implementation. BACKGROUND: Oregon Expressway is part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, and is designed to relieve local streets of commuter and other non-n"eighborhood traffic. Oregon Expressway connects US 101 to State Route 82 (EI Camino Real) and to Interstate 280. In 2003, the County adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study that provided a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system. The plan included specific recommended improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant Street and US 101. In August 2003, the City Council endorsed the high priority recommendations in the Study for Oregon Expressway including: • Replacing traffic signal poles and optimizing traffic signal timing plans, with emphasis given to ensuring pedestrian and bicycle safety • Constructing pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections • StUdying the addition of a tum lane on Middlefield Road and converting to an 8-phase signal operation to enhance operational efficiency without taking right-of-way The County secured approximately $3.5 million, including a Federal grant and County match funding, to improve the pedestrian and bicycle safety and vehicle operating conditions along Oregon Expressway by reducing traffic delays and improving traffic signal coordination between US 101 and El Camino Real (State Route 82). The study area for this project is illustrated in Figure 1. Beginning in spring 2008, the County began holding a series of community outreach meetings and working with City staff to develop conceptual alternatives for these improvements. Three large community wide workshops were held in April 2008, June 2008 and March 2009, as well as many smaller meetings with community, school and neighborhood groups. A summary of the 2009 outreach is provided in Attachment C. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Figure 1. Oregon Expressway Corridor and Vicinity Map Source: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives (Kimley-Horn and Associates, February 2009) Currently, the signalized intersections along Oregon Expressway have less-than ideal lane configurations and operate with relatively older equipment, which restrict the opportunities to optimize the signal timing patterns. To improve system-wide operations, the County would like to improve the efficiency of each independent intersection and also improve coordination between all traffic signals within the Oregon Expressway corridor. To improve intersection efficiency, the intersection's signal phasing would need to be modified such that the pedestrian crossing times (across Oregon) can occur simultaneously or be limited to one walk phase across Oregon Expressway per cycle. This is typically achieved by having protected left tum phases, which allows for the pedestrian crossing phases to occur simultaneously. This can only occur there are separate left-tum only lanes at each approach. Currently, most local approaches to Oregon Expressway have lanes that are shared by both left and through moving vehicles. The County recommends several improvement measures (Attachment A) that would allow for more efficient phasing operations, which would result in lower cycle lengths and increased opportunities for coordinating traffic flow between each signal. Only the intersection at Bryant Street would maintain shared left-through lanes; however, the pedestrian crossing would be restricted to one-side of the street, allowing a reduced cycle length. As part of these lane modifications, the County would also include signal equipment upgrades, and at some locations curb widening, andlor converting existing rolled curbs to preferred vertical curbs. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, the optimal intersection configuration would require widening of Middlefield Road within the existing right-of-way on City of Palo Alto Page 3 the north west quadrant (southbound approach), and the removal of four existing City street trees in the planter strip. It s~ould be noted that this intersection has been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a deficient intersection, and the City has been collecting traffic impact fees to implement improvenlent measures which are sinli1ar to those proposed by the County (see discussion under Resource Impacts). Unsignalized intersections along Oregon Expressway currently allow for full access and the County recommends eliminating some of the more hazardous movements to increase safety. These would provide safer, but potentially less convenient operations. These changes to the unsignalized intersections would result in a negligible effect on the desired signal operations and coordination along the Oregon corridor. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A number of striping alternatives were initially considered, and after various revisions, input from neighborhood meetings, and City staff, the County staff is recommending the following improvements at the intersections of Oregon Expressway and: West Bayshore Road: Addition ofa bike slot between the left and right-turn lanes, a wider approach along West Bayshore, and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. At Indian Drive: A raised median eliminating left turns into or out of Indian Drive. At Greer Road: Addition of left tum lanes, 8-phase operation, and elimination of on-street parking within 75 feet of Oregon Expressway on the south side, and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. At Louis Road: Addition of left tum lanes, 8-phase operation, elimination of on-street parking within 105 feet of Oregon Expressway on both the north and south sides, retention of bike lanes on Louis at the intersection and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. Existing rolled curbs would be modified to vertical curbs. Ross Road: Left and through movements from Ross would be eliminated, forcing right turns onto Oregon Expressway. The striped crosswalk would be eliminated, but pedestrian access would still be allowed via an unmarked crosswalk. This configuration would be amenable to future signalization. Middlefield Road: Addition of left tum lanes, with one through lane and one shared through- right tum lane, and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. Each lane would be narrow and substandard. The intersection would operate with eight-phases, and the removal of four trees along Middlefield Road on the north-west quadrant would be necessary. The reduced alternative would provide one northbound left-tum lane, one through lane, and a dedicated right-turn only lane; however, it would not require any tree removal. Cowper Street: Addition of left tum lanes, 8-phase operation, and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Waverly Street: Left and through movements from Waverly would be eliminated, forcing right turns onto Oregon Expressway. The striped crosswalks would be eliminated, but pedestrian crossings would still be permitted via an unmarked crosswalk. Bryant Street: A bike slot would be provided for the southbound approach and the west crosswalk would be removed, forcing pedestrians to cross only on the east side of the intersection. The remaining crosswalks would be enhanced and the intersection would operate with split ,phasing; however, the southbound movement would not be required to maintain the minimum pedestrian crossing times. Over the past year, Transportation staffhas held regular meetings with the County to provide comments as the proposed concept plans were developed. The County has worked with Kimley- Hom Associates, a transportation consulting firm, to prepare the operational and safety analysis, concept plans, and a benefit analysis. The County's report (Attachment E) shows that each of the signalized intersections would operate with approximately the same amount or a reduction in 'average delay. The analysis shows that the recommended improvements along with optimized coordination would result in a drop in average travel time and delay, and an average speed of 20 to 23 miles per hour. The traffic would still move slowly, but more smoothly. Table 1 summarizes the estimated intersection levels of service for both the existing conditions and the proposed alternatives. Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Scenario Average Volume to Average Volnmeto Intersection Capacity LOS Intersection Capacity LOS Delay (sec) (vIc) Delay (see) (vIc) Oregon Expressway at Existing 17.5 0.68 B 19.2 0.80 B w. Bayshore Road Alternative 1 M 17.5 0.68 B 18.8 0.77 B Oregon Expressway at Existing 17.4 0.68 B 18.6 0.53 B Greer Road Alternative 1M 21.8 0.68 C 21.2 0.51 C Oregon Expressway at Existing 28.3 0.72 C 20.8 0.58 C Louis Road Alternative 1M 26.9 0.70 C 26.1 0.55 C Existing 64.0 0.95 E 61.8 0.82 E Oregon Expressway at Alternative 3M 45.7 0.85 D 43.2 0.74 D Middlefield Road Alternative 4 46.2 0.85 D 45.0 0.72 D Oregon Expressway at Existing 15.4 0.67 B 17.2 0.54 B Cowper Street Alternative 1 15.1 0.64 B 18.2 0.61 B Oregon Expressway at Existing 20.3 0.73 C 19.4 0.63 B Bryant Street Alternative 2M 22.3 0.69 C 21.1 0.60 C Source: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives (Kimley-Hom and Associates, February 2009) City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 2 summarizes the estimated corridor-wide performance measures. Scenario 1 includes all of the recommended improvements without the widening and tree removal at Middlefield Road. Scenario 2 includes all of the recommended improvements including the removal of four trees and widening of Middlefield Road. Although the two scenarios result in similar peak period operations, the widening of Middlefield Road to accommodate two northbound through lanes would be better suited to handle fluctuations in travel demand patterns. Table 2: Oregon Expressway Corridor-Wide Performance Measures Total % Total % Total % Average % Time Travel Difference Difference Difference Difference Period Scenario Time From Delay From Stops From Speed From (hour) Existing (bour) Existing (II) EIj~tinl I (mpb) Existln& Existing 870 -495 -28,722 -20.6 -AM Scenario 1 744 -14.5% 369 -25.5% 27,891 -2.9% 12.6% Peak 23.2 Scenario 2 747 -14.1% 369 -25.5% 28,167 -1.9% 23.2 12.6% Existing 759 -399 -34,341 -20.3 -PM Scenario 1 675 -11.1% 312 -21.8% 26,748 -22.1% 15.8% Peak 23.5 Scenario 2 672 -11.5% 312 -21.8% 26,841 -21.8% 23.6 16.3% Source: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives (Kimley-Hom and Associates, February 2009) DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES In general, a majority of the proposed crossing improvements have been reviewed by City staff, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC), PTA traffic safety committees and several neighborhood groups. With the exceptions of the intersections at Ross Road and at Middlefield Road, they reached a general consensus regarding the recommended conceptual improvements and proposed operations. Ross Road: Ross Road at Oregon Expressway is an unsignalized intersection with full access to all movements of vehicles, and provides a marked pedestrian crosswalk on the south side. Ross Road is currently identified as a future bicycle boulevard in the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. The major impediment to designating Ross as a bicycle boulevard is the lack of a protected crossing of Oregon Expressway at present. The County recommended Alternative 1 would restrict vehicles approaching Oregon from Ross to right-turns only. The pedestrian crosswalk would be removed, although pedestrians would still be allowed to legally cross when safe (unmarked crosswalk). It is generally believed that marked crosswalks can, in some instances, provide a false sense of security for pedestrians. By removing them, pedestrians would be required to cross using more caution. The proposed layout would be designed in such a way that it is consistent with the City of Palo Alto's bicycle boulevard concept and that a future signalized intersection could be implemented. Without the signalized intersection, the proposed layout would require bicyclists to either tum right onto Oregon Expressway with the vehicles, or to dismount and walk across Oregon similar to pedestrians. Alternative 2, recommended by City staff, provides for the installation of a traffic signal to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of Oregon. The design is comparable to the layout of the Embarcadero/Bryant intersection, including through bicycle lanes on the side street but only City of Palo Alto Page 6 right turns out of the side street for vehicles. This alternative would create the opportunity to designate Ross Road as a bicycle boulevard and provide a less traveled, safer alternative to Middlefield for bicyclists of varied proficiencies, including Jordan Middle School students and potentially Garland Elementary School students if the school is reopened by the PAUSD in the future. This alternative is favored by all groups, but may be constrained by available County funding for the entire project. Middlefield Road: Middlefield Road at Oregon Expressway is the intersection that controls the cycle length and timing operations in a coordinated timing program for the entire corridor. Therefore, adding left tum lanes and reducing cycle lengths at Middlefield Road is the only way to improve the coordinated timing programs and reduce delay and congestion on Oregon Expressway. The County has narrowed the options to two alternatives, Alternative 3 Modified and Alternative 4. Both of these options would require narrow, substandard, 9-foot or 9.5-foot lanes. Narrow lanes of these widths are currently located on Middlefield Road at Colorado Avenue. It should be noted that both alternatives provide a better solution to the existing conditions and would allow for reduced cycle lengths and optimized coordination along the Oregon Expressway corridor. Alternative 3 Modified -The County recommends this improvement plan for this intersection. It would require widening of the north approach of Middlefield Road by 5 feet to accommodate left tum lanes and two through lanes in each direction of Middlefield. This would result in the necessary removal of 4 existing trees (3 Sweet gum and 1 Chinese tallow) and the full use of the approximately 2 feet of City right-of-way currently behind the sidewalk. The removal of the trees would result in a narrow (two-foot) planting strip and a replacement of the existing trees with smaller sized ones. This option would improve the intersection Level of Service from LOS E to LOS D and provide the most traffic operational benefits. Alternative 4 - A secondary alternative is provided that could be accommodated without widening or tree removal; however, it would result in only one northbound through lane and a northbound right tum lane onto eastbound Oregon Expressway. This second alternative would operate almost as well with the same Level of Service change from LOS E to LOS D with slightly higher intersection delay but would still provide an improvement over the existing operating conditions. Altenlative 3 is consistent with the Mitigation Measure CIRC-5 identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan which calls for construction of exclusive left tum lanes and two through lanes on Middlefield Road (See Attachment C). The mitigation measure also included widening of Middlefield on the west side of the SQuthbound approach as well as a second westbound left tum lane on Oregon Expressway to southbound Middlefield Road which is not part of the County improvement plan for this intersection. This improvement was identified to reduce the traffic impacts in 2010 and improve the intersection level of service from LOS F to LOS D. The City has been collecting Stanford Research Park Traffic Impact Fees to implement this improvement since 1989. Transportation staff agrees with the assessment that the Alternative 3 Modified that includes widening (and removal/replacement of four trees) is optimal for traffic operations and is City of Palo Alto Page 7 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan transportation assumptions. The no-widening alternative is less effective, but would be preferred over the existing conditions. The County has provided an Arborist Report (Attachment D) assessing the proposed removal and replacement of the four trees. The trees were judged to be in moderate to good condition. The City's Managing Arborist has reviewed the report and has concluded that the 5 foot wide planting strips are valuable assets to the City and the proposed narrow 2 foot wide planting strip is inadequate to provide a good replacement tree (Attachment E). Staff, however, considered the improved traffic operations resulting from the widening, would offset the reduced tree canopy in this area .. Bryant Street: At Bryant Street, there are currently crosswalks on both the east and west sides, crossing Oregon Expressway. As part of the proposed concept plan, the west crosswalk would be removed, and pedestrians would need to cross on the east side of Bryant. Due to the narrow nature of Bryant Street, left-tum only lanes are not possible without widening, which isn't considered feasible at this location. Due to the limited amounts of space and a large redwood tree on the south-west comer, providing a west crosswalk would not be ideal. In addition, the proposed layout would allow for a bicycle slot between a right-tum only lane and the shared through-left lane,.which is ideal considering that Bryant Street is a bicycle boulevard. P ABAC has reviewed the proposed layout and is in support of the plan that provides a bicycle slot in the southbound direction and to eliminate one crosswalk. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis conducted of several alternatives and input from neighborhood groups and PABAC, staffrecommends the approval of each of the County recommended improvements with the exception of the recommended improvements at Ross Road and Middlefield Roads. At Ross Road, staff recommends the installation of a traffic signal consistent with our bicycle boulevard guidelines. At the intersection with Middlefield Road, staff recommends the Alternative 3 Modified which would require the removal of 4 existing trees and reduction of the existing planting strip to two feet. This alternative would allow fora second northbound through lane (shared with right-tum movements). If the widening is not acceptable, then staffwould alternatively recommend Alternative 4, which limits the northbound approach to one through lane only. Staff would work with the County to revise the concept plans during the final design process, and ifnecessary, will continue to monitor and make adjustments to address issues. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies including: Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Policy T-2S: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway spaced by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T -27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy serve traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. The recommendations are consistent with the Council-approved priorities for the Oregon Expressway as identified in the 2003 County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan. The recommendation for the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, as discussed earlier is consistent with Mitigation Measure CIRC-S identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan which calls for construction of exclusive left tum lanes and two through lanes on Middlefield Road. RESOURCE IMPACTS This proj ect is to be funded by the County using grant funds and county match funds totaling $3.S million. Until the final design is completed and the engineer's estimate is prepared, staff will not know if there are sufficient funds to implement all of the improvenlents including the signalization of the Ross Road intersection. The City has been collecting Stanford Research Park (SRP) traffic impact fees to implement the improvement at Middlefield Road/Oregon and two additional intersections, Page MilllEI Camino and Page MilllHanover. The total estimated cost of these improvements in 2001 was $10 million, including $1.2 million for OregonlMiddlefield. Currently there is a balance of approximately $2.S million in the SRP impact fee fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The County is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project. County staff have indicated that once the preferred conceptual plan for each intersection has been selected after input from the City Council, they will proceed with the environmental analysis and final design phase of the project. NEXT STEPS Upon P&TC recommendation, the project would be forwarded to the City Council for recommendation of the conceptual alternatives to be included in the project scope. The County will pursue the environmental clearance and final design during 2010 and 2011 and report to the County Board of Supervisors in 2011. County staff will schedule public meetings in 2010 to share the detailed plans with the community prior to construction. ATTACHMENTS: A. July 8, 2009 Transmittal from County Roads and Airports to Curtis Williams with Proposed Conceptual Alternatives B. Excerpt from EIR for 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan re Mitigation Measure for Middlefield! /Oregon Intersection City of Palo Alto Page 9 C. Oregon Expressway Community Outreach Report for February -April 2009 D. County Arborist Report, April 2009 E. Memo from City Managing Arborist F. Additional Public Correspondence G. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives, Draft Report (February 4,2009, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.) for Commissioners only. Report may be downloaded from: http://www.sccgov.org/rdaJ006001 Oregon Expressway 2008 0501lreportl.pdf COURTESY COPIES: Midtown Neighborhood Association Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee City/School Traffic Safety Committee Prepared By: Rafael Rius, Transportation Project Engineer Reviewed By: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: ~ ttA;:1 Unc<fv? ~ t5 (/l. Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 10 County of Santa Clara Roads and Airpons Departn1ent 101 SkYPorl Drive San Jose. California 951 10-1302 (408) 573-2400 July 8, 2009 Curtis Williams Interim Director Department of Planning and Community Ellvironnlent City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTAC-H'MENT B Subject: Oregon Expl'essway Improvement Project -Proposed Conceptual Altel'natives Dear Mr, Williams: We have developed the attached conceptual altelnative improvement plans for each of the nine intersections within the project limits. Based on extensive public input and traffic analysis, the County proposes to implement the following alternative for each intersection: • Baysl)ore Road: Altelnative 1 Modified • Indian Drive: Altetnative 1 Modified; Altell1ative 2 is also feasible. • Greer Road: Alternative 1 Modified • Louis Road: Alternative 1 Modified, including gutter pan modifications if sufficient funds are available. • Ross Road: Alternative 2 Modified. This altetnative allows for the future addition of a bicycle/pedestrian signal consistent with the City of Palo Alto's bicycle boulevard concept on Ross Road (Alternative 3). • Middlefield Road: Alternative 3 Modified, which we consider to be the alternative with the most operational benefits relative to landscaping impacts. Alternative 4, which is also feasible, preserves the existing landscaping strip on all four quadrants but is less attractive operationally. • Cowper Street: Alternative 1 Modified • Waverley Street: Alternative 2 Modified • BI'yant Street: Altelnative 2 Modified We request that the City fOlmal1y advise us of its preferred alternative for each intersection. All of the altell1atives identified above were reviewed by stakeholders such as P ABAC, County BPAC, Ohlone PTA and MRA as indicated in the attached letters. Following City action, we \viII proceed to develop a construction bid package for the proj ect including plans, specifications and estinlates. Construction of the inlprovenlents is' subject to availability of funds. Board of Supervisors: Donald I'.'Gagn, George M. Shirakawel. Delve Cortese, Ken Yeager. Liz Kniss Acting Coun1y Executive: Gary A. Graves Ol'egon Expressway Impl"Ovement Project -Proposed COIU:cl)tllal Alternatives p. "L/'l. We would like to ackno'vledge the pal1icipation and cooperation of City of Palo Alto staff, particularly Ms. Gayle Likens, during the public outreach process and conceptual alternative developnlent. Please call Ole at (408) 573-2492 or the County Traffic Engineer, Masoud Akbarzadeh, at (408) 494 .. 1336 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dan Collen Deputy Director, Infrastructure Developtnent Attachments: Proposed Conceptual Alternatives and Renderings Support letters cc: Supervisor Liz Kuiss Gary Graves, Acting County Executive Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive MJM, MA, AP, file Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 MODIFIED County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Legend c::J EXisting Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping -K---*--)(-- ~or /fl'.. ~ Pros Remove Existing Curb Existing CurblEdge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment """"1."Tmproved bicycle detection and timing 2. Enhanced pedestrian crossing with wheel chair ramps 3. Pedestrian countdown signals Cons None GRAPHIC SCALE b-w..-.....w ( ..... , 1 iIIrIIII_ 40 ft. Oregon Expressway and West Bayshore Road CI~=-_m Revised 1129/09 Legend _ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island c::J Existing Sidewalk • Proposed Landscape Median Remove Existing 5tJi:>ing EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement + or-n ~ Pros Proposed Striping or Marking Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment """"['""Eliminates potential collisions 2. Enhances safety for all modes of traffic Cons """TNo left tum from Oregon Expressway to Indian Dr. 2. No left tum from Indian Dr. to Oregon Expressway County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros """1."Auows left turns from Oregon Expressway 2. Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized intersections for safer expressway pedestrianlbicyde crossing 3. Improves intersection traffic safety Cons """"1:"Prohibils left tums from Indian Dr. GRAPHIC SCALE L--wLJ-J' ( II n:rr) 1 t.ah _ 4G ft. Oregon Expressway and Indian Drive ~=~ ~~le'<:~.lnc. Revised 1129/09 Legend -c:::J ~*- ~or /'fl'-. rJ ~ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Remove EXisting Curb Existing CurblEdge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros 1.Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Left tums from both directions of Greer Rd. are served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and pedestrian/bicycle movements 5. Allows for more orderty flow of traffic in all directions 6. Improved signal displays 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Intersection jog is reduced 10. Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway 11. NeW/Enhanced wheel chair ramps Cons """1."Left tum or through traffic queue may occasionaly exceed the short tum-pockets on Greer Rd. and blocktraflic 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer Rd. !2!!!!. of Oregon Expressway GRAPIDC SCALE bw.-LJ-.J ( ....... ) llaDb.4O ft. Oregon Expressway and Greer Road ~=n~ .. Revised 1129/09 ~I '-. su ~: County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Legend -c:J -&,01'- ~ rJ r~ ~ V. Pros Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Sbiping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment """"1:"Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Louis Rd. are served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and pedestrian movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions 6. Improved signal displays 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right tuming vehicles 10. Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway 11. New/Enhanced wheel chair ramps 12. Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection Cons 1.Parking to be prohibited fQr 105 feet on both sides of Louis Rd. north and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively GRAPHIC SCALE t-.-tJ--i (DIllEr) l.11:1aJl-40 A. Oregon Expressway and Louis Road ~=~~& Revised 1129/09 Existing RIH·IA I·A _~regon expressway renderings February 2009 I Draft Traffic improvements • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions by separating left and through lanes in both directions on Louis Road • Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right turning vehicles • Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection Pedestrian amenities (Expanded at comers) • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Straightened crosswalks • New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps • Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and through movement and left tum traffic and pedestrian movements Community constraints • Parking to be prohibited for I 05 feet on both sides of Louis north and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively Existing Proposed !:-:~ ... ;:.~:} RIM-I-AlA Ore g 0 n ex pre ssw a y r en de r~ __ ~~ _______ ._. ________ . February 2009 I Draft Traffic improvements • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions by separating left and through lanes in both directions on Louis Road • Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right turning vehicles • Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection Pedestrian amenities (Expanded at corners) • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Straightened & shorter crosswalks • New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps • Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and through movement and left turn traffic and pedestrian movements Community constraints • Parking to be prohibited for 105 feet on both sides of Louis north and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively Legend -r--"1 L--I ~or /f"l'.. ~ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Sbiping Existing CurblEdge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment i"':~ Pros "'1':'"Allows left tums from Oregon Expressway 2. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized intersections to cross Oregon Expressway safely 3. Reduces potential collisions and enhances safety but to a lesser extent to Altemative 3 4. It does not prevent to convert the intersection into a Bicycle Boulevard (similar to Embarcadero/Bryant) in the future Cons ~rohibits left turns coming out from Ross Rd. 2. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon Expressway County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project f.7} Pros "'1':'"Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway 2. Eliminates potential collisions 3. Enhances safety for all modes of traffic 4. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians 5. Provides a signal with special bicycle detection and timing at bicycle slots for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Oregon Expressway, but no vehicular through or left tum movement out of Ross Rd. (consistent with Bicycle Boulevard concept) Cons """i':"'iiJ"0 left turn from Ross Rd. to Oregon Expressway 2. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon Expressway 3. Parking to be prohibited for about 70' on both sides of Ross Rd. south of Oregon Expressway NOTE: Alternative 1 is no longer being considered. GRAPHIC SCALE t-.. '-LJ-.J ( mnzr) lllla.b. _ ID IL Oregon Expressway and Ross Road ~~~K Revised 1129109 Existing Proposed ..... R.I .... I.A.I.A .... Oregon expressway renderings February 2009 I Draft (;.;~. Ross Road Alternative 2 Modified Looking North Revised on March 27, 2009 Traffic improvements • Allows left turn from Oregon Expressway & increases safety Traffic constraints • No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Expressway / Prohibits left tums coming out from Ross Pedestrian amenities (Expanded at corners) • Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized intersection to cross Oregon Expressway safely • 5 foot sidewalk to and from Middlefield Road (by another project) Existing -RI -H-IAIA -Oregon expressway renderings February 2009 I Draft Ross Road -Alternative 3 Looking North Revised on March 27, 2009 Traffic improvements • Enhances safety for all modes of traffic • Allows left tum from Oregon Expressway • Bicycle slots for bicyclists with special bicycle detection and timing Traffic Constraints • No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Expressway / Prohibits left tums coming out from Ross Pedestrian amenities (Expanded at comers) • Provides new sidewalks for pedestrians • Straightened and shorter crosswalks • Provides a signal for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Oregon Expressway • New wheelchair ramps Community constraints • Parking to be prohibited for about 70 feet on both sides of Ross South of Oregon Expressway f Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros T'Most efficient signal operation 2. Most flexible attemative 3. Best lane-line configuration 4. Provides best overall traffic flow on both Oregon and Middlefield Road 5. Removes existing offset -No offsets 6. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway 7. Improves intersection level of service by a grade 8. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. 9. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 10. Left tums from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served frst followed by through movements 11. Continues to eliminate conflicts between left tum traffic and opposing through movements & left tum traffic and pedestrians 12. Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modal traffic for all directions 13. Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield Rd. 14. Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide 15. Reduced congestion will help minimize cut through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods Cons --:;:--Requires 3' reduction of landscaping strip for a short distance on the northwest side, resulting in loss of 4 trees to be replaced by new planting and trees within newly created buffer 2. Narrower lanes -similar to Middlefield/Colorado and Middlefieldl8ryson County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Legend --c:J ..e-or - /l"l"--n ~ • Proposed Landscape Strip Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment EXisting Tree GRAPHIC SCALE t-. wlJ--j i (_Jar> 1 ..... A. Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road ~=~~& Revised 7/7/09 Proposed (~~.~, .•.. RIHIAIA Oregon expressway renderings February 2009 I Draft Middlefield Road Alternative 3 Modified Looking North Revised on April 6, 2009 Traffic improvements • Most efficient signal operation which minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon expressway • Improves intersection level of service by a grade • Multi-modal traffic for all directions • Left turns from both directions on Middlefield are served first followed by through movements eliminating conflicts • Separate left and 2 through lanes on Middlefield Traffic constraints • Narrower lanes Pedestrian amenities (Expanded at corners) • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Straightened crosswalks • New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps Community constraints • 5 feet reduction of landscape strip on the northwest side - new planting in 2 foot buffer "'"' Pros """'1:"Tncludes no widening 2. Maintains existing landscaping strip as is 3. Provides efficient signal operation 4. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway 5. Improves intersection level of service by a grade 6. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. 7. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 8. Left tums from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served first followed by through movements 9. Continues to eliminate conflicts between left tum traffic and opposing through movements 10. Dedicated right tum lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. Cons --:r:-iii"arrower lanes 2. Creates an offset of apprOXimately 5' in both directions on Middlefield Rd. 3. One through lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 4 -[::::J ~ or- ~ Legend rl ~ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island EXisting Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment Existing Tree GRAPHIC SCALE tw.-.+tJ--J Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road ~=~~m Revised 2/3/09 Existing Proposed RI·HIA·IA -Oregon expressway renderings February 2009 I Draft (.:;c-_~) \.. ... .1: •• Middlefield Road -Altemative 4 Looking North Traffic improvements • No widening • t10re efficient signal operation which minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon expressway • Improves intersection level of service by a grade • Multi-modal traffic for all directions • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield are served first followed by through movements eliminating conflicts • Dedicated right turn lane on northbound Middlefield Traffic constraints • Narrower lanes • One through lane for northbound Middlefield • Offset of 5'6" in both directions Pedestrian/ Community amenities (Expanded at comers) • Maintains existing landscaping strip as is • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Straightened crosswalks • New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps OPTION 2 SIDEWALK PLANTING OPTIONS ..... '~ c;~' .. ;.~u:i.. .. -~.~~ ~!d~iM;~ ,~ ~~~!-;-" -_.))\ Agapanthus 'Tinkerbell' Ulyofthe Nile Height: 2' tall Notes : very tough and adaptable, low maintenance. -..,.. . +- --. .,.:;;11 ... -~'~', :, '(~'/:';" -:wr-, '~-.. .. ' ~,'_ . ...,... :\' .' • -_A '':=~ NEW TREE Dietes iridioides (vegeta) Fortnight Lily Height: 3' tall 8 TREE REMOVE Notes: very tough and adaptable, low maintenance. • PLANTING AREA HemerocaJlis spp, Day Lily Height: 2'-3' tall Notes: very tough and adaptable, low maintenance. RIH-I·A·IA Oregon expressway ren~~r:ing~ ___________ _ February 2009 I Draft TREE OPTIONS Middlefield Road NW Sidewalk Options Pyrus caleryana 'Chanticleer' Ornamental Pear Height: 40' tall Spread: IS' wide Notes: Narrowly pyramidal in form or more columnar. Fall color varies from orange to reddish purple. ker rubrum 'Sowhall' Red Maple Height: 60' tall Spread : 15' wide Notes: Narrow, cone shaped, with orange-red foliage in fall. Lagerstroemia x fauriei Crape Myrtle Hybrids Height: 25' tall Spread: IS' wide Notes :Narrow, fast growing excellent flower display with orange-red foliage in fall Middlefield Road NW Sidewal~ Options OPTION I OPTION 2 EXISTING CONDITION ..... RJ..,..I.A.I.A .... Oregon expressway renderings -I February 2009 I Draft Proposed Conceptual Alternatives .'~~". ,61' r!i. Alternative 1 MODIFIED County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros """"1:'Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Cowper St. are served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing traffic 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and pedestrianlbicycle movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions 6. Improved signal displays 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway Cons 1.Left turn or through traffic queue may occasionally exceed the short tum-pockets on Cowper St. and block traffic 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 60 feet on Cowper Sl south of Oregon Expressway -c::::J ~or /fl"- Legend ~ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Sbiping Remove Existing Curb Existing CurblEdge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment GRAPHIC SCALE bw.-LJ--j (11' ...... ) S all-40 ft. Oregon Expressway and Cowper Street ~~::::.._& Revised 1129/09 r-!:. --~-"-""';":~: County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives I iii f,c~ .--:.:} ..... -":~.i,X ..-.,:,..t -';~.~ ~Kjl~ Pros """'1:"Allows lefttums from Oregon Expressway 2, Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized intersections for safer expressway pedestrianlbicycle crossing 3, Improves intersection traffic safety 4. 5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the eastbound direction Cons --:;:-Prohibits left tums coming out from WaverleySt. x x x ·rn:~---------c-'~-_-, ----.---cc--', _, __ ~--y7~~ 3. No through traffic on Wavertey SI. to cross Oregon Expressway Legend _ Proposed SidewalklConcrete Island c:::J Existing Sidewalk .. or- /fl'.. K Remove Existing Striping EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment GRAPHIC SCALE 'b -u-; (1 .. _1') 1 t:.lI. -40 a. Oregon Expressway and Waverley Street ~=~~& Revised 2/3/09 -c=J .or- /f"l'. Legend ~ Pros Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Remove Existing Curb Existing CurblEdge of Pavement Proposed Striping NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment """"1:"Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Vehicular movements from one direction of Bryant Sl are served first followed by movements from other directions on Bryant Sl 3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing left and through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and pedestrian/bicycle movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for aU directions 6. Improves signal displays 7. Improves crosswalk alignment 8. Enhanced bicycle detection and timing on southbound BryantSl 9. Northbound approach remains as is 10.5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the eastbound direction Cons 1.Qi,e crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk option is not recommended as it will cause long wait time to cross Oregon Expressway) GRAPHIC SCALE bw_..I;;;;ii-1 1000." - (Ium) 1 t.h. 40 a. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives ~"ft",""'A""ded Oregon Expressway and Bryant Street ~=~~m Revised 2/3/09 Nora Chung From: Sent: Elizabeth Schwerer (liz@laysoft.com1 Friday. April 03,20094:35 PM -------------------... --------- To: planning.commisslon@cityofpa.loalto.org; gayle.Ukens@CityofParoAlto.org Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Ii:z.kniss@bos.sccgov.org; comments@oregonexpressway.info; Ann Crichton; Miriam Sedman; Ellen Ronan Subject: Oregon Expwy Improvement Pjt: Ohlone Elem School support Dear Gayle and Commissioners: Please join us and the Ohlone Elementary School community in supporting the improvements to Oregon Expressway's intersections with Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads that are recommended by the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department in the "Draft Report for the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Traffic Analysis for Conceptual Alternatives" of February 4, 2008 and also illustrated on their website www.oregonexpressway.info. We feel grateful to the project staff for making pedestrian and bicyclist safety a priority for these intersections. Please also support the elimination of left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive, which Is shown as "Alternative 1 (modified)" for that intersection. We are a sub-committee of the Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee. In response to several accidents in which membe! of the Ohlone school community were struck by cars while crossing Oregon Expressway on foot or bicycle, we studied Oregon Expressway's intersections closest to Ohlone and developed a set of recommended pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements for Louis. Greer. and West Bayshore Roads, as well as an automobile suggestion for Indian Drive. We are delighted to see that the county's recommendations include all of the pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements we identified and one of the alternatives for Indian eliminates automobile left turns. With the PTA Executfve Board. Site Council, and Principal Susan Charles, we unanimously endorse the following improvements to Oregon Expressway's Intersections with Louis, Greer. and West Bayshore Roads, all of which are reflected In or consistent with the county's current recommendations for these intersections: At the intersections of both Louis and Greer Roads with Oregon Expressway 1) Change the signals so that cars do not make Jeft turns onto Oregon Expressway at the same time as pedestrians are crossing. 2) Square the corners of the Intersections to slow drivers making right turns. 3) Straighten the crosswalks and remove the median islands from them. At the intersection of Louis Road and Oregon Expressway 4) Eliminate roll-away sidewalks along Louis Road's northbound approach to the intersection; they encourage drivers to create an extra driving lane on the sidewalk. At the intersections of both Louis and West Bayshore Roads wIth Oregon 5) Trim vegetation that blocks drivers' views of pedestrians. At all intersections from Loujs to West Bayshore Roads 6) Install accessible. pedestrian~ and bike~frlendly push~button poles for walk signals. At the intersection of West Bayshore Road and Oregon Expressway 7) Redesign the pedestrian tanding on the median between Oregon Avenue and Oregon Expressway. A majority of us also recommend. at the intersection of Indian Drive and Oregon Expressway 8) Eliminate left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive because of the danger of automobife collisions. especially during the evening rush hour. Thank you. Sincerely. Ann Crichton Ellen Ronan Liz Schwerer Miriam Sedman 343 Oxford Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94306 .co Palo Alto City Councllmembers Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 6/25/2009 -----Original Message----- From: Ann & Alex Crichton [mailto:acrichto(lv,pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, September 01,20086:09 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: liZ@laysoft,com Subject: Oregon Expressway -Please help make this conidor safer -We support the changes proposed Hi Arthur, It was nice to see you again at the Midtown Residents Association's (MRA's) town nleeting on the Oregon Expressway project. I want to make sure that the Palo Alto Planning Commission hears a supporting voice for the improvements proposed by the City and County for Oregon Expressway. This road is dangerous for all involved and we hear of accidents and near misses, on a regular basis. Our neighborhood and Elementary School want to see improvements in traffic safety and would be very upset to loose the funding for this important project. Our PTA Traffic Team from Ohione Elementary school have been working with the City and County since 2003 for Oregon Expressway safety improvements. We have gotten signatures from about 200 parents at Ohlone who come to school every day from different parts of the city and must navigate Oregon Expressway. We all know of someone who has gotten into an accident, been hurt, or very badly flightened because of the poor design of this road. We aU want to see improvements in its design. Our committee has worked on a safety improvements from Louis Rd. to the Bayshore. The improvements for these intersections have a lot of support from our neighborhoods and school. The engineering improvements will make it easier for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians to drive and cross Oregon Expressway safely. We have contacted the MRA and feel that they have not adequately represented our constituency and are working with the MRA leadership to make sure that their traffic team include our voice. We feel that there is significant more work that can be done to resolve the issues at Middlefield and that the MRA traffic team can provide better communication and partnership with the City and County to resolve the debate. We would be upset if your Committee felt that there was not enough support for the changes. Our community needs for Oregon Expressway to become safel', Our community will be enhanced when these improvements are completed. We look forward to hearing from your office and learn what we can do to further support the Oregon Expressway Project. Sincerely, Ann Crichton OhIone PTA Traffic Team Member 1062 Cardinal Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 291-5442 ROADS & f\lRPORTS DEPT I Gayle Likens, Chief Transportation Official ROAD r1A1HTEt4ANCE Transpo~ation Division, Department of Planning & CommunitvnBtliirQmtlfJff ta: 2t. 250 Hamilton Avenue ZUd9 "AI( I I Palo Alto, California 94301 March 15, 2009 RECEIVED Dear Gayle, Thank you and your staff for supporting us in this negotiation with the County. The new proposals are far superior to the previous ones. Of the alternatives offered at the Jordan community meeting for the Middlefield Road intersection, Alternative 4 is the one we wholeheartedly support. The issue is not so much one of removing and replacing trees, although that is also significant, but of decreasing the planting strip along the sidewalk. This strip provides both real and perceived protection from the traffic. ht addition, it is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies and programs regarding urban design for streets and sidewalks (emphasis added): POLICY T -23: Eneou.-age pedesb1an-friendly design features such as sidewalks, st1'eet ta·ees. on .. street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting arehitectul'al details. PROGRAM T-32: Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near CQrng}:s, bollards, and /andsct;lJling to create protected areas. Although the County engineers prefer Altenlative 3, it was not clear why .. According to one of their charts, only one second would be gained in this scenario! The two through lanes rapidly decrease to onei the further from the school this can happen, the safer it is for school children. Please continue to support this alternative. In addition, we have seen the letter from the Ohlone School group, and we support their positions as well_ dith Wasserman, for FRED (Friends of Realistic Expressway Design) xc: vMasoud Akbarzadeh Michael Murdter Liz Kniss Scott Strickland Mayor Peter Dreckmeier Planning & Transportation Commission Introduction Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Comrnunity Outreach Report #3 (February -April 2009) ATTACHMENT C The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department is conducting the planning phase for a project to make operational improvements along Oregon Expressway. The goal of this project is to improve conditions for all modes of travel both along the expressway and crossing the expressway. Extensive community outreach is a key component of the planning phase. On April 3, 2008, the first community workshop was held to receive input about the public's experiences in using and crossing Oregon Expressway and the types of improvements they would like to see. This was followed by a month-long open comment period where additional comments were received bye-mail, telephone, and fax. A full report on the results of the April 2008 community outreach process is provided on the project website: www.oregonexpresswav.info. On June 9, 2008, a second community workshop was held to receive comments on a range of alternatives for nine intersections. These improvement alternatives were developed in direct response to the comments/concerns receiving during the April community outreach process. The Midtown Residents Association (MRA) hosted a similar community meeting on August 28, 2008. An open comment period where additional comments were received bye-mail, telephone, and fax extended through mid-October 2008. A full report on the results of the June-October 2008 community outreach process is also provided on the project website. March 4, 2009, Community Workshop Overview On March 4, 2009, the third community workshop for the project was held at Jordan Middle School. At this workshop, staff presented a set of refined conceptual plans for the nine intersections included in the project. The purpose of the workshop was to receive input about the conceptual plans which staff could use in developing final recommendations. Advertising for the workshop was the same as for the previous workshops. Over 3,206 postcards were mailed to residents living near the expressway. Notices were posted in both local newspapers (Palo Alto Daily and Palo Alto Weekly). E-mails were sent to various community/neighborhood groups asking them to notify their Inemberships about the workshop. In addition, an e-mail notice was sent to the project e-mail list, which included all participants in the public outreach process who have provided an e-mail address. A week prior to the workshop, the proposed conceptual plans and draft traffic analysis report were posted on the project website. The workshop began with a poster session where all conceptual plans (included alternatives for some intersections) were displayed around the room. Displays also included renderings for some of the intersections. The poster session was followed by a staff presentation on the proposed conceptual plans for each intersection. The presentation included videos illustrating current problems at the Louis Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 1 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 intersection and traffic simulations for the Middlefield intersection. After a question-and-answer period involving all workshop participants, project staff remained available to respond to individual questions and comments. All participants were encouraged to provide comments using a questionnaire form. One hundred thirteen (113) residents and 14 city/county staff attended the workshop. Comments provided before and after the workshop were submitted bye-mail, telephone, fax, and mail. Comments were received from the time the conceptual plans and. draft traffic analysis report were posted on the website in late February and for a month after the workshop through early April 2009. Public Input Report Approximately 117 questionnaires, e-mails, and phone calls were received between late February and early April 2009. In addition, the Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee, along with the PTA Executive Board, Site Council, and School Principal, submitted an e-mail related to intersections serving their school community. This report summarizes the main comment themes regarding the conceptual plan alternatives for each intersection. It does not attempt to list every single comment. Some respondents provided their comments through multiple forums; therefore, although the report can provide an order of magnitude for the number of similar comments submitted, precise numbers counting each individual's comments only once cannot be provided. None of the input mechanisms used a scientifically representative sample process. All comments summarized in this report represent the opinions of those who chose to participate and are not considered statistically valid for projecting the data out to the general population. The report is organized by intersection, describing the conceptual plan alternatives presented and summarizing the comments for that intersection. The last section summarizes comments received that were not intersection specific. Next Steps Since the March 2009 workshop, County staff has been working to further refine the alternatives and develop recommendations. The County's recommended alternatives will be provided to the City of Palo Alto in July 2009. Next opportunity for public input will be provided at the City Planning and Transportation Commission. The current project schedule is as follows: August 26, 09 Fall 2009 2010-2011 2011 City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Comn1ission Review of Project Scope City of Palo Alto City Council Approval of Project Scope Environmental Clearance, .LJ'-',H'<::::1J and Construction County Board of Supervisors Approval of Project to Advertise Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 20f13 Community Outreach #3 West 8ayshore Drive intersection Current Configuration Signalized T -intersection with West Bayshore telminating at Oregon Expressway. There is a crosswalk on the west side of the intersection to provide access to the frontage road north of the expressway. List of Alternatives • Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (lM). Alternative 1 improves pedestrian/wheelchair curb ramps and the landing area at the frontage road, including trit:nming back some of the shrubbery for improved visibility. It also improves bicycle detection and timing, including adding a bicycle slot on the West Bayshore approach to Oregon Expressway. Alternative 1M includes minor changes to the bicycle slot striping and adding the removal of the median island nose at existing crosswalk. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M. Summary of Comments This intersection received 18 comments, with 90% of the respondents indicating support for the improvements in Alternative 1M. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee also expressed support for Alternative 1M. The only write-in comment expressed by more than one person was continued concern for making the landing and entrance onto Oregon Avenue safer for bicyclists, Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 3 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 Indian Drive Intersection Current Configuration Unsignalized T -intersection with Indian terminating at Oregon Expressway. There is a stop on Indian. A median opening on Oregon allows left turns from Oregon and Indian. No pedestrian crossing or access to frontage road north of the expressway exists at this location. List of Alternatives Presented • Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (1M). Alternative 1 closes the median with landscaping to elin1inate left turns from Oregon and Indian and limits Indian to right-in and right-out access. Alternative 1M includes minor changes to the "pork chop" islands on Indian Drive. • Alternative 2 was developed based on comments from the June-October 2008 community outreach process. It leaves the median open to allow left turns from westbound Oregon onto Indian and limits Indian to right-in and right-out access. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternatives 1M and 2. Summary of Comments This intersection received 26 comments. The respondents were equally divided among supporting Alternative 1M, supporting Alternative 2, and opposing both alternatives. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee expressed support for Alternative 1M. Some of those opposing both alternatives suggested using signage to restrict movements at certain times instead of changing the intersection and/or providing "Keep Clear" striping on eastbound Oregon Expressway in the intersection. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 4 Community Outreach #3 Greer Road Intersection Current Configuration Signalized intersection with pennissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Greer, left tum vehicles do not have their own signal phase and must yield to oncoming vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the turn safely). Crosswalks jog at an angle on the north side of the median. Access to the frontage road from Greer north of the expressway is open. List of Alternatives Presented • Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (lM). Alternative 1 provides separate left tum and through lanes at intersection approache~ in both directions of Greer, allowing for protected left tum (8-phase) signal operation (left turns from both directions of Greer have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the through movements) . .It also straightens crosswalks. Implementation would require parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer south of Oregon Expressway. Alternative 1M includes minor striping changes on both sides of Greer Road and installation of a bulb-out on the northwest corner. • Alternative 2 (split or 6-phase signal operation) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community feedback. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M. Summary of Comments The Greer intersection received 25 comments, with 850/0 of the respondents indicating support for the improvements in Alternative 1M. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee also expressed support for Alternative 1M. Write-in comments made by more than one person included: a few comments that it looks good/is essential for safety; a couple of comments asking for bike lanes on Greer; a couple of respondents expressing concerns that the improvements would negatively affect Oregon Expressway traffic; and, a couple of requests to slow right-turning traffic or post "no right turn on red" signs. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 5 of13 Community Outreach Report #3 louis Road Intersection Current Configuration Signalized intersection with pennissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Louis, left tum vehicles do not have their own signal phase and must yield to oncoming motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the tum safely). Crosswalks jog at an angle on the north side of the median. Bicycle lanes are provided on Louis. Access to the frontage road from Louis north of the expressway is closed. List of Alternatives Presented • Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (lM). Alternative 1 provides separate left tum and through lanes at intersection approaches in both directions of Louis, allowing for protected left turn (8-phase) signal operation (left turns from both directions of Louis have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the through movements). It also tightens the radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right- turning vehicles and straightens crosswalks. Implementation would require parking to be prohibited for about 105 feet on both sides of Louis north and south of Oregon Expressway. Alternative 1M includes maintaining the existing bicycle lane on Louis. • Alternative 2 (split or 6-phase signal operation) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community feedback. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M. Summary of Comments The Louis intersection received 33 comments, with 90%) of the respondents indicated support for the improvements in Alternative 1M. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee also expressed support for Alternative 1M. Write-in comments were generally supportive, with most stating the proposal was great and improves bicycle/pedestrian safety. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 6 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 Ross Road Intersection Current Configura .1on Unsignalized intersecLion with stop signs on Ross. median opening on Oregon allows left turns from Oregon and Ross. There is a crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. Access to frontage road from Ross north of the expressway is open. List of Alternatives Presented· • Alternative 1 (closing median) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community feedback. • Alternative 2 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M). Alternative 2 reconfigures northbound and southbound Ross to allow right-tum exits only (no left turns or crossing Oregon). It includes eliminating the crosswalk. Alternative 2M allows left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Ross Road at all times. • Alternative 3 was developed based on comments from the June-October 2008 community outreach process. It demonstrates potential future implementation of a bicycle/pedestrian signal consistent with the City of Palo Alto Ross Road bicycle boulevard concept. Building on the Alternative 2M configuration, it involves adding a bicycle/pedestrian crossing signal, bicycle slots with signal detection for bicycles to cross Oregon Expressway, and a pedestrian crossing on the west side of the intersection. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternatives 2M and 3. Summary of Comments The Ross intersection received 60 comments, second only to Middlefield in the number of comments. Thirteen percent (13%) of the respondents supported Alternative 2M, 60% supported Alternative and 180/0 wanted no changes to the intersection. There were many write-in comments. The common themes in the write-in comments were as follows: • Some Alternative 3 supporters indicated that Alternative 3 would give bicycle riders an alternative to using Middlefield. A few respondents stated that this alternative would support the future re- opening of Garland Elementary and several indicated it was better for bicycles and pedestrians. • Several respondents expressed concerns that adding a bicycle/pedestrian signal in Alternative 3 would slow down Oregon Expressway unnecessarily and could lead to more back -ups on Oregon and neighborhood streets. A few respondents suggested just putting up signs to restrict through and left turns during peak hours rather than changing the intersection. Oregon Expressway Improvement Page 7 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 Middlefield Road Intersection Current Configuration Signalized intersection with split phase (6-phase) signal operation (all vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movements from one direction of Middlefield are served first followed by movements from the other direction). Middlefield has four lanes (two lanes each direction) on both sides of the intersection. Access to the frontage road from Middlefield nort~ of the expressway is closed. List of Alternatives Presented • • Alternative ,I from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community feedback due to the impact on the landscape strips and existing trees. Alternative 2 fron1 the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M) . Alternative 2 adds left-turn pockets on both directions of Middlefield allowing for 8-phase signal operation (left turns from both directions of Middlefield have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the through movements). The right-hand lane at the southbound approach to the intersection is for through and right turns while the right-hand lane at the northbound approach is designated for right turns only. Northbound across the expressway would be a single seventeen-foot lane providing a wide shoulder for bicycle use at the northeast comer. Room for the nine-foot left-tum pockets is provided by reducing other lanes to ten feet wide at the northwest, southwest, and southeast comers and reducing the landscape strip on two sides of the intersection: five-foot reduction on the northwest side and three .. foot reduction on the southeast side. The reduction of the two landscape strips would require removing a total of eight trees. Alternative 2M provides dual curb ramps at each comer and modified lane widths to provide additional pedestrian buffer on the northwest side of the intersection. • Alternative 3 remains unchanged from the June 2008 workshop. It adds left-tum pockets on both directions of Middlefield allowing for 8-phase signal operation (left turns from both directions of Middlefield have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the through movements). The right-hand lane at the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection is for through and right turns. Room for the nine-foot left .. tum pockets is provided by reducing four existing lanes to nine feet wide and a five-foot reduction in the landscape strip on the northwest side. The reduction of one landscape strip would require removing a total of four trees. • Alternative 4 was developed based on comments from the June-October 2008 community outreach process. It is similar to Alternative 2M in lane configuration but would not widen the roadway on either side of Middlefield Road reSUlting in no impacts to existing trees. It provides narrower lanes and offsets for traffic traveling through the intersection. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternatives 2M, 3, and 4.1 1 Shortly after the community workshop, the conceptual plan for Middlefield Alternative 3 was revised to provide more detail for the northwest comer of the intersection and proper labeling. The revised plan was renamed Alternative 3 Modified (3M). Alternative 3M does not have any major design changes from Alternative 3 but should help with public understanding of this alternative. Alternative 3M is available for viewing on the project website at www.oregonexpressway.info. Oregon Improvement Project 8 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 Summary of Comments The Middlefield intersection received comments, more than double all other intersections except Ross. Thirteen petcent (13%) of respondents supported Alternative 2M, 18c supported Alt:::mative 3, and 71 indicated support for Alternative 4.· Only one responde:lt indicated ;'No" to all altelnatives and a couple of write-in comments indicated some concern about making any changes. Some of the themes of the write-in comments and support for the alternatives included the following: .. Most Alternative 4 supponters indicated support only for Alternative 4 stating that it was a good balance for improving traffic and saving the landscaping it was least disnlptive. Many of the respondents also liked the dedicated northbound right tum lane. Some respondents felt that the narrower lanes will help calm or slow traffic on Middlefield. • A few supporters of Alternative 4 indicated that Alternative 2M would be their second choice because 2M offers a dedicated northbound right-turn lane like Alternative 4. • Supporters for Alternative 3 were generally opposed to Alternatives 2M and 4 because they felt two northbound through lanes was the best configuration for the interchange it was the most flexible and efficient for meeting traffic demand. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 90! 13 Community Outreach Report #3 Cowper Street Intersection Current Configuration Signalized intersection with permissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Cowper, left tum vehicles do not have their own signal phase and must yield to ol1coming motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the tum safely). Cowper has two lanes (one lane each direction) on both sides of the intersection. Access to both frontage roads from Cowper (north and southwest of the expressway) is open. List of Alternatives Presented e Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (1M). Alternative 1 provides separate left tum and through lanes at intersection approaches in both directions of Cowper, allowing for protected left tum (8-phase) signal operation (left turns from both directions of Cowper have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the through movements). It also straightens crosswalks. Implementation would require parking to be prohibited for about 60 feet on the east side of Cowper south of Oregon Expressway. Alternative 1M includes minor changes to the frontage road "stop" line striping. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M. Summary of Comments The Cowper intersection received 20 comments, with 70% of the respondents indicating support for the improvements in Alternative 1M. Most of the write-in comments were from those opposed to the improvements with the most frequently cited concern being that adding a left-tum lane will increase cut-through traffic and/or speeding. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 10 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 Waverley Street Intersection Current Configuration Unsignalized intersection with stop signs on Waverley. A median opening on Oregon allows left turns from Oregon and Waverley. There are crosswalks on both sides of the intersection. Access to the frontage road from Waverley north of the expressway is open. List of Alternatives Presented • Alternative 1 (closing median) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community feedback. • Alternative 2 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M). Alternative 2 reconfigures northbound and southbound Waverley to allow right-tum exits only (no left turns or crossing Oregon). It includes eliminating the crosswalks. Alternative 2M allows left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Waverley Street at all times. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 2M. Summary of Comments The Waverley intersection received 34 comments, with 55% supporting the improvements in Alternative 2M and 40% opposing Alternative 2M. Most of the write-in comments were from those opposed to Alternative 2M with the most common concerns being that it would increase traffic on other streets, they want to be able to cross Oregon Expressway at Waverley, crosswalks should remain, . and signage should be used to restrict movements at certain times instead of changing the intersection. A few respondents indicated preference for the dropped Alternative 1 (closing the median), and a couple of respondents requested a traffic signal at Waverley. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 11 of13 Community Outreach Report #3 Bryant Street Intersection Current Configuration Signalized intersection with pennissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Bryant, left turn vehicles do not have their own signal phase and must yield to oncoming motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the turn safely). Crosswalks jog at an angle on the north side of the median. Access to the frontage road from Bryant north of the expressway is open. List of Alternatives Presented • Alternative 1 (8-phase signal operations/protected left turns) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community feedback. . • Alternative 2 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M). Alternative 2 provides two lanes on southbound Bryant at the intersection with one for left/through traffic and one for right turns, allowing for split phase (6-phase) signal operation (all vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian movements from one direction of Bryant are served first followed by movements from the other direction). It also straightens the crosswalk on the east side, eliminates the crosswalk on the west side, and provides a bicycle slot at the southbound intersection. Alternative 2M maintains the northbound leg of Bryant as is. Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 2M. Summary of Comments The Bryant intersection received 23 comments with 80% of the respondents indicating support for the improvements in Alternative 2M. There were few write-in comments. Three of the write-in comments were about the bike island where one thought it was a hazard and two liked it, including one asking that an island be provided in both directions. A couple of respondents also expressed concerns that longer signal times for Bryant will cause delays for Oregon Expressway traffic. Oregon Expressway Improvement Page 12 of13 Community Outreach Report #3 General Comments (not specific to an intersection) Of the nearly 30 general comments not specific to an inte;:section, three subj e':t areas received multiple comments: opposition to the entire project, bicycle use of Oregon Expressway, and constructing new sidewalks/pedestrian paths. Opposition to Entire Project A few respondents indicated opposition to the entire project and all its potential improvements. Some comments related to these positions were as follows: the focus should be to promote commute alternatives to the single occupant automobile; the proposed improvements will increase traffic delays on Oregon Expressways and lead to more rear-end accidents; and, all that is really needed to improve conditions is more traffic speed enforcement. General Bicycle Related Comments A few comments were made regarding the proposed 5-foot paved shoulder for bicycle use from Bryant Street to Cowper Street on the south side of Oregon Expressway. Some respondents expressed concerns that it was too dangerous to bicycle on Oregon Expressway and another stated a preference that a sidewalk be provided rather than the bike shoulder. Sidewalks on South Side of Oregon Expressway At the community workshops, a map of a proposed pedestrian route plan along Oregon Expressway was shared. This map was developed as part of the 2008 Update to the 2003 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study, where pedestrian route maps were developed for all eight expressways. F or Oregon Expressway, the map includes the Oregon Avenue frontage road for pedestrian travel along the north side of the expressway and a mix of existing sidewalks, frontage/parallel streets, and proposed new sidewalks for the south side. The improvement alternatives for the unsignalized intersections (Indian, Ross, and Waverley) included filling in four sidewalk gaps along the south side to connect pedestrians from the unsignalized intersections to the nearest signalized intersections for access to the north side of the expressway. The locations of these four segments are: 1) between Greer and Indian; 2) between Ross and Middlefield; 3) between Tasso and Cowper; and, 4) between Anton and Waverley. These sidewalks would be constructed as part of the Oregon-Page Mill pavement rehabilitation project, not as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. The map also indicated that any new sidewalk between High Street (at Alma entrance) and Waverley would be very long term and dependent on pedestrian travel demand and/or redevelopment. There were 7 comments total related to the sidewalks/pedestrian paths as follows: • Greet to Indian One comment indicating support. • Ross to Middlefield One comment in support and one in opposition. • Tasso to Cowper and Anton to Waverley -Two respondents indicated opposition to any sidewalks between Middlefield and Bryant. Two respondents indicated support for these sidewalks and requested that sidewalks extend through to Bryant for pedestrians traveling westbound to access the signalized crossing at Bryant. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 13 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3 HORTICULTURE I ARBORICUL TURE I URBAN FORESTRY April 13, 2009 Aditya Advani Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey 225 Miller Ave. Mill Valley, CA 94941 Subject: Arborist Report Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway Mr. Advani: ATTACHMENT 0 SCI ENCE Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey is assisting in the design of streetscape improvements on the northwest side of Middlefield Road at Oregon Expressway, in Palo Alto. There are existing City street trees on the northwest Side of Middlefield Rd. within the project limits. You asked that I examine the trees, evaluate their health and structural condition and assess the impact of the proposed project. You also requested that I review replacement tree species and provide comments on the use of structural soil. This report summarizes my assessment and recom mendations. Survey Methods Trees were ~urveyed on March 25,2009. The survey included five (5) street trees on the northwest side of Middlefield Rd. identified by the County of Santa Clara Roads & Airports Department. Only those trees identified by the County were included in the survey. The survey procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Tagging each tree with an identifying number (#51-55) and recording its location on a map (tree #55 was assigned a number but was to small too tag); 2. Identifying the tree as to species; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 -5: 5 -Excellent condition: a healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 -Good condition: tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 -Fair condition: tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 -Poor condition: tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 -Very poor condition: tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. HortScience, Inc. I 2150 Rheem Dr., Suite A I Pleasanton, CA 94588 phone 925.484.0211 I fax 925.484.5096 Arborist Report,' Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway HortScience, Inc. Page 2 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "good", "moderate" or "poor". Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. Good: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in 'good' category. Poor. Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. Observations at the Site The five (5) street trees were located in a landscape strip between the sidewalk and curb. The planting area was approximately 5.5' wide. The trees were numbered starting at Oregon Expressway north towards Garland Drive. The sidewalk near trees #51-54 had been raised and the curb was displaced. At tree #55 the sidewalk and curb appeared to be in good condition. Descriptions of individual trees are included in the attached Tree Survey Form and locations are shown on the Tree Survey Map. Trees #51-53 were sweetgum (Uquidambar styraciflua) (photo 1). Tree #51 was located on the side of 699 Oregon Ave., and #52-53 were at 2370 Middlefield Rd. The sweetgums were mature in form and development. Trunk size varied from 15" to 22" in diameter. Trees #52-53 were in good condition. They had good form and structure and a full crown. On tree #53 a 15" west facing stem over the street has been repeatedly hit by trucks creating a large wound. Tree #51 was in fair condition and characterized by a narrow form. Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) #54 was located at 2360 Middlefield Rd. The tree was semi-mature in development with an 11" diameter trunk. It was in good condition, had good form and a full crown (photo 1). Red oak (Quercus rubra) #55 was located at 2342 Middlefield Rd. and was in excellent health. The young oak had excellent form and structure, and a 4" diameter trunk (photo 2). Foliage from the prior year's growth was still attached to the tree, a common characteristic of the species. Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway HortScience, Inc. Page 3 Suitability for Preservation In selecting trees to preserve on project sites, our goal is to select individuals that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. To that end, we evaluate the suitability for preservation of each tree, considering the following factors: v v v v v Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. In this case, sweetgum, Chinese tallow and red oak all have moderate tolerances to site disturbance. Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Species invasiveness Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is par;ticularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The species surveyed are considered non-invasive, and they rarely reproduce in a landscape setting. Good Tree Suitability for Preservation These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Two (2) trees were rated as having good suitability for preservation, Chinese tallow #54 and red oak #55. Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the "good" category. All three sweetgums #51-53 were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation. Poor Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. No trees were rated as having poor suitability for preservation. Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Middle'field Road NW side at Oregon Expressway HortScience, Inc. Page 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. Potential impacts from construction were evaluated using the Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road Alternative 3 Modified Plan, provided by the County of Santa Clara Roads & Airports Department (revised April 6, 2009). The plan depicted the proposed widening of Middlefield Rd. on the west side, in the direction of trees #51-55. The street would be widened and a new curb, sidewalk and landscape strip would be constructed. The Plan showed the location of the trees. Using the plan, potential impacts from construction were estimated for each tree. The proposed plans showed trees #51-54 in the new south bound lane on Middlefield Rd. The widening of Middlefield Rd. would start approximately 5' south of tree #55. Based upon my assessment of the plans, I recommend the preservation of red oak #55. Preservation of this tree is predicated on the impacts being within the tolerances of the tree and on the implementation of specific recommendations in the Tree Preservation Guidelines (next page). I recommend the removal of the remaining four (4) trees (#51-54) due to impacts from construction. Proposed Street Tree Planting The proposed widening of Middlefield Rd. on the west would create a 1.5' wide landscape strip between the new sidewalk and curb. A tree grate (1' wide x 4' long) would be installed in the sidewalk at each tree location to provide more space for street trees. The l' wide tree grate would increase the size of the planting area to 2.5' wide at tree locations. The existing tree palette on Middlefield Rd. consists mostiy of mature London plane and sweetgum, and young red oak and red maple, in the 5.5' wide landscape strip. These are all deciduous and large growing species. The new 2.5' wide planting area, at tree locations, cannot accommodate the future growth of the trunk and root system of these large trees. As an example, the size of their trunk/root collar at ground level will exceed the size of the new planting area as they mature. The growth and development of the trunk/root collar, buttress roots (ie. large structural roots) and surface roots (eg. sweetgum and red maple) would damage the new street, curb and sidewalk. Based on the 2.5' wide planting area I recommend the use of smaller size trees. I recommend the following three options for deciduous species. Crape myrtle hybrids (Lagerstroemia x faurieij A small flowering tree distinguished by their flower color. Mature height to 25' by 15' wide. Excellent flower display in the range of white, coral pink, red and lavender. Fall colors include yellow, orange and red. Growth rate is fast, approximately 18-24" or more per year. Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' or 'Redspire') A medium-sized tree that may reach 30-40' in height with a 15-20' spread. Chanticleer has a narrowly pyramidal form, and fall color is orange to reddish purple. Redspire is oval to pyramidal in form, and fall color is yellow and red. White flowers in spring. Growth rate is relatively fast once established, about 18-24" per year. European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata') A medium-sized tree to 30-40' in height with a 25' spread. A symmetrical tree that is formal in appearance, with a narrow to oval form. Fall color is yellow to orange. Growth rate is moderate at 12-18" per year. Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway HortScience, Inc. Page 5 Tree Preservation Guidelines The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. These impacts can be minimized by coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to tree #55 from development and maintain its health and vitality through the construction phases. Design recommendations 1. Tree Preservation Guidelines, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included on all plans. 2. Any changes to the plans affecting the tree should be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans and demolition plans. 3. Keep edge of construction a minimum of 5' from the tree in all directions. 4. TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established around the tree. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within the TREE PRO'rECT'ON ZONE. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Spoils from excavation, construction and trenching, shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, either temporarily or permanently. The limits of the TREE PROTECTION ZONE may be adjusted following design changes. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be one continuous zone, and is defined as follows: back edge of existing curb on east; l' back of existing sidewalk on west; dripline on north; minimum of 5' south of trunk. 5. Do not apply lime to the soil for compaction purposes. Lime is toxic to roots. 6. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. Fence the tree to be retained to enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fence shall be 4ft. orange construction fence with steel posts embedded in the ground. Fencing shall remain until all grading and construction is completed. We suggest placing two (2) weather proof signs on the fencing that read uTREE PROTECTION ZONE KEEP OUT". 2. Encourage the property owner to maintain their normal irrigation schedule for the tree during construction. Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Middle'fleld Road NW side at Oregon Expressway Recommendations for tree protection during construction HortScience, Inc .. Page 6 1. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE unless approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water, sewer or irrigation shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE unless approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, either temporarily or permanently. Any modi'flcations must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 2. All demolition, grading and construction within the dripline of the tree shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to' the tree and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 3. If roots 1" in diameter and greater are encountered the tree will require root pruning at the edge of the TREE PROTECTION ZONE by cutting all roots cleanly to the depth of construction. Roots will be exposed by either: pulling soil away from the tree with a small back hoe or digging by hand. Roots shall be pruned at undamaged tissue and perpendicular to the root, with pruners, loppers or hand saw as required. 4. If injury should occur to the tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 5. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. If you have any questions about my observations, evaluation or recommendations, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, #JJJ&tIi; Michael D. Santos Certified Arborist WE-3877 Registered Consulting Arborist #430 Att. Tree Survey Form Tree Survey Map HortScience Tree Survey SCI'ENCE TREE ADDRESS SPECIES SIZE No. DIAMETER (in inches) 51 699 Oregon Ave. Sweetgum 15 52 2370 Middlefield Rd. Sweetgum 19 53 2370 Middlefield Rd. Sweetgum 22 54 2360 Middlefield Rd. Chinese tallow 11 55 2342 Middlefield Rd. Red oak 4 CONDITION SUITABILITY 1=POOR FOR 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION 3 Moderate 4 Moderate 4 Moderate 4 Good 5 Good Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey Middlefield Rd. NW side at Oregon Exp. Palo Alto, CA March 24, 2009 COMMENTS Narrow upright form; sidewalk raised; curb, gutter and street displaced; 5.5' wide planting strip. Codominant at 10'; full crown; 5" west facing branch over sidewalk with decay; sidewalk raised; curb, gutter and street displaced; 5.5' wide planting strip. Codominant at 11'; full crown; 15" west facing stem over street hit by vehicles resulting in large wound; root collar next to sidewalk; sidewalk raised; curb, gutter and street displaced; 5.5' wide planting strip. Good form; full crown; trunk divides at 7' into two stems; sidewalk raised; curb, gutter and street displaced, likely by previous tree; 5.5' wide planting strip. Untagged; good young tree; excellent form and structure. Page 1 (:-0 ° .~ GO ~. / Q "t~"' 6-9" O/~ (approximate location) '-V;S. . /~ yO" 51 Tree Survey Map Middlefield Road Northwest Side @ Oregon Expressway Prepared for: Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey Mill Valley, CA March 2008 ~ No Scale Notes: Base map provided by: County of Santa Clara Roads and Airport Department Santa Clara, CA Numbered tree locations are approximate. : .. :.:: ....... : ... ~ •.. . . : .. : .. ~:: ~.~.'T #E14¢~ 2150 Rheem Drive I Suite A I Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone 925-484-0211 I Fax 925-484-0596 ATTACHMENT E Ljkens, Gayle From: Krebs, E(c Sent: \Necmesc8y, i\lay 27, 2GC9 9:4,:.~ f\~'J! To: Rius, Rafael Cc: Likens, Gayle; Kennedy, Sean Subject: RE: Draft Arborist Report -Oregon expwy improvement project Rafael, My first reaction to a proposed loss of City trees is always going to be negative. The homeowners along Middlefield Road, who will be directly impacted, should be included in on the planning of this Significant change to their property frontages. The draft arborist's report provided by Hort Science is accurate in its description of the trees and the impacts resulting from the proposed construction. The recommendations do not provide adequate planting sites or canopy replacements for future trees. The proposed plan would place trees with lower canopies too close to vehicular traffic in the street and pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. This would create a conflict with traffic on both sides of the trees. The draft report describes this conflict on tree # 53, (pg 2 Observations at the Site). Generally, when a project proposes changes to the public property I feel it is my obligation as the City Arborist to . ensure that the impacts and resulting mitigation measures represent an improvement to the public property. Even if the existing trees were in poor condition I would still consider the 5' planting sites valuable assets to the City. The proposed 2.5' planting strip with the l' wide tree grate is an inadequate replacement for the 5' wide existing planting strip and the replacement trees would not provide enough canopy to replace the existing canopy. The project should provide adequate/viable planting sites and more trees or a tree species capable of replacing the existing canopy or the City should consider not replacing the trees at all. One might argue that if the proposal exhausts all possible planting scenarios given the public property constraints and is still an inadequate plan, then is it wise to plant trees that would result in liabilities such as the conflicts with traffic. Respectfully submitted, Eric Krebs PW Managing Arborist 1SA Certification #WC-0829 Member of American Society of Consulting Arborists ATTACHMENT F 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 August 26, 2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Recommendation to City Council on the request 8 by County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department for the approval of the proposed 9 Concept Alternatives at nine intersections as part of the Oregon Expressway hnprovement 10 Project. 11 12 13 Chair Garber: That brings us to our first item of the regularly scheduled meeting, which is 14 actually item number two, the Oregon Expressway hnprovement Project. Recommendation to 15 City Council on the request by County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department for the 16 approval of the proposed Concept Alternatives at nine intersections as part of the Oregon 17 Expressway hnprovement Project. 18 19 Before we get started I have to declare that I have to recuse myself from this item and I will not 20 be participating on it because I happen to live within 400 feet radii of one of these items so I 21 cannot participate on it. 22 23 Also, Vice-Chair Tuma has to leave the meeting as well for personal reasons. So the Acting 24 Chair will become Commissioner Holman and the Vice-Chair or as I have been corrected the 25 timekeeper will become Commissioner Lippert. We will make that change and they will carry 26 this item forward. 27 28 Commissioner Holnlan: Thartk you and thank you for your patience while we rearrange 29 ourselves here. If there are more speaker cards to come if they could be provided to the Staff and 30 then the Staffwill forward them since we do not have a Secretary at this time. 31 32 Then does Staffhave a presentation? 33 34 Ms. Caporgno: Before I introduce Rafael who is going to give the presentation I just wanted to 35 mention that we have from the County Road and Airports Department with us tonight Dan 36 Collen who is the Deputy Directory and Ananth Prasad who is the Senior Civil Engineer. After 37 Rafael gives a presentation they may want to just briefly some comments to the Commission but 38 they are not here for a presentation, but will be here for questions if you have any of them. With 39 that I would like to introduce Rafael Rius who is our Transportation Project Engineer and has 40 been working with Gayle Likens on this project. Rafael. 41 42 Mr. Rafael Rius, Transportation Project Engineer: Thank you Julie. I am here to give a brief 43 summary of the Oregon Expressway hnprovement Project. 44 Page 1 1 A little bit of background. This project covers Oregon Expressway between US 101 and EI 2 Camino Real and is approximately 1.6 miles with six signalized intersections and three 3 unsignalized intersections that are being analyzed for improvements. 4 5 A little bit of background. A 2003 Comprehensive Expressway Planning Study was adopted and 6 it was intended to provide a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County 7 expressway system with the following objectives: to improve coordination along Oregon 8 Expressway to reduce delay and enhance efficiency of the intersection operations, and to 9 improve the safety of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The Oregon Expressway Improvement 10 Project secured a $3.5 million federal grant to implement the improvements. Thus far there have 11 been three community meetings and several meetings with stakeholder groups such as the 12 Midtown Neighborhood Group, PABAC, and the Ohlone PTA. Now they are ready to present 13 the concept plans to you. 14 15 The current traffic on Oregon Expressway is roughly 40,000 vehicles per day on a weekday and 16 24,000 vehicles on a typical weekend. Between January 2003 and July 2008 there were 200 17 collisions and the majority of them were rear end type collisions. The intersection with the 18 highest volumes crossing Oregon Expressway was at Middlefield Road. Currently Middlefield 19 is the bottleneck and controls the whole corridor in terms of coordinating and cycle lengths. 20 21 The general strategies for part of this project are to upgrade the traffic signal equipment and 22 improve the coordination. To change the side street lane configurations and signal phasing 23 patterns. To channelize pedestrians to safer crossing areas, and improve the actual crossing 24 facilities, and straighten out the crosswalks. The main intent is to improve the safety of 25 pedestrian and bicycle crossings, and also restrict some side street movements at the unsignalized 26 intersections where they are currently allowed to tum left or go through Oregon Expressway. 27 28 A summary of our recommendations. We do endorse the County's recommendation for 29 improvements at eight of the nine intersections, which include West Bayshore, Indian, Greer, 30 Louis, Cowper, Waverley, and Bryant. We also endorse the recommended improvements at 31 Middlefield Road, which does include the widening and removal and replacement of four trees. 32 We did want to also mention that we understand that there might be some other issues other than 33 traffic. So there is another alternative that is also acceptable. 34 35 At Ross Road the County's current recommendation is to keep it as an unsignalized intersection 36 and the Staffs recommendation is to signalize it and it would be consistent with the bicycle 37 boulevard that is planned for Ross Road. 38 39 The other recommendations are to direct Staff to work with the County, the neighborhood 40 groups, P ABAC, and so forth to develop detailed design plans for implementation. Also to 41 direct Staff to continue monitoring the traffic after implementation and report back within six 42 months. 43 44 At the various public meetings several comments were continually raised and they include: that 45 the improvements should focus on pedestrians and bicyclists' safety, the improvements should 46 eliminate conflicting movements with left tum vehicles and pedestrians or left turns through Page 2 1 opposing vehicles. The proposed improvements at Middlefield should minimize impacts on the 2 landscaping strips, trees, and it should also be noted that the early proposals for Middlefield had 3 much more widening and removal of up to 13 trees and the County has worked hard to reduce 4 that down to an option that removes four trees and zero trees. 5 6 The early concepts for Bryant and Louis needed major modifications based on the public's input. 7 The public also felt full median enclosures at Waverley and Ross were too restrictive but in 8 general they were okay with it at Indian. 9 10 Just to summarize the individual intersections, at West Bayshore Road the plan is to widen and 11 include a bicycle slot between the left and right tum lanes. At Indian they are proposing to 12 extend the median through the intersection, which would allow only a right tum in and a right 13 turn out. At Greer Road they would add left turn lanes and improve the pedestrian crossings. 14 The signal operation would be converted to eight-phase, which includes protected left turns. 15 This would elinlinate the left turn conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. It should also be noted 16 that Greer is a school commute route to Jordan that is heavily used. Similarly, Louis is also a 17 school route. At Louis there are similar improvements, the left turn lanes, and the eight-phase 18 operation. There are currently rolled curbs at Louis, which would be converted to vertical curbs. 19 Currently there are cars that drive up onto the sidewalks when making right turns, and again 20 elinlination of the left tum conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians. At Cowper Street the 21 improvements would include left turn lanes and eight-phase operation, and also the pedestrian 22 crossing improvements. At Waverley Street the intent would be to remove the through and left 23 turns out of Waverley onto or across Oregon Expressway, and also to remove the marked 24 crosswalks. At Bryant Street a new bike slot would be provided for the southbound approach. 25 The intersection would still operate with split phasing but there would only be one crosswalk, the 26 west side crosswalk would be removed, and that would still allow for the split-phased operations 27 to work with the coordinated system. 28 29 On to Ross Road, the County's recommendation to keep it as an unsignalized intersection but 30 allow left turns off of Oregon Expressway. It would remove the left turns from Ross onto 31 Oregon Expressway and also the through movements forcing vehicles to turn right. Bicyclists 32 would also need to turn right or they would need to dismount and walk across. The 33 configuration that the County proposes does allow for future signalization that is compatible with 34 the bike boulevard for Ross. 35 36 Staff's recommendation is a third alternative which includes the signalization and the bike slot 37 and is consistent with the bike boulevard project. It will provide a protective pedestrian crossing. 38 Right now it is probably limited to funding constraints otherwise it is in general the favorite 39 alternative of most. 40 41 Here you can see Alternative 2, which is currently proposed by the County, unsignalized and 42 provides a right turn only lane, the crosswalks are removed. Alternative 3 shows a modification 43 that fits in with the previous Alternative but it is signalized still forcing the right turns from Ross. 44 There is a protected bike slot and a protected crosswalk. This configuration is very similar to 45 what is currently out at Bryant and Embarcadero. At Middlefield Road both the County and 46 Staffwere in agreement for recommending Alternative 3, which would require widening of five Page 3 1 feet, provide left tum lanes, and improve pedestrian crossing. It would allow the eight-phase 2 signal operation. It is consistent with the mitigation measures that are identified in our City 3 Comprehensive Plan to construct left turn lanes and allow two through lanes in each direction of 4 Middlefield Road. Again, this would require widening and reducing the planting strip from four 5 feet to two and a half feet, and it would replace four existing trees with smaller size ones. There 6 is a fourth alternative which wouldn't require any widening but there would only be a single 7 northbound through lane. The current peak hour traffic volumes show that both work roughly 8 the same but there are fluctuations where there might momentarily large demands of northbound 9 through traffic, which could cause longer queues and backups. Alternative 3, which is 10 recommended would provide more flexibility to accommodate that. Also, there would be an 11 offset with Alternative 4 in the southbound lane of about five feet. 12 13 This is Alternative 3, the modified version, which shows you can see in the bottonl picture there 14 is a left tum lane, a through lane, and then it is actually a through and a shared right turn lane. 15 The current peak hour demand may cause that right turn lane to operate almost exclusively as a 16 right tum lane but it does have the flexibility to allow through traffic if the demand calls for it. 17 Then no widening alternative, Alternative 4, that right lane would have to be a right turn only 18 lane because there is not enough room for receiving two lanes on the other side with the addition 19 of the left tum lane. Again, there is the offset and that is why you would see a line painted 20 across the intersection coming in the other direction. 21 22 The County prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The findings of that report show that the 23 intersection of Middlefield would improve from currently deficient levels to acceptable levels 24 with either Alternative 3 or 4. The other signalized intersections would operate roughly the same 25 conditions even though you are adding a left turn phase. The main point is that the safety of 26 those intersections would improve. 27 28 The average speeds could increase from what they are currently at, 20 miles an hour, to 23 miles 29 an hour during the peak periods. This could come from enhanced coordination along the 30 corridor. The improvements at the unsignalized intersections would probably have a minimal 31 effect on the way the corridor as a whole operates in tenns of traveling up and down Oregon. 32 33 In conclusion, again, Staff is in agreement with each of the County's recommendations with the 34 exception of Ross Road where Staff recommends the signalization alternative. We concur with 35 the County for the recommended improvements at Middlefield Road from a traffic perspective it 36 allows the most flexibility. However, if widening cannot be accommodated we would 37 recommend Alternative 4 over the do nothing alternative, which is currently at an unacceptable 38 level. We are available for any questions and so is the County Staf£ 39 40 Ms. Caporgno: I don't know if anyone from the County would like to offer any comments 41 before we tum it back over to the Commission. 42 43 Mr. Dan Collen, Deputy Director of the County Roads and Airports Department: Thank you. I 44 don't have a lot to add I just wanted to say that we deeply appreciate the involvement of the City 45 Staff at each step of the way helping us through this process. I want to say thank you to the 46 participants in this process including Commissioner Keller, who was at each of our meetings, Page 4 1 and thank tl~e residents and citizens of Palo Alto for participating in our process and openly 2 sharing your concerns, trusting us to process that information and work through the alternatives 3 which we refined at each step of the way to fine tune a produce, which we think will well serve 4 the citizens of Palo Alto and the users of Oregon Expressway at the same time. So I will make 5 myself available, to answer the questions. Thank you. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Before you leave, I believe there is a question for you. Commissioner 8 Lippert. 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: Could you just briefly comment on the Staff s recommen,dation in terms 11 of alternatives and how the County feels about it. 12 13 Mr. Collen: I think that we are basically in alignment. The only difference between what we . 14 had proposed for Palo Alto consideration and what Staffhas suggested instead is that Ross where 15 the City Staffis recommending the Alternative 3. We only propose Alternative 2 as a matter of 16 timing and perhaps a matter of funding. We don't know what all the final costs are going to add 1 7 up to be but we know that adding a new traffic signal will have cost for the proj ect. So we felt 18 that the first step was to setup the intersection to function as if it was going to have the bike 19 boulevard treatment, and not implement the bike boulevard improvements until such a time as 20 the bigger bike boulevard project went forward. So for us is it nlore just a nlatter of timing. If 21 the City is prepared to move forward with that improvement at this time then we will certainly 22 try to incorporate that into the project. Like I said, it is just now a matter of costing everything 23 out and prioritizing and seeing where we are. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Does City Staffhave anything else to add? 28 29 Mr. Rius: Not at the moment. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller had submitted some questions. If the Staffwould 32 care to go over those that would be great. 33 34 Mr. Rius: We received five questions and I would like the County to help in answering numbers 35 one, three, and four. We can answer question number two. I am not sure if we have them 36 available anywhere. The first question is what are the approximate projected costs of each 37 proposed option by intersection. 38 39 Mr. Collen: This was a conceptual plan development at this time. It has not been costed out yet. 40 We wanted to focus on what the desired improvements were and we will put the cost numbers on 41 later. We do know from general experience that an intersection rebuild or redo of the traffic 42 signals can cost on the order of $200,000 to $250,000 per intersection. So we are talking about 43 nine intersections needing some kind of treatment. When we extend that out that is real close to 44 where we think we are in terms of the amount of money that will be available for the 45 construction contract. So we are real close right now we think but the bidding environment 46 changes from season to season and year to year. So right now the snapshot says we are looking Page 5 1 good but we really need to get into a more detailed development of construction plans, maybe a 2 30 percent level to get a much better handle on what the anticipated costs will be. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: With respect to that question, presumably if we used Option 4 on 5 Middlefield Road that would be cheaper than Option 3M. So one of the interesting questions 6 that we would since the cost of the Ross Road Option 3 versus Option 2 depends largely on 7 cost one of the issues is that if Option 4 is cheaper than Option 3M by sufficient amount that it 8 pays for the signalized intersection at Ross Road then that might sway the Commission one way 9 or the other. Similarly, ifin tenns of the tradeoff for West Bayshore whether we make 10 improvements on that considering there are almost no bicyclists taking that route versus moving 11 that improvement over to Ross Road, those are the kinds oftradeoffs I think we need to 12 understand. 13 14 Mr. Collen: I think it is early to make those decisions because we don't have the cost figures to 15 really say that we need to tradeoff location A for location B. I don't think that we need to make 16 those tradeoffs at this time. Our rough estimate is projecting out with a rough dollar per 17 intersection estimate everything should be covered. So we are not at a point of tradeoff yet. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. The next one? 20 21 Mr. Rius: The second question is what are the constraints on spending the City of Palo Alto 22 funds? 23 24 Ms. Gayle Likens. Consultant: The Stanford Research Park Impact Fee Ordinance specifies the 25 use of the funds and how they can be used. I will quote from it in an abbreviated fonnat for the 26 sections that are applicable. The monies in the fund shall be eligible for expenditure only for the 27 capacity improvements at the designated intersections including Middlefield and Oregon as 28 being one of the four, or for alternative improvements or alternative intersections that are 29 detennined by the Chief Transportation Official subject to the approval of the City Council to 30 provide adequate feasible alternative mitigation of those impacts addressed in the EIR that are 31 proposed to be mitigated by the capacity improvements, etc., etc. So at this point the alternative 32 improvement that is recommended for Middlefield is totally consistent with the description of 33 the impact and mitigation in the EIR. Any change to that we would have to evaluate and discuss 34 with our City Attorney's Office and report to the City Council and make a recommendation to 35 them. We are not prepared at this point to make a detennination as to how the funds could be 36 used alternatively. 37 38 Mr. Rius: Question nUITlber three is what trees are being removed for this project, including on 39 the Oregon median, and what are the proposals for the replacement? 40 41 Mr. Collen: The only trees that would be proposed to be impacted by this project would be the 42 four trees that are involved with the Alternative 3, Modified on Middlefield. There is no impact 43 on trees in the median of Oregon. 44 45 The question about replacement is addressed in the Arborist Report that we had done. That 46 report worked out three alternatives. I don't think we are limited or bound to those three Page 6 1 alternatives. I think they are just a starting point and as we go into design then we could work 2 much closer with Palo Alto Staff and the residents to come up with an acceptable plan. 3 4 Mr. Rius: Question number four is what are the prospects of replacing damaged landscaping on 5 the south side of Oregon caused by the sidewalk project? . 6 7 Mr. Collen: There were some trees that were removed by the sidewalk construction that is 8 shown in your handouts as by another contract, well that was the contact. It was worked through 9 conceptually in our Expressway Plantling Study Update that was completed in 2008. Then it waS 10 also included in the discussion at the community meetings in the development of the project 11 description. For ease of construction we put it into the paving project for timeliness as well. It 12 just was an opportunity and it also allowed us to address the routine accommodation as a part of 13 a paving project to bring in some pedestrian facilities at the same time. So there were some trees 14 that were impacted by the proj ect. The most significant impacts actually resulted from trenching 15 irrigation, which we included in the project at the request of Palo Alto Maintenance Staff. We 16 were happy to include that in the project but it did have some impacts. We are currently offering 17 and working with the Palo Alto Staff right now on some replacement plantings that could be 18 done with the current contract or I suppose left over and rolled into this follow on contract. 19 20 Mr. Rius: The fifth question is if we can comment on the Middlefield Road intersection any 21 preference by some on the alternatives. The statistics on Table 1 in the report does not show 22 much difference between the two alternatives and should we require additional statistics on 23 differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: I think there might be a clarification of that question from the author. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I actually verbally gave that question to Zariah so it was transcribed 28 and doesn't have my usual way of writing questions. My understanding is if you look at 29 Middlefield Road it appears that Table 1 basically indicates there is not much difference in 30 timing from Alternative 3M and Alternative 4. But when you look at this big fat report it 31 appears that the main difference is that there are more people on the northbound side going 32 straight then turning right. There seem to be relatively few pedestrians by your data but there 33 apparently are a lot of bicyclists. So perhaps the fine point to put on this question is if you can 34 compare one through lane and one right lane versus two through lanes with respect to the 35 pedestrianlbicyclist conflict on the logical east side crossing Oregon Expressway because the 36 number of bicyclists according to your data is as many as 33 in the PM rush hour and that is 37 about half as how many take Bryant Street in that location, which is actually amazing data for me 38 to see. So I am sort of wondering the extent to which that bicyclist/pedestrian conflict makes 39 that right turn lane better as a right turn lane or right tum lane better as a through lane. 40 41 Mr. Collen: I think the analysis will tend to average things out and not show much difference. 42 What Alternative 3 gives you is more flexibility. You have the ability for any particular cycle of 43 the signal if most of the cars are going through. They can balance in the lane stacking as 44 opposed to having to stack in one lane with very few right turns. Or if there are right turns that 45 need be accommodated they can use the right lane that is a shared through and right. So by Page 7 1 being a shared through and right then it gives you more flexibility to deal with the situation that 2 occurs with any particular cycle of light. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: In an ideal world that makes sense but since I am approaching 5 northbound probably from Marion or whatever the next street is and if I am heading northbound 6 I ne~d to know which lane I should take. I don't know whether there are going to be right tum 7 people ahead of me who are prevented from making a right tum because a pedestrian or bicyclist 8 shows up at that intersection. So it is hard for me to make that decision and I can't move over if 9 I am already at the interchange. So that is where the question arises. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Gayle. 12 13 Ms. Likens: Another aspect of this Alternative 3 versus 4 for bicyclists, and Middlefield is 14 largely an adult cyclist commuter route not withstanding those bicyclists that may be on the 15 sidewalk, but in the Alternative 4 the curb lane becomes a right turn lane. Therefore all 16 bicyclists who are turning north would need to merge over into the through lane and that is less 17 desirable at a major intersection like this. We recognize that Alternative 3 does have narrow 18 lanes, nine and a half foot lanes. So the cyclists are going to have to take the lane but to make 19 that merge over into the through lane is another maneuver that is less desirable for the through 20 cyclists. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, unless there are any burning clarifying 23 questions we have 17 speakers so I would like to get to the public. With the public's and 24 Commission's forbearance if there is anybody here who has a snlall child that would like to 25 come and speak first, if they have turned in a card. If you have a small child with you and you 26 need to speak first if you would identify yourself, and if you have already turned in a card. 27 There are two? You will have three minutes. What is your name, sweetie? 28 29 Miss Anuva Benwasy, Palo Alto: To dear City of Palo Alto, having lots of trees is a really good 30 idea. Please do not cut trees in front of my house. Think of the little children like me who love 31 biking, roller blading, and walking. I love Palo Alto. Please keep it green and safe. Thank you. 32 Anuva Benwasy, second grade. Thi~ is a picture I drew for City of Palo Alto. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much. Nice job. Does your dad want to speak as well? 35 And you have turned in a card? So if you would come forward and identify yourself. 36 37 Mr. Andy Benwasy, Palo Alto: I live on Middlefield Road. To the City of Palo Alto, we, that is 38 me, my wife, and Anuva live in the last house on the northwest side of the intersection of 39 Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, which is pretty much going southbound. We moved 40 into this beautiful tree-lined neighborhood, section of Palo Alto, just in April 2009. We bought 41 this house particularly for its greenery, proximity to Jordan, and for its kid-friendly surroundings. 42 We have a seven-year-old daughter, Anuva, who has dreams of growing up here and cycling to 43 Jordan when she is ready for middle school. 44 45 While there is certainly merit in improving the traffic patterns it is extremely important to do it in 46 a responsible manner that takes into account the people most affected by it. One of them us who Page 8 1 lives right on that intersection. We researched immensely before considering several other 2 places before we moved into this neighborhood we love, and would like to nurture it with love 3 and care for several years to come. To find out the very reason we moved here is now 4 challenged pains our heart. Taking away a pedestrian, a bike, and kid friendly section and trees 5 in front of our beloved house is like defeating the purpose and roots on which this whole 6 neighborhood is built on. We implore that you consider this pretty seriously. Please do not take 7 away a kid friendly sidewalk and turn it into a place where our daughter cannot even think of 8 . stepping out without fearing her safety. Let's all resolve to spare all to the ones who are most 9 effected by this process, which is people who live close to Oregon Expressway. We have 10 confidence in you, confidence in the Palo Alto officials, and we know you will do what is best 11 for Palo Alto in the long term. We think there can be nothing else best for Palo Alto than to be 12 able to preserve, protect, and grow including the children friendly community, bike and people 13 friendly sidewalks, and its great heritage. Thank you. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I thought there was somebody else who had a small child but I guess not. If you will come forward and identify yourself. I am going to assume the public is fine with this. You will have three minutes. Ms. Priya Satia, Palo Alto: I live on the southeast side of the Middlefield-Oregon Expressway intersection. I just wanted to start by thanking you for listening to our comments and thanking the County as well for involving us in this process. Although as one of the emails that you received mentioned this particular discussion came as somewhat ofa surprise to many of us. We had not received much notice about it or about the results of the previous meeting at the school on Middlefield. I just wanted to state as strongly as I can that Alternative 3, 3M it is called now, for Middlefield is absolutely unthinkable for the people who live near that intersection. Even for people who live within blocks of it as you can see from some of the emails you got. It is just a maj or safety issue. The way the County in these discussions have characterized Middlefield is that it is a bottleneck for traffic. But for people who live within the area Middlefield's real identity is that it is the place that has all the recreation sites, all the schools, all the shops. It is the main thoroughfare for the entire neighborhood from the Junior Zoo to the Children's Library, the ice cream store, the schools, the parks, everything is there. Kids move along those sidewalks in packs. There are strollers, and I have a double stroller because I have two small children under the age of four as do many of the people on my block. So that is the identity of Middlefield for those of us who live there. Those land strips are absolutely essential buffers. You feel just absolutely naked at the idea of living there without those land strips as wide as they are now. It just seems very, very dangerous. We strongly prefer Alternative 4 as many of us said at that last meeting. The concern with that however is that it still involves three lanes on the northbound side. Many of us were curious why there had been no consideration of widening the road by taking space from the southwest side of that intersection where there is only one house that seems to be kind of unoccupied. I don't know what the status is of that house. There is a big church with a lot of lawn space at the front Page 9 1 of it. It seems like a useful option that has not for some reason been in play at all. So we would 2 really prefer if there are going to be three lanes at all that the street be widened in that direction, 3 and that we have some statistics about impacts on accidents, impacts on traffic in that area so we 4 have some sense of whether this is just going to turn into a dangerous zone for cars and people or 5 not. 6 7 The last thing is I just want to repeat what the child said earlier. This is a time, a moment, where 8 we should be thinking green. I do think we should improve that intersection. The signals are 9 horrible. The curbs are horrible. The curb cuts are horrible. But the VT A is starved for money 10 right now. I don't know how the bureaucracy works and how funds get appropriated for 11 different things. I have been talking to the VTA and one of your Council Merrlbers about the 35 12 bus and we would rather see money invested in that type of improvement than in shoving more 13 cars in Middlefield Road. Thank you. 14 15 Commissioner Holnlan: Thank you. So we will start at the top of the order of cards. Sheri 16 Furman will be first followed by David Fryberger. We are putting the drawing into the public 17 record. 18 19 Ms. Sheri Furman. Palo Alto: Good evening. I want to point out that although the Midtown 20 Residents Association has met with City Officials and County Officials and facilitated meetings 21 with residents we are not taking a particular position on this because there are varied opinions. 22 So we will continue to meet with them as a stakeholder but tonight I am speaking just for myself 23 as somebody who has lived in Midtown for 30-plus years. 24 25 I just have some points for you to consider during your deliberations. I said before, because I 26 have spoken on this topic nlany times, that although the County considers Oregon an expressway 27 it really isn't one in the typical sense of the words. At 35 miles per hour it is more like a 28 boulevard. We need to balance the County's desire to move traffic between 101 and EI Camino 29 as quickly and efficiently as possible but the residents need to be able to· get across town. The 30 more emphasis we place on Oregon as a commuter corridor the bigger the divide Oregon creates 31 between North and South Palo Alto. 32 33 While I do appreciate the substantial safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, keep in 34 mind that providing for school crossings at Ross, Louis, and Greer will necessitate sufficient 35 time for kids to cross, not just the normal pedestrian walking. The kids will take longer. So keep 36 that in mind. 37 38 The Middlefield issue is a tricky one. Do we not remove trees and instead have substandard 39 lanes? Keep in mind that the VTA Route 35 bus goes down Middlefield so very narrow lanes 40 could be problematic. 41 42 Restricting turns to and from Oregon forces traffic onto neighboring streets. I ask that you 43 continue to allow left turns onto Indian and Waverley and Ross if you don't choose to add a 44 signal, to provide residents a way of getting into to the neighborhood without further stacking up 45 at signalized intersections. I also ask that you seriously consider limiting parking restrictions 46 along the streets crossing Oregon to specific commuter times rather than 24 hours a day, seven Page 10 1 days a week. Residents should not be penalized simply to make things more efficient for a few 2 hours a day. 3 4 A final comment. Both the 101 auxiliary lane project and metering lights at Oregon/I 01 are 5 desperately needed and will become reality in the next couple of years. Yet it is unclear how 6 they coordinate with the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. I don't know if they are 7 going to cause further delays or what but it again is something to keep in mind. Please consider 8 incorporating some of these comments into your recommendations to Council, particularly the 9 limited parking restrictions. Thank you. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Could you please restate your comment about the parking restrictions? 12 13 Ms. Furman: Well, what I am saying is consider having the parking restrictions only during the 14 peak AM and PM commute times. So on weekends if somebody has a party people can park in 15 front of their house when traffic is less frequent. So something isn't in effect at three in the 16 morning and all of that. That is the idea behind that. Because some of these are 150 feet. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Understand. Okay, thank you much. David Fryberger followed by 19 Betsy Fryberger. 20 21 Mr. David Fryberger, Palo Alto: I have been a physicist at SLAC for over 40 years and I am 22 speaking as a long time Palo Alto resident and a member of FRED, an acronym standing for 23 Friends of Reasonable Expressway Design. FRED consists of a group of Palo Alto residents 24 who came together out of concerns and questions about the Oregon Improvement Project. We 25 have gathered over 500 signatures from supporters. 26 27 I will talk mainly about the Middlefield alternatives. The traffic study by Kimley-Hom and 28 Associates assigns the Middlefield intersection a Level of Service of E, the lowest LOS of all the 29 Oregon intersections. LOS scale ranges from A, which is the best to F, which is the worst. The 30 County is carrying forward two alternatives for Middlefield, 3M, which they favor, and 4, which 31 is favored by FRED as well as over 70 percent of the respondents of the Jordan meeting. City 32 Staff also favors 3M but as we have just heard it does not appear to oppose 4. The K-H traffic 33 study includes simulations and evaluations of these two alternatives and compares them to the 34 existing situation. In the Staff Report for this meeting Tables are furnished for this comparison. 35 This has been discussed before and I am really backing up what has already been said. 36 37 Table 1 on page 5 indicates both alternatives improve the Middlefield LOS from E to D, and 38 detailed examinations of the criteria found in Table 1 indicates that 3M and 4 are both 39 significantly better than the existing situation but they are essentially comparable to each other. 40 In fact in some cases 4 is slightly better than 3M. 41 42 In Table 2 on page 6 the three corridor wide simulations to enable comparison between 3M and 4 43 for Middlefield Road are given. The three are existing. There is scenario one, which is 44 Middlefield 4 plus all the other intersections, and scenario two which is Middlefield 3M and all 45 the other intersections. Again, we see that both scenarios one, which includes 4 and scenario 46 two, which includes 3M, are essentially comparable. That is the results of the traffic study and Page 11 1 simulation do not indicate a superiority of 3M over 4, but show that both are significantly 2 superior to the present situation. Thus it appears to me that from a traffic improvement point of 3 view favoring 3M over 4 for Middlefield Road is without proper technical or analytical support. 4 5 Finally, I would like to point out a problem with the tree and sidewalk options for Alternative 6 3M, and I was surprised to find out there were three options instead of the two that are on the 7 website of the County. At present there are 11 feet from curb face to lot side edge of the 8 sidewalk, six feet of this comprises a six-inch curb plus a five and a half foot planting strip. The 9 remaining five feet are the sidewalk. In Alternative 3M these 11 feet have to accommodate a 10 five-foot widening of the pavement, a six-inch curb, and a two-foot planting strip, and a five-foot 11 sidewalk. This is not possible without encroaching on the homeowner's area on the lot side or 12 installing a narrower sidewalk. I consider this problem not sufficiently addressed in the data we 13 have. Thank you. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Betsy Fryberger followed by Nancy Moss. 16 17 Ms. Betsy Fryberger, Palo Alto: I am a long time resident with my husband, David, on 18 Middlefield Road. I have been a Curator at the Cantor Art Center at Stanford. I am about to 19 retire. I have been on the City's Tree Task Force, on the Board of the Gamble Garden, and 20 caring about trees really goes back to my childhood experiences in Chicago where we lived near 21 Lincoln Park. So I continue to plant and care for City strips on Middlefield hoping to encourage 22 other residents to beautify the space and care for the trees. At Stanford one of the exhibitions I 23 organized was about garden history and actually the catalog was recognized in reviews in the 24 New York Times and the Los Angles Times as among one of the top garden pUblications of the 25 year. So from my historical perspective about Olmstead and urban planning I 'really just want to 26 emphasize the importance of trees and green space to help civilize urban areas as well as small 27 neighborhoods. That is why I anl disturbed by Santa Clara County's plan to widen Middlefield. 28 This is in opposition to some of the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 29 30 I want to thank and acknowledge the City Arborist, Eric Krebs, whose comments are found very 31 late on in that long Staff Report you have received, about doing away with the trees on the west 32 side of Middlefield. He states the recommendations of the County do not provide adequate 33 planting sites or canopy replacenlents for future trees. 34 35 So here is what I would hope Palo Alto's priorities should be. One is to reduce our carbon 36 footprint. It is well known that cutting down trees raises the C02 content. Reduce automobile 37 traffic by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle usage. Reduce the possibility of traffic accidents 38 by promoting a safety barrier between street and sidewalk. Many students as well as other 39 pedestrians use these sidewalks. I see the County failing to advance any of these priorities. 40 41 Palo Alto is a well-educated and forward-looking community, and we should be a leader in 42 facing such tough issues and reaching decisions that send positive messages. We should not 43 settle for endorsing out of date ideas detrimental to our environment. We urge you to reject 3M 44 and vote for Alternative 4. 45 Page 12 1 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. The next speaker is Nancy Moss and we don't start the 2 timer by the way until you are set and have stated your name, and when the yellow light goes on 3 you have a minute left. 4 5 Ms. Nancy Moss, Palo Alto: Okay, thank you. Since 1980 I have lived next to Middlefield 6 Road on Garland. Since 1978 I have worked as a health and medical scientist at the National 7 Institute. for Child Health and Human Development. I am currently at San Francisco State 8 University. 9 10 From a public health and safety perspective, especially with the needs of our children in mind, 11 Alternative 4 is the only viable option for the Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway intersection. 12 We cannot support narrowing the sidewalk and widening Middlefield in close proximity to the 13 homes of families with young children, and in an area heavily used by children and young people 14 going back and forth to school at Jordan, Walter Hays, Ohlone, and to buy snacks and hang out 15 at Midtown. Families with preschool children, as you have heard earlier, live in the immediate 16 area where the County proposes to remove street trees and narrow the existing sidewalk. 17 18 So let's look at the health effects of traffic exposure on people of all ages, as published in the 19 peer review literature. These are all from medical journals in the National Library of Medicine. 20 First of all, long-term exposure to road traffic noises increases sleep disturbance, daytime 21 fatigue, hearing loss, and the prevalence of respiratory disorders. Specifically, proximity to 22 heavy traffic exacerbates the symptoms of asthma in young children, and increases the risk of 23 cardiovascular disease especially deep vein thrombosis among adults. It decreases immune 24 function among women and reinforces the negative impact of stress on health. 25 26 Parkland in the neighborhood as Betsy suggested can improve well being. Also, and in 27 particular, traffic density at intersections combined with a presence of retail establishments and 28 educational sites is associated with child pedestrian casualties varying by time of day and day of 29 the week. Now this month, August 2009, just by chance the American Academy of Pediatrics 30 Con1ll1ittee on Injury, Violence Prevention, and Poison Prevention issued the following 31 statement, which is very pertinent to the current County plan for Oregon Expressway and 32 Middlefield Road. Each year approximately 900 pediatric pedestrians, younger than 19 years, 33 are killed in traffic accidents. In addition, 51,000 children are injured and 5,300 of them are 34 hospitalized because of their injuries. Parents should be warned that young children often do not 35 have the cognitive perceptual and behavioral abilities to negotiate traffic independently. I would 36 suggest that that is particularly true where you have a sidewalk strip that has been narrowed or 37 where traffic flows have been increased. Most importantly, and this is the message for Palo 38 Alto, the AAP says it supports community and school-based strategies that nlinimize a child's 39 exposure to traffic especially to high-speed, high-volume traffic. How could the City of Palo 40 Alto fail to prioritize family and child safety/well being over traffic? Thank you. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Judith Wasserman is next followed by Elly Duncan. 43 44 Ms. Judith Wasserman. Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners and temporary Chair Holman. 45 I am the last FRED speaker here today and I wanted to first thank the County for actually 46 listening to us, because their proposals were far worse originally. As far as we are concerned at Page 13 1 the Middlefield Road intersection there is just this one item of the trees and narrowing, it is not 2 so much narrowing the sidewalks as narrowing the division between the traffic and the 3 sidewalks. 4 5 There are a couple of things that I didn't understand about the Staff Report on why they prefer 6 3M, although you did explain about the bicyclists coming northbound. When you get to the 7 north side o( Oregon Expressway you lose that second lane. So the question is are you going to 8 merge after you cross in the more residential area and create all this conflict in that one block 9 where you have to create one lane out two, or are you going to sort the traffic on the south side 10 and have everybody decide what they are going to do before they make the crossing, which 11 seems to me to make a lot more sense because the closer you get to the school crossing the more 12 kids you have sort of screwing around trying to decide whether they are on the sidewalk or on 13 the street. The middle name of all junior high school students is 'oblivious.' They just don't pay 14 attention to who is coming or where they are. They just walk in groups and talk to each other. 15 That was my big concern with that particular concept. 16 17 Then specifically about the Comprehensive Plan, about a year ago I sent you an analysis of how 18 the County proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. All of these quotes are taken from 19 the Transportation Element. Forget all the nice things about how we are tree loving, green, 20 sustainable, whatever the Transportation Element says that you should develop comprehensive 21 roadway design standards that emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety. That effective use of the 22 traffic carrying ability of the major street network should be effective without compromising the 23 needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy T -39 says prioIitize pedestrian, bicycle, and 24 automobile safety over vehicle level of service at intersections. I have one more quote about the 25 residential arterials. It says the City's objective is to address the desires of residents of these 26 streets who would like to have slower speeds, safer conditions for bicycles and pedestrians, and 27 aesthetic improvements. So thank you very much. FRED favors 4. 28 29 Comnlissioner Holnlan: Thank you. Elly Duncan followed by Elizabeth Schwerer. Elly 30 Duncan is not here. Elizabeth Schwerer followed by John Ciccarelli. 31 32 Ms. Elizabeth Schwerer, Palo Alto: Hi I am speaking on behalf of the Ohlone Elementary 33 School community as represented by the PTA, Executive Board, the Site Council, and the Traffic 34 Committee. We described our request in detail in an email we sent this committee in March of 35 this year. Those requests pertain to the intersections at Louis, Greer, Indian, and West Bayshore 36 roads. Several nlembers of the Ohlone conlmunity have been struck by cars while crossing 37 Oregon Expressway on foot or bicycle on their way to school. Because of these accidents we 38 studied the intersections closest to Ohlone to understand what made them unsafe. Louis and 39 Greer are really the ones of those that are most traveled by people getting to Ohlone. 40 41 If you look at those intersections you can see that the way they are structured in combination 42 with their traffic loads actually functions to distract drivers' attention away from bicyclists and 43 away from the crosswalks. We met with County Engineers in an early phase of this project to 44 talk to them about the safety problems we see and we are just so grateful, we are extremely 45 grateful, that their recommendations for those four intersections reflect all the engineering 46 improvements that we believe are needed at those four intersections. Page 14 1 2 So what we are asking the City and County now is to move forward as quickly as possible on 3 these safety improvements because even in the last few months there have been more injury 4 accidents at those intersections. Thank you. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. John Ciccarelli followed by Mike Aberg followed Pam 7 Radin. 8 9 Mr. John Ciccarelli, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Holman. I am a long time former resident of 10 Palo Alto up until about 2006. Former owner of 2321 Ross smack dab between Garland and 11 Oregon. I make my living as a bicycle planning consultant and I was one of the co-authors of the 12 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Plan. 13 14 I think it is useful to look at a bit of history, as to why. I am going to speak mostly towards the 15, Ross Road intersection. Oregon Expressway split the city in the 1960s and we as citizens and 16 planners have been trying to stitch it back together ever since. It split Midtown. Over time 1 7 crossing improvements have been enacted at Bryant and Louis, incremental improvements to 18 make it easier to get across the street that was not there before. Oregon even striped shoulders 19 that function as a de facto bike lane. The 2003 bike plan looked at improving crossings of 20 Oregon including a bicycle boulevard concept for Ross, which makes sense not in the Oregon 21 context, but citywide. 22 23 A Ross Road bicycle boulevard makes a lot of sense. It is important to think of it not as just 24 Ross Road access but Ross, Newell all the way to Woodland, to University Circle, all the way to 25 Menlo Park via Chaucer and Pope, all the way to the south end of town to the Baylands, an 26 environment that doesn't exist elsewhere in the east side of Midtown. Louis has bike lanes. It is 27 a fine street to bicycle on but it is not a place where you take your little kid out that is still a little 28 wobbly. Bryant is. Ross best serves the heart of Midtown, the shopping, the restaurants, the 29 YMCA. It is by far the closest alternative and that is why it makes the most sense. But beyond 30 serving Midtown it does have this cross-town function. It has potential to be just as good a 31 three-mile corridor in combination with Newell and the north end branches as Bryant is on its 32 side of town. Jordan, the schools, the fields, the Lucie Stem Center, the Main Library, the Art 33 Center, the Ross YMCA, Mitchell Park, University Circle for the lawyers that work there. So it 34 is important to get Ross going and seize this opportunity. 35 36 Alternative 2 for crossing Oregon on Ross is insufficient. It doesn't provide for a bicycle 37 through movement. I urge you to support and fund Alternative 3 including immediate signal 38 coordination with Middlefield. Fix the right tum island on the south side. The design blocks the 39 bicycle through movement in the eastbound direction. Consider adding an east leg pedestrian 40 crosswalk as well as a west leg. Then start to work on enhancing Ross as a bike boulevard. All 41 you need to do to connect it to Jordan is to make it possible to get from Garland to the California 42 end of Jordan. Longer term you can do better by knitting Newell together with Ross. Thank 43 you. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Mike Aberg followed Pam Radin followed by Jeff 46 Weitzman Page 15 1 2 Mr. Mike Aberg, Palo Alto: Hi live on Moreno Avenue right in between Middlefield and Ross 3 Road. I use Ross Road almost every day or at least three times a week as part of my bike 4 commute down to Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale. I strongly support Alternative number 3 for 5 Ross Road. I think that is the right thing to do. 6 7 One of the things is we don't have a bike boulevard type of thing on our side of Middlefield. I 8 guess that would be the east side of Middlefield. I think Ross Road could also serve as a really 9 good alternative to Middlefield Road if we are talking about the tough crossing on Middlefield 10 and Oregon. 11 12 I guess another thing to consider is if we were going to make a bike boulevard on Louis, well 13 there are already bike lanes on Louis. I go down Louis as a bicyclist but I wouldn't take my kids 14 down Louis so much. I think Ross Road would be a lot better, more kid friendly way to go. 15 16 I am just going to read through a couple of bullet points here and then I will get off the stage and 17 let other people talk. Like I said before Ross is my bike commute down to Lockheed Martin, 18 Sunnyvale. The Ross light at Oregon would open up the bike commute to North Palo Alto from 19 the South and also it would open up Midtown a lot more for the folks up in North Palo Alto. 20 Placing Ross bike and pedestrian crossing, all three, also allows North Palo Alto access to other 21 things besides Midtown like the new Mitchell Library, the Ross Road YMCA, the new Jewish 22 Community Center, and also the Baylands. Ross is a calm commute compared to Louis Road. 23 Louis is a connector street with greater traffic. I think I have said my piece. I could probably 24 say a lot more but please support Alternative number 3 for the Ross Road crossing. I think it 25 makes a whole lot of sense and I think it is something that Midtown has needed for a long time. 26 Thanks. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Pam Radin followed by Jeff Weitzman and then Tatiana 29 VanHouten. 30 31 Ms. Pam Radin, Palo Alto: Hi. I am here just to support Ross Road and to thank the County for 32 all the great work they have done. Thank you. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: Jeff Weitzman followed by Tatiana Van Houten. 35 36 Mr. Jeff Weitzman, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Ross Road, about six houses south of Oregon. I have 37 listened to everybody's comments today and really appreciate the thoughtful comments that 38 everybody has made and a lot of the work that they have done. I would urge this Commission to 39 think of this system as a whole. I think looking at things in isolation is probably the biggest 40 mistake you can make. 41 42 I have heard the well-organized and well-articulated arguments from people who are supporting 43 Alternative 4 for Middlefield Road. I am not going to purport to tell you what to do but I will 44 point out that significant compromise has been made by the County in response to a lot of the 45 concerns already at the Middlefield intersection. 46 Page 16 1 The number one priority for this project has to be thought of as a pedestrian and bicyclist effort. 2 That is throughout the system not just at the Middlefield intersection. The stacking up of cars at 3 Middlefield causes significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The cut-through traffic 4 on Ross has not been mitigated by the bumps. I am sure the same is true of Cowper. All the 5 arguments you have heard, and I won't repeat them, for making Ross Road a bike boulevard are 6 excellent. My children travel it all the time to get to school. Being able to safely travel down 7 that road is important but not possible if people can't feel safe. A bike boulevard has to include 8 reduction of vehicular traffic. If we don't fix the entire system the traffic that now stacks up all 9 the way to Louis during rush hours and causes drivers to come flying down our streets will make 10 it incompatible with being a quiet and usable bike boulevard. We have to compromise and we 11 have to find the most flexible, most improvement in the Middlefield intersection, or all the other 12 improvements are for naught, including anything we want to do on Ross. 13 14 Finally, with respect to Ross and all good arguments for the bike boulevard. The signalized 15 intersection at Ross would represent, especially for those of us who live nearby somewhat of a 16 sacrifice in the increased signalization in the area, the loss of parking that my neighbors would 17 experience, which would cause cars to stack up along the sidewalks elsewhere. We are willing 18 to make that sacrifice but not in vain. So if you are going to put signals in there we need a bike 19 boulevard down Ross. There is the slight matter of the fact that you can't actually get to the 20 most of North Palo Alto by crossing Oregon. So the crossing there has potential positive 21 impacts, to me the most impact for a Ross Road bike boulevard runs south of Oregon and the 22 effect that it could have there. But we are willing to have that signalized intersection and the 23 sacrifice it represents but not for no gain whatsoever. You need figure out a way to make that a 24 bike boulevard if we are going to have that signal. Thank you. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Tatiana VanHouten followed by Christine Czarnecki. 27 28 Ms. Tatiana Van Houten, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Marion Avenue between Cowper 29 and Middlefield. I have lived there since 1972. Over the years as traffic stacks up on 30 Middlefield I have noticed our cut-through traffic has increased. Cars roar down Marion and 31 make a right turn on Cowper so that they can turn left at Cowper and avoid the backup on 32 Middlefield. We on Marion are very concerned that putting a left turn signal on Cowper onto 33 Oregon Expressway is going to make it easier for the cut-through traffic, decrease their time to 34 get through, and they will start cutting through much more. So I have waited at Oregon, on 35 Cowper at the signal and I have never seen a backup on Cowper. I don't see any reason for 36 putting in a left hand signal there. I am really quite sure that it is going to increase the traffic and 37 the traffic during the rush hour goes very fast on that block on Marion. 38 39 I appreciate your listening to our input and also the County. Thank you. 40 41 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Christine Czarnecki followed by Eric Anderson. 42 43 Ms. Christine Czarnecki, Palo Alto: Good evening to the Commission. I live next door to 44 Tatiana VanHouten on Marion Avenue, which is one block or half a block south of Oregon 45 Expressway between Middlefield and Cowper. She has already expressed the problem we have Page 17 1 with the cut-through traffic. I also would like to urge you to please just forget about the left hand 2 tum lane from Cowper onto Oregon Expressway. It is wholly unnecessary. 3 4 Since we moved here in December of2001 I have had to deal with that intersection every day, 5 several times a day. First to take my daughter to Paly for years and now that she is a college 6 grad to take her over to the train on University to catch the 8:05 train to the city and then back 7 again when I pick her up in the evening. I have never ever had a problem on that left tum from 8 Cowper onto Oregon. I am there right now at five of 8:00 or ten of 8:00 every morning and there 9 is no problem. There is never a stack up. Anything you do on that intersection is a waste of 10 money and unnecessary in terms of the amount of traffic during rush hour because I am out there 11 all the time during those times. 12 13 The other thing is we want to do the least amount to encourage any pulling off of traffic onto 14 Cowper or from Cowper people cutting through. We have a terrible problem with the cut- 15 through on Marion. 16 17 Lastly I just wanted to say I really encourage you to use Alternative 4 for Middlefield because 18 the last thing in the world we need in Midtown is to lose more trees. To have that denuded 19 section will just make it look very conlffiercial and very un-residential, very un-Palo Alto. 20 Thank you so n1uch for your time and thank you for your consideration of our comments. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for coming. Eric Anderson followed by Penny ElIson. 23 24 Mr. Eric Anderson, Palo Alto: Hi. I live on Middlefield Road and I want to talk about the 25 Middlefield intersection. I also prefer Alternative 4. I think it would be a shame to lose the trees 26 and I also have concern about narrowing the sidewalks that there could be safety issues. 27 28 I am also a cyclist. I was confused by the Staff comments explaining -I understand cyclists will 29 have to merge if there is only one lane going northbound. What I don't understand is you kind of 30 have to merge anyway if you have to go around cars that are waiting to tum right. that is 31 something an adult might do to make that decision but a lot of kids or something would already 32 be on the sidewalk or they would be in the same situation as if there were two lanes going 33 forward. So I didn't understand the explanation for that. Thank you. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Penny ElIson followed by Bob Herriot followed by Ann 36 Crichton. 37 38 Ms. Penny ElIson. Palo Alto: Hello. I am speaking as the Chair of the Palo Alto Council of 39 PTA's Traffic Safety Committee delivering this statement. The Committee supports the City of 40 Palo Alto Staff recommendations regarding the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. 41 42 Generally speaking an expressway is no place for school bound children. Unfortunately some 43 students ofOhlone, Jordan, and Palo Alto High School for those students crossing Oregon is a 44 necessity. We appreciate the County's collaboration with City Staff. I want to thank them 45 tonight for the great work both City Staff and County Staff did to improve the expressway 46 crossings that serve Ohlone. Page 18 1 2 While the engineering limitations of an expressway make it impossible to create an ideal school 3 route we thank the engineers for maximizing the safety improvements that were possible 4 particularly at the Louis Road intersection. These changes also will benefit other pedestrians and 5 bicyclists who must use the expressway crossings throughout the day, while improving or 6 maintaining Level of Service at nearly all intersections. This required excellent engineering 7 work and we appreciate the solutions. 8 9 If the school district draws future Garland attendance boundary across Oregon the Ross Road 10 Alternative 2 with no signalization, no marked crosswalk, and no bike lane will provide a II" conlpletely inadequate school crossing on an expressway that serves 40,000 cars per day. We 1 t would not support Alternative 2 design as an appropriate element neighborhood school commute 13 route. 14 15 Alternative 3 is safer but still inadequate to meet an elementary school neighborhood 16 population's needs. It is our hope that the school district will not create a precedent by drawing 1 7 an elementary school attendance boundary across Oregon Expressway. That said the Traffic 18 Safety Committee supports the City of Palo Alto recommendations and we ask that you direct 19 Staff to continue to work with the City School Traffic Safety Committee, as I am sure they will 20 anyway, as detailed design plans are developed. Thank you. Good night. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for coming. Bob Herriot followed by Ann Crichton 23 followed by Booker Morey. 24 25 Mr. Robert Herriot, Palo Alto: I live on Byron Street about three blocks north of Oregon 26 Expressway so this doesn't affect me all that much. I also suggest you see some email I sent 27 earlier today with some comments that are different than what I am going to say. 28 29 The first thing I would like to say is it would appear the County diq not send any cards out the 30 way they have been sending them to people to let them know about these meetings. They 31 presumably have a huge mailing list of people who are interested in this project. I have been 32 getting postcards from them but nothing this time. I went to their Oregon Expressway.info 33 website and there was no evidence of this meeting or any updates to their literature from March, 34 and yet I think they have made some changes, at least some recommendations. So I question 35 what happened there. There might have been more people here tonight if they had gotten a 36 postcard. 37 38 The big question that I have not seen answered is sort of what the benefits are of this. It is clear 39 that intersections like Middlefield need some improvements and there are some others that need 40 improvements but there also seem to be other improvements that are not necessarily needed. I 41 have not seen the County really address the issues of how much accident prevention will occur or 42 how much reduced time there will be for people transiting the expressway. 43 44 Let me first get to Middlefield. Middlefield I think is probably the most difficult intersection. It 45 is really trying to tum a sow's ear into a silk purse, which is not possible at least not with the 46 amount of real estate we are willing to give up. So given that all the solutions are really bad Page 19 1 probably 4 is the least bad just because it doesn't take away any trees. There are really pros and 2 cons with the laning in terms of right turns and straight ahead. The one concern I really have 3 with the diagram for Middlefield is I don't think the left turn lanes are nearly long enough or the 4 no parking zones on the north side are long enough. Traffic frequently backs up at commute 5 hour, the five 0' clock timeframe or thereabout, all the way to North California from Oregon 6 Expressway. I don't see any change the left turn lane may affect. You may get people blocked 7 in where they miss cycles because the le'ft turn lane is not long enough. 8 9 With regard to Waverley, Indian, and Ross I would suggest everything stay the same. I don't see 10 any reason to change things. With regard to Ross Road people have been advocating a light. I 11 would say only if you can somehow push through that block to North California otherwise the 12 light does nothing. You have to go to Middlefield or Louis anyway. 13 14 One thing I would say about lights like Cowper I don't think a left turn needs to be at places like 15 Cowper or Bryant. I can see there might be a need at places where there are schools like up at 16 Louis and Greer. There is also the parking issue that was addressed. What I would suggest the 17 County look at is a new way of dealing with left turns and that is a left flashing arrow. The email 18 I sent you has a URL of where that information is. The flashing yellow essentially says you can 19 make a left tum now but you have to yield to traffic. So the idea is that you could have only a 20 full red arrow/green arrow during school times when kids are coming and going but during the 21 rest of the day when the traffic is quite light you would never to the red arrow, you would always 22 have the flashing yellow arrow for the left turns whenever it was green straight ahead. So I 23 would suggest that the Planning Commission look at that idea. I think it has been tried out in a 24 lot of places around the country. In some sense it solves the problem of having this eight-phase 25 light that takes up way too much time and will waste a lot of people's time. Thanks. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Ann Crichton followed by Booker Morey. 28 29 Ms. Ann Crichton, Palo Alto: Good evening and thank you to the Traffic Planning Committee 30 for allow us an opportunity to speak tonight. It is a pleasure. As a long-term traffic safety 31 advocate I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight on behalf of the recommendations from 32 the County as well as the great work that the Staffhas done on this particular work. 33 34 I have advocated for safe changes along Oregon Expressway for approximately eight years, from 35 the time that I took on the Traffic Safety Committee position at Ohlone Elementary School and 36 observed first-hand as a resident close to this particular thoroughfare that it was a particularly 37 dangerous and out dated engineered expressway to allow for safe multi-modal crossing as well as 38 navigation along the thoroughfare trying to get from one end of the community to the other. So 39 as a part of the Traffic Safety Committee I was witness to many accidents both as a resident as 40 well as with the Traffic Safety Committee with Ohlone Elementary School. I participated in the 41 many community outreach activities that not only happened in the comnlunity prior to the 42 County's engagement but during the County process as well as the Staffprocess. I would like to 43 give testimony to the level of outreach and community solicitation that was done to come up 44 with these recommendations. I really want to applaud both the County and the Staff for reaching 45 out and trying to reach compromise to listen to what the community had to say. 46 Page 20 1 So in particular I support what the County has recommended both at the Louis intersections, the 2 Greer intersections, I also represent my community, which is 60 households off of Indian in 3 recommending the closure of the left hand turn lane on Oregon Expressway onto Indian, as well 4 as improvements to the Bayshore intersection. These are absolutely necessary changes for both 5 pedestrians, bike safety both for children and for adults alike, as well as for automobile traffic. 6 Again, I support the recommendations that were made in this particular set of recommendations. 7 8 I thank the excellent for all those people who have been involved over the eight years that I have 9 participated in trying to affect positive change. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to 10 speak to you all. 11 12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Booker Morey followed by Daria Walsh. 13 14 Mr. Booker Morey, Palo Alto: Hi, I live on Cowper one block on the cheap side of Oregon at 15 the comer of Marion. We now have pretty heavy traffic during the weekdays between seven in 16 the morning and nine in the morning. We share it with Middlefield and we share it with 17 Waverley. A lot of it is the commuters. You heard it from the folks living on Marion about the 18 cutoff, which certainly does happen. a lot of it seems to be traffic going to any of the five 19 schools that are south of Oregon either taking the kids to school or the less full cars coming back 20 to their homes. 21 22 Now we all have to share in our civic responsibility of dealing with the traffic. I just want to 23 plead with you to make it as fair as possible. For those folks who are now comfortable using 24 Waverley as a way to cross Oregon Expressway or to make a left hand tum, why take away that 25 option? You are simply going to force them back down onto Cowper Street. So all I anl doing is 26 asking for some fairness. For those folks that are comfortable using that intersection let them 27 continue to use it, don't take away their ability. That's it. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Daria Walsh and then ifElly Duncan is here. 30 31 Ms. Daria Walsh, Palo Alto: Hi. I am interested in talking a little bit about a couple of the 32 proposed and recommended alternatives. To be honest I have not had as much time to look at it 33 as I wanted. I have been following this. In particular one thing that has popped out at me is the 34 one on Bryant where for some reason in several of the intersections that are bike friendly they 35 are eight-phase lights and at Bryant it is a six-phase. It is one of the things that I would like just 36 some answers on why that one is in particular six phase because I think bicyclists going through 37 could use a straight green light rather than having to compete with the lefts on that. Perhaps I 38 don't understand what the six phases are there. 39 40 The other one that I wanted to address is Ross Road where I would support Alternative 3 as well 41 with the signal. The only concern I have there is once the kids get across there, and granted the 42 report talks a lot about kids going to Jordan and Garland and doesn't mention the hundreds of 43 kids that already go across at Louis and Middlefield to go to Paly right now. Those kids are 44 crossing at Ross and then they are going down to Middlefield and riding on the sidewalk with all 45 the pedestrians that are also going to Jordan at that time. So it is just one piece that seems a little 46 bit like it is not conlpletely figured out what happens once they get over on the other side of Page 21 1 Ross. I love the idea of a pretty much bicycle-centered intersection there at Ross but I would 2 like to see something else happen on the other end because there really isn't a place for those 3 kids to go right now. 4 5 The last thing I would like to say is about the Louis intersection, which looks great. That is 6 going to be a great way for people to cross there. But there are some places where it doesn't 7 seem like they are addressing the pedestrian visibility as much on Louis Road, which is one of 8 the big concerns that we have right now, in particular in the southeast comer of Louis Road. 9 Right it is a very difficult place to see pedestrians and I am not sure that is that well addressed 10 with the current alternative that they are choosing. Thank you. 11 12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Did Elly Duncan return? Seeing not we will take about a 13 seven-minute break and then we will come back. Can we come together again? Commissioners. 14 So if we could ask the members of the public to take their seats we can get going again. 15 16 Commissioners, since we skipped the clarifying questions we will do clarifying questions first 17 and also if you happen to have questions for any members of the public while they are here 18 hanging in with us. So first would be if you have any questions for members of the public. Does 19 anyone have questions for members of the public? Commissioner Keller? Commissioner 20 Fineberg? Okay. 21 22 Commissioner Keller has participated in a lot of these meetings, attended a lot of them so I am 23 going to cut him a little bit of leeway, but we are going to limit the first round of questions and 24 comments to three minutes. Questions first. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So the first question is since there is a shortage of 27 County money that can go towards the Ross Road traffic light and you said that the City money 28 can go towards the Middlefield Road intersection, can the City spend its money on the 29 Middlefield Road intersection and thereby save County money to pay for Ross? 30 31 Ms. Likens: That would be something that would be at the discretion of the City Council. I 32 don't think that we know the answer to that now. I think we don't know if the County would 33 actually need any funding to implement the project as recommended by Staff at the present time 34 because they don't have detailed cost and they won't know until they further into the design. So 35 I think as Mr. Collen mentioned it is a little premature to be trying to figure out how everything 36 gets funded. We don't know whether the budget that the, County has is sufficient or not. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Would it be within our purview to recommend that if there is 39 a shortfall in money that that fundability be used? Okay, thank you. I took that as a yes. 40 41 My second question is there was a comment about the sidewalk on 3M on the logical northwest 42 comer, the one where the road is widened. Firstly, I understand that that road is being widened 43 there because of the alignment with the south approach to Middlefield Road. The north side is 44 41 feet and the south side if 46 feet wide, and that that five feet difference is an offset from the 45 northwest comer. Maybe this is a County question. Are the sidewalks going to be moved on Page 22 1 that? There was a question by a member of the public with respect to whether all the numbers 2 add up and is the sidewalk planned to be moved or is the sidewalk in the same spot? 3 4 Mr. Collen: I would like to introduce Ananth Prasad our Project Engineer and a Senior Civil 5 Engineer with the traffic engineering section. I think he can comment most specifically to the 6 detail questions on the width or the movement of the sidewalk. 7 8 Mr. Ananth Prasad, Project Engineer, Santa Clara County: Thank you members of the 9 Commission. With regard to the sidewalk where discussion about narrowing the sidewalk we 10 are not narrowing the sidewalk. There is going to be a movement of the sidewalk but the 11 sidewalk width will remain exactly at five feet, which is current with the existing sidewalk. We 12 have to move it. There is some right-of-way behind the sidewalk and we show that we are using 13 one foot of that two-foot space we have behind the sidewalk. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: So just like in front of my house there is a piece of land that belongs to 16 the City that is in front of my property line between that and the sidewalk. Here there is two feet 17 of land that belongs to essentially the City between the owner's property line and the sidewalk 18 and you are going to halve that distance. 19 20 Mr. Prasad: Yes. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Weare going to make rounds. Commissioner Fineberg. 25 26 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with a process question about the Staff 27 recommendations. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission endorse three sets of 28 items. Ifwe are looking at pages 1 and 2 in the Staff Report it is one, two, and three. Then on 29 number four Staff is recommending that the Commission direct Staff to work with the County, 30 the neighborhoods, and stakeholder groups, P ABAC to develop detailed design plans and return 31 to the Council with a report on the final design plans and final environmental document. I am a 32 bit stuck on how we can simultaneously recommend items one to three and four because if we 33 are recommending specific options, whatever they might be, then how can we also recommend 34 that Staff, the County, and various groups come up with another plan that may be completely 35 different and may be far, far better but completely in conflict with items one, two, and three. So 36 I don't see how we can do both. 37 38 Ms. Likens: I think I can clarify that. What we are asking is that you support the direction to the 39 Council for us to work with the County as they develop their detailed designs based on the 40 concept plans that are approved for implementation. To share those with the Bicycle Advisory 41 Committee as they are developing these plans. To share them with the community, the County 42 plans to hold community meetings, and to have the public still involved as the design plans are 43 further refined in detail. Then we would bring those back to the Council with the environmental 44 clearance from the County at a later date. The idea is not that we are going back to the drawing 45 board, that anyone is going to come up with other concepts, but perhaps it was the way that the 46 recommendation was worded that was unclear. Page 23 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. So specifically, not because I am advocating for this but 3 just for the purposes of this discussion, let's say we vote for 3M at Middlefield and the citizenry 4 en mass continues to want 4. Does that mean that the County is still going to be sitting down and 5 working with citizen groups who are going to be advocating for 4? How do they get past that? 6 Or does that then give County mandate to say 4 is done it is off the table you are doing 3M? 7 How would that situation play out? I am not advocating for that but just as an example. 8 9 Ms. Likens: I believe that the process that we are in is to seek your recommendations to the City 10 Council. The City Council would then make a recommendation that we would forward to the 11 County as to the City's position on these alternatives and concepts. At that point the County 12 would take the City's recommendations and begin to move forward. N9w the County Staffmay 13 want to comment if there continues to be concerns from individuals or groups of individuals 14 about these alternative how they would respond. But at that point we would have a policy 15 direction from the City Council to forward to the County. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: Will the meeting with City Council happen soon enough that the 18 County can continue its work not waiting for that? 19 20 Ms. Likens: I don't want to speak for the County but I think they are going to wait for the City 21 Council action before they begin more detailed design. Perhaps Mr. Collen could comment. 22 23 Mr. Collen: Yes it is our intent. We are kind of in a transition period now winding down with 24 the conceptual design. We are in a process where I don't believe we yet have the designers in 25 place to proceed with the construction drawings. So we are in a natural break point right now 26 anyway. So using this time to complete the public process with the City is just fine with us. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I have one more question in that part that is slightly different 29 but it naturally flows with it and then I will cede if that is okay. In the recommendation four 30 where we are directing Staff to work with the neighborhood stakeholder groups we specifically 31 spell out that they will continue to work with P ABAC. I would like consideration that 32 recommendation also includes direction that County and Staffwill work with the PTA Council 33 Traffic Committee so that the representation fronl the school-wide body is incorporated. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert. 36 37 Commissioner Lippert: I am looking at the diagram, Middlefield Road Alternative 4, 38 specifically where you have the trident configuration going northbound. You have the middle 39 lane in the center for straight on traffic and it would also be for cyclists. I believe it was 40 characterized earlier that it would be "adult cyclists" but the truth is that this leads to the middle 41 school so the majority of the cyclists are actually juveniles. Is that going to be problematic at 42 all? 43 44 Ms. Likens: I don't know the numbers of cyclists in terms of their ages at this intersection. 45 There are both middle schoof and adult cyclists. There could be elementary and high school 46 students that all use this Middlefield crossing. Page 24 1 2 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The reason I ask is that I think the City Staff Report really 3 promotes this configuration over the two lane straight. 4 5 Ms. Likens: City Staff is recommending Alternative 3M as opposed to Alternative 4 at 6 Middlefield. 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I just want to nlake sure of that, the 3-Modified. Okay. Then I 9 have one other question regarding Ross Road with the bike slot. The phasing for that that the 10 County proposed in terms of as the Ross Road boulevard is developed, doing the phasing for that 11 is acceptable? In other words, you plan for it but it doesn't get implemented until the boulevard 12 is fully developed? 13 14 Mr. Rius: I believe their recommendation was just to setup Alternative 2, which could lead to 15 future signalization but if that was the selected Alternative that would be the extent of their 16 improvement as part of this project. 17 18 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. 19 20 Ms. Likens: So our recommendation is that they include the full signalization as part of their 21 County project. 22 23 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, that is what I wanted to clarify with you. Then with regard to the 24 reference to Embarcadero and Cowper, which has a slotted intersection, is that slotted 25 intersection actually sensored so that as a bicyclist pulls through into there if they were to come 26 to a stop then the light changes in a snap? 27 28 Mr. Rius: This is at Bryant Street. 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: Is it Bryant, oh yes. Okay. 31 32 Mr. Rius: There is detection. I am not sure if it changes immediately. 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: As a cyclist it changes almost immediately. I literally come to a stop 35 and the light changes in a snap. So that is what you are proposing? 36 37 Mr. Rius: There might be some constraints related to the coordination and when it can tum 38 green for the cyclists. 39 40 Commissioner Lippert: Who controls the signalization? The County or the City? 41 42 Mr. Rius: The County would control the timing and coordination along the whole corridor. 43 44 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. 45 46 Ms. Likens: Mr. Collen has sonle additional comments. Page 25 1 2 Mr. Collen: Yes, we would include in-pavement detection for the bicycle as we do at several 3 other locations on the expressway system. We actually also are using an adaptive signal system 4 for the bikes so that when we have bike detection it gives a different crossing time based on the 5 bike crossing time as opposed to a car crossing time. That wouldn't apply here since it is only 6 going to be bikes, but it is also pedestrians as well. So I don't know if we would mess with that 7 or not but we do have systems to detect and also provide crossing time based on bike detection. 8 9 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez. 12 13 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. By my count there are going to be four eight-phase signals 14 and two six -phase, plus whatever happens at Ross. Taking that into account and perhaps even 15 taking into account a new signal at Ross how does that affect traffic along Oregon Expressway? 16 Is it going to move more quickly because of improved signalization or is it going to be 17 gridlocked even more than it is now? Do you know? 18 19 Mr. Rius: Well, one of the six-phase intersections is at Bryant where there would only be one 20 pedestrian crossing instead of two. 21 22 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I want to talk about that too. 23 24 Mr. Rius: Okay. So you can reduce the cycle length if there were two crossings and that would 25 allow for better coordination along the Oregon Expressway. 26 27 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, but by the time traffic gets to Bryant it has lightened up 28 considerably, once it is past Middlefield. So I don't think that is the problem. But from exiting 29 101 past Middlefield is the flow of traffic going to improve? 30 31 Mr. Rius: I can let the County answer that. They are more informed about the detailed analysis. 32 33 Mr. Prasad: One of the things that needs to happen is the Middlefield. That is our bottleneck for 34 Oregon Expressway traffic flow. Currently it is very inefficient. One approach at a time gets a 35 green. We could solve both approaches with the same available time or what is being used for 36 one approach. Thereby you are having considerable savings in time and that saving can be used 37 to reduce the cycle length. Once you reduce the cycle length we can apply that to the entire 38 system because the rest of the intersections don't actually have such a high volume of cross 39 traffic. So once you have a system wide lower cycle then you are able to efficiently serve the 40 pedestrians, bicycles, as well as traffic on Oregon at a predictable speed, because now you have 41 an efficient intersection that has been improved. The Middlefield intersection is the bottleneck. 42 So the key thing for this project is Middlefield. We have to have improvements at Middlefield to 43 recognize any benefits on Oregon Expressway flow. 44 45 Commissioner Martinez: Good, thank you. I drive Oregon Expressway at least a couple of 46 times a day. Coming off northbound 101 almost every day I am confronted with traffic coming Page 26 1 off southbound wanting to tum left on West Bayshore. Was issue ever addressed or is it being 2 addressed as part of this plan? 3 4 Mr. Rius: I'm sorry? 5 6 Commissioner Martinez: Traffic coming off of 101 that is southbound has its own exit lane 7 except for those that want to tum left onto West Bayshore. They have to immediately cut across 8 traffic to get into that left hand tum lane. Is there any mitigation for that in this plan? 9 10 Mr. Rius: This project does not have any improvements for that movement. 11 12 Commissioner Martinez: It is probably one of the most dangerous aspects of Oregon 13 Expressway. 14 15 Ms. Likens: We could ask the County to comment on that. It wasn't something that was focused 16 on during this proj ect. 17 18 Mr. Collen: To separate that movement would be a complicated effort introducing a more 19 freeway-like treatment into the Oregon Expressway environment. You would have to use some 20 sort of braided ramps or some sort of structure to address that. We didn't explore that very 21 deeply. We have been focused primarily on the intersection areas along the expressway, and 22 also the area to the east of West Bayshore Road is Caltrans jurisdiction. We assume that that 23 will be folded into some further work by Caltrans as they study that area. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: If you could identify yourself for the transcript that would be helpful. 26 27 Mr. Collen: Certainly. Dan Collen Deputy Director, County of Santa Clara. 28 29 Commissioner Martinez: It is possible to close the left hand tum lane at West Bayshore, correct? 30 As a possible solution. 31 32 Mr. Collen: You could do that. 33 34 Commissioner Martinez: Since you are making improvements at Greer traffic could make a U- 35 tum to get back to West Bayshore. 36 37 Mr. Collen: I would defer to the City Staff for their input on circulation within the City of Palo 38 Alto. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was a comment made by a member of the public with 43 respect to the desirability for merging lanes on northbound Middlefield Road past the 44 intersection. Is it normal practice at an intersection to sort of widen approaching a major 45 intersection and then narrow after? I notice this happens elsewhere. Is that a reasonable practice 46 to improve throughput through a road? Page 27 1 2 Mr. Rius: Yes it is. Capacity through the intersection is limited by the amount of green time and 3 if you have more lanes to get through during a limited green period and once they pass the 4 intersection they not constrained by the green time and they can merge together. So that does 5 happen in other parts of the city as well as other cities. 6 7 Ms. Likens: Just a comment. We currently have that situation on northbound Middlefield at 8 Oregon right now. There are two through lanes and the two through lanes carry forward to the 9 north side of the intersection and then there is a lane drop and you merge into one lane further 10 north. I think it is before Garland now. During the detail design I am sure we would look at the 11 length of that merge and determine if Alternative 3M is approved for inlplementation how long 12 that merge would be. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what happens when people are stopped you have a 15 capacity issue of how many people can enter the intersection. When they are speeding up the 16 merging happens faster and therefore there is more capacity in some sense. 17 18 A question about where I am talking about plans 3M and 4 for Middlefield Road intersection. 19 That means that there were plans 1 and 2 and could you talk about where we went to get from 20 where you started and where we are? What kinds of modifications have you done to Middlefield 21 Road? Because I know that I went to a bunch of the meetings but I am not sure that the menlbers 22 of the Commission or some of the members of the public might be aware of what you have 23 actually done there. 24 25 Mr. Collen: Okay, thanks for the question. The alternatives were not necessarily developed in 26 series. One through 3 were explored in parallel as an array of options for the public to consider 27 and comment on, and the City to give us input on. Basically 1 involved widening at three out of 28 the four comers. Alternate 2 was at two comers, and 3 was just the one comer. Then 4 canle 29 later after the community meetings and we said let's develop a zero comer impact option and 30 look at what the tradeoffs would be of doing that. So essentially we came forward with 1 31 through 3 at the same time but as we fine-tuned them based on the comments that we got then 1 32 and 2 basically fell off the table as unacceptable based on the comments that we were receiving, 33 and 3 we modified to address some of the issues that were raised. Then it became Alternate 3M 34 and then 4 was brought in later in the process. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: In comparing designs 3M and 4 is it correct that on the southbound 37 direction, other than the offset, the lane widths are exactly the same and the only difference in 38 the two plans is the offset and how many lanes there are in the northbound direction. Is that 39 right? 40 41 Mr. Collen: I think one of the lanes is a half-foot narrower, six inches narrower in Alternate 3 42 because there are more lanes that are being accommodated. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Fineberg. Page 28 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to get one idea on the record just to make sure that it 3 minimizes future confusion. A couple of days ago the School Board voted to defer the opening 4 of Garland school. In my opinion that does not in any way change the fact that there are now 5 and there will continue to be school age children crossing Oregon. It is a question of whether 6 they are private school children, public elementary school children, or middle school children. 7 That facility is used currently while it is under lease as a private school for camps in the 8 summertime. There are hundreds of parents bringing their kids and bikes there to camp in the 9 summer. It is used for after-school programs. It is used for sports fields. So regardless of the 10 disposition it is still a target for kids and parents and bikes and walking. 11 12 On a separate topic, I am concerned a little bit of the idea of un-striping some of the significant 13 pedestrian crossings at intersections. I notice recently that when I was Downtown at Whole 14 Foods the intersections there don't have stripings. My kids were stunned. They have learned, 15 we live at the comer of Louis and Greer, they have learned they walk to the comer, they walk 16 between the crossings, and they wouldn't dream of crossing mid-block. I don't know how they 1 7 would react frankly to getting to an intersection in my neighborhood and not having a crosswalk. 18 They have never seen that. So it would be a very different beast for them. It may be that there is 19 some kind of science about unmarked intersections being safer but if it is the exception and the 20 only one in the area for young minds who have learned rules and are not quite as rational I don't 21 know that it would be as safe. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: Excuse me, would Staff care to comment on that? 24 25 Mr. Rius: What you mentioned is true. I am not totally sure of the science. The County might 26 be able to answer. But often times marked crosswalks do provide a false sense of security that 27 the pedestrian has the right-of-way and cars will stop. By taking it you are promoting crossing at 28 one of the signalized adjacent intersections. If you insist on crossing it is still legal cross in an 29 unmarked crosswalk and typically pedestrians would use a lot more caution in those situations. 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: So I understand that from the Staff Report and I would agree that that 32 might be true for adults. I am saying that I don't believe it is true at least for my own two kids. 33 They, I don't think, have ever been confronted with an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection 34 south of Oregon. There might be sonle mid-block or at some of the funky cul-de-sacs that come 35 off a street, but not at a major intersection. There may be some but not where we have been 36 wandering. How am I on time? I will cede and come back later. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez, questions? 39 40 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. In the Staff Report it refers to an August 2003 City Council 41 directive on the improvements to Oregon Expressway to emphasize pedestrian and bicycle 42 safety. By and large this is accomplished in the proposed plan except at the most critical 43 intersection of Middlefield. I feel that we have not provided a safe passage across Oregon 44 Expressway for bicycles. There is not a bicycle slot. In one of the scenarios it is being proposed 45 that we merge bicycles with cars crossing the intersection. In some ways what we have now may 46 be a safer alternative for bicycles than what is being proposed in either alternative. It seems to Page 29 1 me what is driving both alternatives is this need for an exclusive left hand turn signal only. To 2 me that isn't the greatest need of this intersection. I don't support narrowing the planting strip or 3 cutting trees. However, I don't support not addressing this critical safety need of this 4 intersection. I would like to see why this was ignored by the County, Staff, and in your 5 presentation to the community. It feels like we are locked into 3M or 4 and neither seem 6 adequate for the problem that exists. 7 8 Ms. Likens: I think that this is a package of things that there are tradeoffs for one thing. 9 Looking at improving the safety, all of these intersections are going to be improved with better 10 signalization, straighter crosswalks, no impediments to crossing the medians, better signalization, 11 and also as part of the project there will be reduced delay on the side streets including 12 Middlefield. They are very congested on Middlefield. But we do have finite width the 13 approaches on Middlefield. North of Oregon the street is 41 feet wide from curb-to-curb. South 14 it is 46 feet wide. Any additional lanes beyond what we have now have to come from the right- 15 of-way or the curb-to-curb width. Adding bike lanes at Middlefield would take up road space as 16 well, and none of the alternatives include removing a vehicular lane. That is what we have out 17 there now. We have a split phase operation and four lanes of traffic. Part of the problem with 18 the whole corridor and the delays at the major intersections are a result of having no left turn 19 lanes. 20 21 So the County's goal in this project is also to include left turn lanes, which would facilitate 22 operational improvements throughout the corridor that would also facilitate the safety 23 improvements on the side street approaches for the minor streets. So the concerns about bicycle 24 traffic I think the plan itself is maybe not optimal. Ifwe had more right-of-way and the ability to 25 add through bike lanes and change major changes at this intersection that would be a different 26 situation. We did share these recommendations with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and they 27 gave us input on their thoughts about the alternatives that were under discussion. Perhaps Rafael 28 can go into further detail about what we heard from our own advisory committee with regard to 29 the bicycle approach to this proj ect. 30 31 Mr. Rius: Regarding the Middlefield intersection the Bicycle Advisory Committee generally 32 they thought the alternatives were conlparable to what is out there right now, not necessarily 33 worse. The narrower lanes do tend to lead bicyclists to take the whole lane for themselves as 34 opposed to trying to squeeze in between cars. They did have some input regarding bicycle 35 detection and markings and possibly adding 'share the road' signs. They were understanding 36 that part of this project was to improve the crossings at Bryant and Ross nearby Middlefield. 37 They were not against the improvements at Middlefield. 38 39 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you, I appreciate that. I would just add a couple of other 40 comments about bicycle and pedestrian safety. I would look to see that at each six -phase or 41 eight-phase crossing that we have crosswalks on both sides of Oregon. I noted that you are 42 removing that from Bryant. I think if you change that right turn only it would be feasible to add 43 a crosswalk on that side. 44 Page 30 1 Then second thing I have a quick question about is is the pedestrian crossing going to be similar 2 to Homer and Alma where no cars are permitted to turn while pedestrians are crossing Oregon 3 Expressway or is it to be shared with cars? Thank you. 4 5 Mr. Rius: I don't believe there are any plans for a pedestrian only phase. Vehicles would still 6 need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. With regard to the Bryant Street crossing there 7 were several issues with this. I am trying to recall and maybe the County could chime in on why 8 the crosswalk. I know there were issues with the southwest comer and an existing redwood tree 9 being unsafe for pedestrian comer at that comer without removing the really huge redwood tree. 10 Also with it being a bicycle boulevard adding the crosswalk at the same time as trying to keep 11 one pedestrian crossing and the cycle length down there would be other sacrifices such as the 12 bike slot in the southbound direction. That was the reason P ABAC, the Bicycle Advisory 13 Committee, also was in agreement with the one side crosswalk being on the east side. 14 15 Commissioner Martinez: In this case I think the pedestrians weigh more heavily than the 16 bicyclists do. We have two crosswalks there now and pedestrians going to Alma, to the park, to 17 Caltrain, to California Avenue would cross there. They wouldn't cross on the other.side because 18 we don't provide a crosswalk to get across Bryant from the way it is proposed now. So I would 19 really urge you, I don't think it is impossible to come up with a plan to provide two crosswalks at 20 that intersection. Okay, thank you. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: To follow up on the question of Commissioner Martinez. In the plan 2M 25 does it make sense to put a crosswalk across Bryant Street on the north side of Oregon 26 Expressway? It seems like a pretty easy thing to do. 27 28 Ms. Likens: Could you repeat that? 29 30 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering in plan 2M does it make sense to provide a crosswalk 31 across Bryant Street on the north side of Oregon Expressway. 32 33 Mr. Collen: Physically it is simple enough to show a crosswalk. But the design that was 34 developed came out of discussion with the community in the community meetings, from the 35 residents nearby, comments that Rafael mentioned related to sight lines that the traffic sight line 36 was limited for the southeasterly quadrant, and that the residents reported that there was a lot of 37 late amber eastbound traffic. So the pedestrians needed to be able to get a good line of sight on 38 the traffic coming that couldn't be counted on to stop for an amber signal. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: I am not referring to a crosswalk across Oregon Expressway. I am 41 referring to a crosswalk across Bryant. 42 43 Mr. Collen: Across Bryant. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: North of Oregon Expressway, north of the service road there, north of 46 Oregon Avenue. Page 31 1 2 Ms. Likens: You are talking about on the City's, north of the frontage road. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: That is correct, north of the frontage road. 5 6 Ms. Likens: Not at the intersection. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: That is correct. 9 10 Ms. Likens: that would be something we could consider and discuss during the design phase. 11 That would be a City crosswalk. It wouldn't be at the expressway itself. It would be an 12 uncontrolled crosswalk because you do not stop at the frontage road when you are on Bryant. It 13 is something that could be looked at and discussed. I don't know whether we would have a 14 recommendation on that at this meeting. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Okay, well something to consider. There is a letter by Public Works 1 7 Managing Arborist, Eric Krebs. It looks confusing. I understand this statement might be a 18 question but the question mark is missing. It says, one might argue that if the proposal exhausts 19 all possible planning scenarios, this is presumably for scenario 3M, given the public property 20 constraints and it is still an inadequate plan, then is it wise to plant trees that would result in 21 liabilities such as the conflicts with traffic. I assume that is a question, is that right? 22 23 Ms. Caporgno: It sounds like it. We could confirm that with him but it sounds like it in reading 24 it. That is what we are inferring. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: So it sounds like he might be skeptical as to whether you could replace 27 the four trees that are being removed with new trees in the minimum width there. 28 29 A question for County Staff. Assuming that there was sufficient money for building the traffic 30 light across Oregon Expressway at Ross Road would the County be in favor of the option that 31 involves a traffic light at that intersection? . 32 33 Mr. Collen: We have developed the alternatives that we think are reasonable and more or less 34 interchangeable. We showed a preference for the option 2 just as a matter of timing. We would 35 I think respect the City's preferences on that. If the City is going to tell us that the City position 36 is that we should proceed with Alternative 3 at Ross. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Well, you said it is a nlatter of timing. Ifnot now when, to quote Hi! EI. 39 If we were not to build the traffic light at Ross Road when would it happen? 40 41 Mr. Collen: When the bike boulevard concept was fully developed. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: So doing a traffic light in anticipation of a bike boulevard -in other 44 words you have reservations about doing it in anticipation of bike boulevard but other than that if 45 the City wanted one for you it is just a matter of funding? 46 Page 32 1 Mr. Collen: Basically. I think that we have heard tonight from the public two different points of 2 view on that subject. So we have just identified that as a consideration. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: The fact that the distance between the traffic light currently at Bryant, at 5 Cowper, at Middlefield, and each of those distances are approximately the same as the distance 6 from Middlefield to Ross to Louis to Greer. There is sort of a rhythm there. Ross Road sort of 7 breaks the rhythm. There is a much larger gap between Middlefield and Louis Road. Do you 8 think that it is reasonable for a bicyclist wishing to or a pedestrian wishing to safely cross 9 Oregon Expressway at Ross Road to have to go to Louis or Middlefield considering that in all 10 the other locations they don't have to go nearly as far as this? 11 12 Mr. Collen: I think it depends on what the destinations are, what the attractions are, and the 13 general volume of crossing that needs to be accommodated. From a traffic point of view I don't 14 see that there is an issue with the additional light there. As an agency another light means 15 another maintenance liability for us and that is a consideration. We can easily blend that signal 16 into a timing plan. The timing plan would not be in operation all hours of the day though so 1 7 there would be times that an additional light means an additional stop for somebody. There are a 18 lot of different pluses and minuses that that could be considered. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: A couple of questions. One is the Stanford Research Park funding has 23 to do with or could be used for capacity or alternate improvements. How much money is that 24 component and what might be considered alternate improvements? 25 26 Ms. Likens: Are you asking what the budgeted item in the impact fee? 27 28 Commissioner Holnlan: Yes. 29 30 Ms. Likens: I think it was budgeted and the last time it was updated which was I think in 2001 31 for the ordinance that is currently in place as $1.2 million improvement. That was including 32 more widening than the County is proposing. In terms of looking at an alternate improvement 33 we would have to follow what the ordinance says and develop what would provide the same 34 mitigation at this intersection or other alternate intersections and I can't think of an alternate 35 intersection for Middlefield that would be proximate that would alleviate the congestion at 36 Middlefield, and then follow the course that is recommended in the ordinance, and that is to 37 develop a recommendation and seek Council approval for it. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: As opposed to alternate intersection what about alternate types of 40 improvements. Does Staff have any thoughts about what those might be or was there other 41 alternate improvenlents discussed during this whole discussion? 42 43 Ms. Likens: The alternate improvements are the one that are before you, and the precursors to 44 these that were winnowed out as being unacceptable to the conlIDunity and those largely involve 45 more widening and more loss of vegetation and landscaping. 46 Page 33 1 Commissioner Holman: I guess what I am trying to get at is were there alternate means that 2 didn't involve tree removal, widening of the street, as a member of the public said it is in conflict 3 with the Comprehensive Plan. So are there any other means like I think the signalization is 4 maximized here in this plan. Was there anything else that was feasible or was considered? 5 6 Ms. Likens: The purpose of this report wasn't to evaluate alternative improvements to meet the 7 goals of the mitigation measure for the Comprehensive Plan. What was referenced in this report 8 was how this project was consistent with the mitigation measure for Comprehensive Plan EIR. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I was referencing the Comprehensive Plan Policy that said that 11 we wouldn't widen intersections. So I am not sure if we are talking the same thing. That we 12 wouldn't widen capacity. 13 14 Ms. Likens: The Comprehensive Plan doesn't rule out completely widening, making capacity 15 improvements. It discourages widening and capacity improvements but it also directs us to look 16 at the benefits of bicycle and pedestrian safety when considering intersection improvements. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then Waverley is being proposed as having right tum only both 19 northbound and southbound as are indicated on the sheet, northbound and southbound. The con 20 is of course as indicated here is that there is no through traffic. So has any indication been made 21 or considered about what that would do to the adjacent streets in terms of increased traffic? 22 23 Ms. Likens: We would ask the County to comment on that first. I believe that they did do an 24 analysis. I think it is in the report of the impact of those restrictions. 25 26 Mr. Collen: Overall the diversion is pretty slight. Amanth will go into the specifics for you. He 27 is getting the material here. But in general the diversion is not a big number. What is interesting 28 and stands out as a number is the accident history at Waverley and the broadside accidents in the 29 accident history that we have collected. It is comparable with a much busier street so that would 30 indicate that it has a higher rate of accident. I will let Amanth speak. 31 32 Mr. Prasad: Waverley did not have a significant volume to begin with and the diverted volume 33 we are looking at is six through vehicles in the AM and five through vehicles in the PM on the 34 southbound side. On the northbound is five through vehicles in the AM, four through vehicles in 35 the PM going through. That is across. Then this is for the alternative that is proposed. So with 36 the very minor volume that traffic will be able to handle with a U-turn at the next signalized 37 intersection and that will not significantly impact because of the low volumes that are present at 38 Waverley. 39 40 What we heard at the community meeting is that the people who live on Waverley will not cross 41 during peak hours. So they are already doing those diversions anyway. So this does not impact 42 anything during the peak hours because people don't take chances crossing the expressway at 43 unsignalized locations. So they are already doing the diversions currently now. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Fineberg, you had a 46 couple more questions? Page 34 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: I anl trying to filter how to balance the goals of why we are doing this 3 project. We are trying to get more cars through with shorter delays on Oregon Expressway. We 4 are trying to improve crossings at some of the cross streets like Middlefield. We are trying to 5 make crossings at some of those intersections safer. If we implement the bike path at Ross that 6 would be one place and the same thing might be said at Bryant, and a couple of the other 7 locations. Weare also trying to balance the needs of the individuals who are most negatively 8 impacted by the projects with the needs of the people who use the routes. We are balancing 9 public health, safety, and the beneficial aspects of trees. Weighing all of those I am coming to 10 different answers at every different intersection. I am wondering if there is some easy sort 11 mechanism that do we simply say public health and safety is more important than trees and then 12 that is the guiding rule. Or do we say at a particular intersection we will tradeoff not have speed, 13 not sacrifice safety, and keep trees? But is speed, I shouldn't say speed, but number of cars 14 going through with less delay if that is an overwhelming priority I come to a different 15 conclusion. So how do we weigh those at each -if we could talk a little bit about that in our 16 other comments, how do we weight each of those? Maybe it is more important to get cars 17 through Middlefield with l~ss delay because that is a big choking point and maybe that is a place 18 where we compromise certainly not public health but maybe trees, but then not trees at other 19 locations. I am not sure I am willing to go that route. But then are we saying we are not going to 20 get the benefits of increased throughput with lower delay. So maybe Staff can help filter that. 21 22 Ms. Caporgno: It kind of feeds into what you were saying, the City Attorney found in the 23 Comprehensive Plan Policy T-28 is make effective us of the traffic carrying capacity of Palo 24 Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also 25 using this network. Then there is an inset, which is entitled Locations of Proposed Intersection 26 Improvements. Additional turning lanes and other related changes are proposed at the following 27 major intersections in Palo Alto, and one of them is Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: So what would the conclusion be from that? How do you prioritize the 30 values at Middlefield then? Public safety first, which would mean bicycles and pedestrians, and 31 then cars afterwards? Does that talk about trees? 32 33 Ms. Caporgno: I think it is one of those things that when you look at the Comprehensive Plan 34 that this is a judgment call. I think that policy says make effective use of the traffic carrying 35 capacity of Palo Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and 36 bicyclists. So I would say that the roadway improvements are a priority but at the same time you 37 are recognizing that you are not supposed to do something to the extent that there is going to be a 38 significant effect on bicyclists or pedestrians. 39 40 As far as the tree issue I realize that we have policies in the Comprehensive Plan about 41 preservation of trees but we are talking about four trees here too, so I don't know. That is one of 42 those things that you have to weigh. It is a judgment call. 43 44 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert you had another question. 45 Page 35 1 Commissioner Lippert: I do have another question before I ask my question though your 2 question was very leading. I wanted an opportunity to respond to it. I think that the priorities are 3 public safety number one, quality and character of the environment number two, and then traffic 4 number three. Level of Service as far as I am concerned is not in the equation here. These are 5 arterials and it is important that the traffic be able to move at a frequency, which is safe for the 6 pedestrians. With regard to the trees, trees not only define the quality and the character of our 7 environment and Oregon Expressway is a major boulevard, defining boulevard in our city and it 8 is defined by its trees, but the trees are a traffic calming element, important in terms of getting 9 people to slow down. 10 11 Now when you have an intersection there is no element needed to have cars slow down because 12 that is the traffic signal's job. But along mid-block the trees are very important as a traffic 13 calming measure. I want to use two very good examples. Middlefield Road in Menlo Park has 14 trees and because of that the traffic moves along at a reasonable speed, it is unimpaired, and it 15 flows very nicely. It is a very safe boulevard to move through and the experience is really one of 16 quality. The same thing happens out on Sand Hill Road where we have trees in the median. 17 Again, it slows the traffic down but it is really the traffic signal that has the traffic stop at the 18 intersection or is controlled at the intersection. 19 20 I almost used up all my time here and I want to ask my question. This is for Mr. Collen and I am 21 specifically looking at Middlefield Road, Alternative 3-Modified. What I am interested in is 22 pedestrian and bicycle safety getting through that intersection north on Middlefield Road. If I 23 look at the original diagram there is a pedestrian crosswalk. The old pedestrian crosswalks used 24 to have a diagonal line that would join up. So basically what you have is a box with the comers 25 beveled for the pedestrian. Today they take amuch more linear approach where it is the ramp 26 going to the pedestrian crosswalk that really directs pedestrians across the street. At that point 27 we have a piece of salvage that is left over in that intersection between where the traffic moves 28 and where the pedestrians are. Have you ever seen anything where that area might be striped for 29 a bicycle crosswalk where bicycles could bicycle across a major intersection like that in their 30 own north and southbound lane as such parallel with the pedestrian crosswalk? 31 32 Mr. Collen: No, I have not seen that. I would wonder how it would operate when the bicycle 33 traffic would have to rejoin the vehicular traffic on the far side of the intersection. In detailed 34 design we could consider any number of refinements or fine-tuning of these options working 35 with P ABAC and benefiting from their insight on those sorts of design questions. So I think we 36 are open to considering ideas like that but to respond directly to your question I have not seen 37 that used before, no. 38 39 Conlffiissioner Lippert: Just what I am thinking off the top of my head is simply I don't want to 40 see bicycles on Middlefield Road. I don't think Middlefield Road is a safe bicycling route. We 41 have bicycle routes or bicycle boulevards which are parallel to Middlefield Road that I ride all 42 the time. I see bicyclists on Middlefield Road and if I am driving I am in shock. I don't feel 43 comfortable with bicyclists on Middlefield Road. What I am looking at here is if there are 44 bicyclists and we are promoting them near where the middle school is a safe way for them to get 45 across Oregon Expressway and not be in conflict with the north or southbound traffic on 46 Middlefield Road. What I am thinking is if you have groups of cyclists, juveniles specifically, Page 36 1 that are going in groups up Middlefield Road they could just very carefully just edge over to 2 towards where the pedestrian crosswalk is but you don't want them in the pedestrian crosswalk. 3 So maybe a dashed line with a medallion and a bicycle on it saying that this is a bike lane to get 4 you across Oregon Expressway. 5 6 Mr. Collen: There are a number of treatments that are out there, sharros and whatnot. I am not 7 promoting any of those right now. I have a limited experience with Oregon Expressway and 8 Middlefield but when I have been there what I have seen is particularly for the students headed 9 to the middle school are that they are riding on the sidewalk. I am not sure what the status of that 10 is with Palo Alto code or whatever, but it seemed like a practical solution. They just use the 11 sidewalk and the crosswalk in order to get over to the school without having to blend into the 12 traffic. 13 14 Commissioner Holnlan: Commissioner Martinez, did you have any more questions? 15 16 Commissioner Martinez: Just one real quick thing. Is this a package deal? Do we have to 17 accept all six proposals or variations there or can we pick and choose what we would like to see? 18 19 Ms. Likens: You have the ability to make your comments and recommendations to the Council 20 as you wish. But I think the minor streets are more independent although the eight-phase 21 operations on most of the minor streets would be necessary, or six phase, in order for the 22 coordination plans to work with the project. So leaving it as it is is probably not a good idea on 23 those side streets or minor streets. 24 25 Commissioner Martinez: I agree with that but could we trade Bryant for Ross for example to 26 make sure it gets funded? 27 28 Ms. Likens: I think at this point I would caution you about trying to figure out how it is going to 29 get funded and whether we have enough money right now. We don't know that. The County 30 doesn't know that. That would be something that we would bring back down the line if there 31 were a problem that something isn't going to fit in the budget what do we do now? That would 32 be for the County to come back to the City and talk about that, see if there is some opportunities 33 to make things happen the way both agencies would like to see them happen. 34 35 Commissioner Martinez: I agree with that. I was not proposing that we decide right now. 36 Thank you. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So firstly there was some mention by a member of the public 41 with respect to flashing arrows. I am not sure of the detail of the question but I am wondering if 42 that is worthwhile addressing now or should be addressed in the more detailed design phase. 43 44 Mr. Rius: I believe what he was referring to is there are other methods but he was referring to 45 the protective permitted phasing, where it is protected some part of the time and permitted other 46 parts of the time. Page 37 1 2 Conllilissioner Keller: Yes, I think it was intended for off-hour use so that you didn't have all 3 the full delays in offhours. 4 5 Mr. Rius: That is correct. I know one of the primary intentions of these improvements was to 6 eliminate the conflicting movements between the left turners and the pedestrians and the left 7 turners and oncoming traffic. Other than providing the protected left tunlS during the peak 8 period it essentially would be what we have right now. Maybe Amanth can explain more. 9 10 Mr. Prasad: Thank you. If you look at the current intersection configuration other than 11 Middlefield everything else is permitted left turns. So when there is an opportunity and there is 12 no conflict left turns can happen with the green ball. If you look -at what the community has said 13 that has overwhelmingly supported they want to remove the conflict. If you leave it to people to 14 make that decision, if they are late for something they are going to take that risk. That is what is 15 happening today. We had a video clip in one of the community meetings that I recorded to show 16 how aggressive these people are. So you can leave it at some point, maybe at a rural intersection 1 7 where there is not a lot of traffic it makes sense, but in an urban setting that is not a good option 18 to leave it to people. At certain times you have to restrict because you have seen a pattern of 19 potential accidents because of their behavior. This is one the reasons that we are addressing it at 20 other locations is the safety, to enhance safety, pedestrian safety and bicycle safety with the 21 conflict from left turning vehicles. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: So to summarize, what you are suggesting is a few second delay for the 24 cars turning left is worth it for the dramatic improvement in safety provided. 25 26 Mr. Prasad: Exactly. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was a comparison also made by a member of the 29 public with respect to Waverley versus Cowper. Cowper has a traffic light. Am I reading this 30 right in this big draft report that it looks like most of the traffic from Cowper onto Oregon is 31 turning left in a northbound direction? So that is probably the most important direction. On 32 Waverley there is almost no traffic going through or turning left it is mostly cars turning right at 33 that intersection so that is useful for comparison. This is sort of an analysis question so I am not 34 sure how ~asi1y it can be answered in real time if you will. Obviously the large part of the goal 35 of this is to increase throughput on Oregon Expressway. To what extent does either Alternative 363M or Alternative 4 on Middlefield improve throughput on Middlefield so as to reduce the desire 37 for cut-through traffic on alternative streets? Is there improvement for Middlefield itself? 38 39 Mr. Collen: First let me address the perception of the goal being to increase the throughput on 40 Oregon. It is not about increasing the throughput on Oregon. It is about responding to the 41 community concern that was expressed at our very first community meeting where people said, 42 pretty overwhelmingly, can you time the lights on Oregon? We would like you to time the 43 lights. So the proj ect addresses the bottleneck location at Middlefield and then with the eight- 44 phasing at the other intersections. We will be creating the opportunity for timing the lights 45 during the peak periods. That will allow for as Amanth has presented a predictable flow at a 46 predictable speed so that we can have controlled smooth flow of traffic. But it is about reducing Page 38 1 the stop delay, the unnecessary idling and unnecessary auto emissions, in order to make it flow 2 smoother. Not that we are planning for more of it. The benefit of improving Middlefield will 3 be, as we have shown in the LOS analysis, an improved operation. So there will be less delay 4 and a better operation of that intersection for the cross street traffic as well as the Oregon traffic. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: So the idea is that this will smooth out traffic and reduce the delay . 7 traversing Oregon Expressway and it will also improve the delay in all directions for Middlefield 8 Road, for the Oregon direction and for the Middlefield traffic. 9 10 Mr. Collen: Yes I would say that as Middlefield is bottleneck for Oregon, Oregon is a bottleneck 11 for Middlefield. So by improving that intersection operation then both flows are improved. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Okay. By improving that flow would that tend to decrease the desire for 14 people taking cut-through traffic on either Cowper or Ross for example? 15 16 Mr. Collen: I am not sure that I am the right guy to come to that conclusion, but I would think 17 that if traffic is frustrated with the queues on Middlefield and decides to take a different route, a 18 shorter queue would give less incentive to take another route. A better operation of the signal 19 with less delay for the crossing should keep people on their route rather encouraging them to find 20 some other route. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Does Staff want to add to that? I have one more question 23 and I am wondering if I should ask that now or let other people go first? 24 25 So my final question is the first question, sort of returning back to the original question. It has to 26 do with the northbound traffic on Middlefield Road approaching Oregon Expressway. The 27 question I raised earlier addresses the issue of whether there is a conflict between the right lane 28 and traffic turning right and bicycles and pedestrians going through, and understanding exactly 29 what the issue is for that. The benefits of a right tum lane there versus the benefits of that lane 30 being a through or right tum lane. That seems to be the biggest most controversial issue. 31 32 I understand that PABAC prefers improvements at Middlefield. Did they make a preference for 333M or 4 or what that not asked of them? 34 35 Mr. Rius: It was discussed in March and they didn't make a specific recommendation of one 36 alternative over the other. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so we don't know whether they prefer 3M or 4. 39 40 Mr. Rius: No. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: They just like whatever is happening over what is there now. 43 44 Mr:Rius: Yes. 45 Page 39 1 Mr. Prasad: They did comment on having a preference over 3 because having two lanes will 2 help the bicyclist to hug the curb and continue on rather than just when they approach the 3 intersection they would have to move away and move back in. If you look at the picture there 4 that is the alternative with one thr9ugh lane and that is where the bicyclist would have to ride 5 along the curb line approaching the intersection, but as they come closer because it becomes a 6 right turn only they would have to move into the through lane. They did say that is a difficult 7 move to do for the bicyclists, especially on Middlefield because there is so much traffic. Then 8 they would have to come back. So if you were to have two through lanes, if you go back to the 9 picture with two through lanes, then the bicyclist would be riding along the curb line and just to continue on. The vehicle that turns right will have to yield for the bicycle. That is typical at all 11 intersections. So that was one of the comments that they made. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So what I am hearing from you is that the main drawback of 4 over 3M is 14 that in 4 the bicyclists who want to be on the main portion of the Middlefield roadway have to 15 move over in order to bypass the right turners. 16 17 Mr. Prasad: Correct. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: In the 3M scenario the bicyclists are hopefully given the right-of-way by 20 right turning cars. 21 22 Mr. Prasad: Well, the lanes are narrow enough. That is another thing that they like about this is 23 that the lanes are narrower. Usually if you have a 12-foot lane they would have to share with the 24 vehicles. With the nine-foot lane they cannot share so they would have to take the whole lane 25 anyway. So when they take the whole lane it is a lot better to have two lanes because they could 26 be on the curb lane and just keep going. But they would take the whole lane. They would not be 27 sharing the road with the motor vehicles with the nine-foot lane. It is too narrow to share. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Do we have any data on how many of the bicyclists are actually on the 30 sidewalk and going across the crosswalk and how many of them are on the main roadway? 31 32 Ms. Likens: We don't have statistics on that, current statistics. Typically most adult cyclists are 33 riding in the road. This is a commuter route. We have bike lanes further south on Middlefield. 34 It is a bike route in Mountain View. It is a commuter route north and south. So most adult 35 cyclists if they are commuter cyclists are probably in the lane. Casual cyclists, less comfortable 36 cyclists who are still using Middlefield probably are on the sidewalk and most students ride on 37 the sidewalks from my observations going to Jordan. 38 39 Con1ll1issioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: If I might interject just quickly. With regard to that the right hand lane 42 could have a median with a bicycle as a shared lane for automobiles and bicyclists. As a cyclist 43 myself I am not comfortable getting into a middle lane with a right hand turn. It is really 44 problematic right in the middle of two cars moving and it is very uncomfortable. 45 Page 40 1 Commissioner Keller: Could you elaborate on what you are suggesting? You are suggesting the 2 bicyclists be allowed to go straight and the cars be allowed to go right. Is that what you are 3 suggesting? 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: I am suggesting that the Alternative 3-Modified is appropriate not the 6 Alternative 4 because it is very uncomfortable for a bicyclist to be in between the right hand tum 7 and being in that straight on lane. I am an adult not a little kid and it is a very uncomfortable 8 situation. What I was suggesting is on the Alternative 3-Modified if bicyclists and automobiles 9 were sharing that right hand lane that is going straight ahead, something similar to what is done 10 on Alma Street from Homer to Hamilton. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: You mean a sharro? 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: It has a cyclist with a line going through it might be appropriate. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: I think those are technically called sharros. That is what I understand and 1 7 what I think you are referring to. 18 19 Mr. Rius: The technical term is Share the Road symbol but more commonly referred to as 20 sharros. Those are typically applied where there is parallel parking and there isn't on 21 Middlefield at this section. So by the guidelines they would not be appropriate. There are 22 exceptions to the guidelines. The signage that typically accompanies that goes on the side of the 23 road, warning signs that say to share the road are applicable even without parallel parking. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Finberg, you had one last question? 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. The Alternative 3M plan at Middlefield I would concur with 28 Commissioner Lippert's assessment that as an adult cyclist it is easier to continue straight when 29 you are at the right lane with the curb. But my question is, and I want to make sure I understand 30 from the conceptual drawing, if we are in the 3M version is Oregon Expressway must we lose 31 those islands that go in the east-west direction along Oregon Expressway? So is the pedestrian 32 then crossing the entire length of the street, both directions of traffic, without any mid-street 33 island? Must they be forced into that position? Is there any alternative for the east-west 34 direction in 3M? Does that make sense? 35 36 Ms. Likens: The current median islands currently extent into the crosswalks. They are an 37 obstacle in the crosswalks now in the middle of Oregon Expressway. So they will be cutback. It 38 is my understanding that the timing will allow for pedestrians to cross the entire expressway 39 without a median pedestrian push button. 40 41 Mr. Prasad: There will be sufficient time for a pedestrian to cross from one comer to the other. 42 There will be no need for them to stop in the middle. Having medians like what protrude now is 43 not advisable for blinds who may be crossing there and it is an obstacle that they can't see. So 44 this is the preferred design and it is in ADA compliance. This is the latest new standard and the 45 timing will be sufficient to get the pedestrian from one comer to another comer safely in one 46 cycle. Page 41 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So I understand that it won't protrude into the crosswalk but as 3 a monl of two kids, now eight and ten, you are standing there and a shoe flies off. One went with 4 their father and you are struggling to get a kid in a loose shoe and then shopping bag flies open. 5 No matter how your signals are timed the kids are going to be taking their own time. There have 6 been occasions where I have to seek shelter in that center island. So I just want to make sure I 7 understand. It is going to be pushed back out of the middle of the crosswalk but will it still in 8 fact be there so when disaster strikes you can seek shelter, you are just to the side of the . 9 crosswalk but it is still the same width, it is there. 10 11 Mr. Prasad: Yes. On Oregon Expressway whatever median you see will still continue to stay 12 there but it will be just out of the crosswalk that's alL 13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: Great, thank you. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: If I can remember I had a couple of little questions. One was again 17 having to do with the funding but there aren't any trees proposed to be added, but we have all 18 talked about trees. Is there any opportunity funding-wise or otherwise, because again I am 19 looking at alternative improvements, to add trees at the intersections? You think about the trees 20 on any of the intersections where you look. We lost one at an important comer recently because 21 it was diseased and it just totally changed the complexion of the street. 22 23 If you are going down Oregon and you look at the changes that are being made it does in some 24 regards, if nothing else just because of the very character of the streetlights, makes it look more 25 urban. So if we can plant trees we are going to help retain some of the character of what Palo 26 Alto is. So is there some possibility for that? 27 28 Ms. Likens: I think that is something that if you recommend we pass onto the County and we 29 could also do that independently. I don't know what their plans are but if they could incorporate 30 additional landscaping and vegetation within the project, and the budget would allow for it, we 31 certainly would support that. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: And we could specifically indicate trees? I had a second question but I 34 think it is gone. So we will close the public hearing and go to Commissioners for one round of 35 comments and then we will hopefully have a motion. Commissioner Martinez would you like to 36 go first? Commissioner Keller has one last question. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Is it envisioned that the $3.5 million from the County will be enough for 39 this project? What is the expected use of the $1.2 million from the City for Oregon and 40 Middlefield? 41 42 Ms. Likens: The County can respond. I think they have tried to respond that they don't really 43 know whether the budget is sufficient yet or not but they think it might be. The Stanford 44 Research Park Impact Fee we have been collecting impact fees for a long time and there is about 45 $2.5 million currently residing there. We have four projects that still need to be done: Page 46 Mill, Oregon and EI Camino, Hanover and Page Mill, and Middlefield. Those projects exceed Page 42 1 the current available funding in the Stanford Research Park Impact Fee as we have collected it to 2 date. So to say there is exactly $1.2 million that was the estimate of the cost of the improvement 3 at the time the impact fee was updated last in 2001. There is no discreet amount in the impact 4 fee funds that have been collected currently for Middlefield/Oregon. 5 6 Mr. Collen: To clarify the project funding, the project was described as a $3.5 million project 7 and thanks to the efforts of your local Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo it was put into a federal bill 8 for surface transportation authorization. Through the earmark process $2.8 million as a federal 9 grant was made available. So the remaining $700,000 would be a County match, which we have 10 pressed forward with the project, but you know with the economy and the state budget and 11 whatnot there has been a lot of pressure on the Public Works Departments and the Road 12 Department as an agency of the County with the efforts to balance the state budget. So we are 13 committed to move the project forward but we certainly would be welcoming any Palo Alto 14 participation in helping us put together the match that is required for the federal earmark. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: So if Palo Alto wanted you to -let's just for discussion sake suppose it 17 cost $250,000 for Ross Road. suppose that everything but Ross Road was $3.5 million would 18 the County envision City of Pal 0 Alto contributing $250,000 towards Middlefield and the 19 County using their money towards Ross Road or would the County say thank you very much for 20 your $250,000, we will reduce our contribution to $450,000? 21 22 Mr. Collen: Well I think we need to cost out all of the proj ect elements and get a better handle 23 on exactly what the individual pieces are and what the sum total would look like before we start 24 looking at different alternatives. At the present moment, like I said earlier, we think that 25 financially we are in good shape. That is based on what we know right now and the very, very 26 rough estimate that we have done. We would certainly welcome assistance with putting together 27 the match for the federal grant or contribution to extend the scope of the project, either way. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: So if the City of Palo Alto wanted to extend the scope for example to 30 improve the landspaping along Oregon Expressway then that is possible. 31 32 Mr. Collen: Absolutely, yes. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: I remembered my question. One of the speakers commented about 37 making the parking I believe it was along Louis, Cowper, or Ross so that isn't a 24-hour 38 restricted parking but it is only restricted parking during peak traffic hours. Would Staffhave a 39 response on that? It was Sheri Furman's comment. 40 41 Mr. Rius: After that comment was made I briefly skimmed through the plans and it appears a lot 42 of the lanes wouldn't be sufficiently wide enough to accommodate travel and parking. A lot of 43 the travel lanes are up against the curb. So even having nighttime parking at least within the 44 limits identified as no parking, I think the extent of the no parking was minimized as much as 45 possible. So just on a quick skim through the plans I don't think that is possible but we can look 46 at it in more detail during the final design. Page 43 1 2 Mr. Prasad: During the design we did look at or we had a longer section of no parking zone. So 3 to minimize the impact I believe at Greer we are limiting to only 75 feet. As you can see 4 typically the first 50 feet is a no parking anyway because the right turning vehicles need to get on 5 the thing and that is typical. We are extending 75 feet from the intersection so it is not much. At 6 Louis I think it is about 105 feet on one side. So since we have an eight-phase signal it means 7 we have a left turn lane and a through lane. You cannot accommodate parking like for example 8 like there is at Middlefield with two lanes. I think you have a 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM parking 9 restrictions. At night from 7 :00 PM to 7 :00 AM they can park because the traffic is low and 10 there are two lanes. This one will not support that. That is why it is limited. When we designed 11 it we made sure that we are not impacting too many residents. It is probably the first resident or 12 something. We also looked at whether they have alternate parking spots and there is plenty of 13 available parking. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. One last question. The pedestrian and bicycle underpass at 16 EI Camino is not part of this project but could it be addressed? Is it too far out of the physical 17 scope or is it because it didn't address intersections? Again, it is interlinked because of the 18 pedestrian and bicycle safety so could it be a part of the scope of this? 19 20 Ms. Likens: Are you referring to the Alma railroad-crossing underpass? 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Yes. 23 24 Ms. Likens: Okay. The County Expressway Master Plan document that was approved in 2003 25 and updated in 2008 includes one project that is not part of this high priority tier one operational 26 improvement proj ect that is currently under consideration. It is conducting a feasibility study for 27 what should be done to improve the under-crossing of the railroad tracks and Alma Street and the 28 whole interchange. That is, and perhaps Mr. Collen can comment on where that is in the priority 29 list. It was not a tier I-A project, which this one is. It was something less than that. I don't have 30 the plan in front of me but it is on the Expressway Master Plan. 31 32 Mr. Collen: I think Gayle has covered it pretty well. They were identified as separate projects 33 because the focus was different and the scopes were different, and the potential impacts were 34 different, as well as the benefits were different. The work on Oregon at the intersections 35 addresses the intersection safety, capacity, and Level of Service and whatnot. The under- 36 crossing is basically about infrastructure reconstruction. It would be a massive undertaking and 37 so it was put at a lower tier for future study, which we would propose to do when we have 38 sufficient funding to advance the entire list of higher priority projects that the County has under 39 consideration. That would be just a study to begin with because we recognize that it is going to 40 be a significant investment of money to make that happen. 41 42 Commissioner Holman: I am not looking for an answer to this but just a quick comment is that I 43 am assuming, but don't want to, that the safety of that location is checked fairly regularly 44 because there is spalling, the term for concrete when it gets wet. That concrete gets wet all the 45 time, the walls of it and such, so I am hoping that gets inspected regularly. 46 Page 44 1 So comments Commissioners, it is 10:20 so one round of comments and then hopefully we will 2 find a motion. Commissioner Martinez. 3 4 Conmlissioner Martinez: Although I appeared to be unusually hypercritical tonight, I am really a 5 nice guy. I wanted to comment the County, your consultants, our Staff for really an excellent 6 and easy to follow and well designed report. I think you did a great job. 7 8 I was thinking about the comments of the moms at tonight's public hearing. One of the things 9 that sticks out in nly nlind is the comment that cars turning right often don't see the children that 10 are there crossing the street. I would particularly want to emphasize the need to have an 11 exclusive pedestrian crossing light at Greer, at Louis, and perhaps at Middlefield where we know 12 the children are going to be crossing in great numbers in the morning and after school. 13 14 I am still struggling with what is happening at Middlefield. I feel we just don't have the right 15 solution yet. I feel that in part it is because of the requirement, I will call it, or the need 16 perceived by our Traffic Engineers to have that exclusive left turn lane on Middlefield. It is 17 causing us to find the space for that third lane, to narrow the remaining lanes, to suggest that we 18 encroach upon the planting strip and remove trees. There is a domino effect of this probably 19 rightly perceived improvement on traffic turning left. I am still not convinced that it is more than 20 a ten percent improvement, five percent, slightly better than what we have now, but at a great 21 cost. While I am willing to accept just about everything else in your report I would really 22 encourage you to give more consideration to what we are going to be doing at Middlefield Road. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller, comments. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I had the opportunity to see up close all the hard work and 27 diligence and really listening that the County and City Staff do to the public in this process. I 28 know that I went to I think all of most of the meetings and I think those were among the best run 29 and respectful public outreach meetings of those kind that I have been to. So I would commend 30 all the people involved in putting those on. 31 32 I think that the intersection at Ross Road needs a traffic light there to enable the Ross Road bike 33 boulevard to be built at sonle point. Even if the Ross Road bike boulevard isn't built redirecting 34 the students who live east of Middlefield to be able to cross Ross Road to be able to get to Jordan 35 seems to make a lot of sense independent of whether there is a bike boulevard there. Directing 36 them off of Middlefield is a dramatic improvement of safety and for that reason alone I would do 37 this. 38 39 I am somewhat skeptical about the ability to put a full bike boulevard along Ross Road. I don't 40 mean a bike route but a bike boulevard because one of the things noticed about Bryant Street is 41 that Bryant Street has traffic blocks, traffic diverters, and things like that. There are in South 42 Palo Alto where there are creeks the only way to get across the creek on Bryant Street are little 43 bike bridges and pedestrian bridges, and that doesn't exist on Ross Road so it would require 44 putting some sort of blocks along the road. I don't know if we are ready for that. That being 45 said I do think it is worthwhile putting a traffic light there for pedestrians and bicyclists. 46 Page 45 1 With respect to Middlefield Road I think that there is no easy answer. I think that certainly the 2 County Staffhas worked on trying to reduce this from their idea, which would try to make 3 enough width in both directions, and each time it has been narrowed. The most persuasive 4 argument to me for 3M is the conflict for bicyclists going northbound on Middlefield in the 5 traffic lane, that conflict with having to move over. I think that the traffic light at Ross Road is 6 somewhat of a mitigation for that problem. Most of the bicyclists that I see are actually on the 7 sidewalk and not on the roadway. It seems to me that weighing all the issues 3M seems to be the 8 best approach, I'm sorry 4M. The fourth one seems to be the best approach. I mixed it with 3M. 9 Four has the problem with the right tum lane and so four is the best approach because for one 10 thing it does not remove the trees on Middlefield Road. It doesn't require widening the road 11 right-of-way. The other thing it does is it means that when you have a person going in the right 12 hand lane who wants to go straight and is stuck behind somebody turning right who is stuck by a 13 pedestrian or bicyclist you have a problem there. So that is a sticky situation. By having a 14 dedicated right tum lane there it means that traffic can freely turn right easily on that, can tum 15 right on red when people are making left turns from Oregon onto Middlefield. It means that at 16 that intersection you won't have redirection from there onto Ross Road for people going towards 17 101. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: First of all I want to thank the neighbors, the County and City Staff for 22 coming together. I think that the proposals tonight and what I see in the Staff Report is a 23 win/win situation for everybody. I think that we are beginning to arrive at some consensus in 24 terms of approaching Oregon Expressway. When this process started out I really see that there 25 were almost competing interests and now as I see the solutions I begin to see that everybody can 26 walk away with something that is positive fronl the Staff Report and what has been 27 recommended this evening. 28 29 I am pretty much in agreement with the Staff Report and the recommendations here. I just want 30 to stress two things. Number one, I am really in support of the Ross Road Alternative 3. I think 31 that is a particularly important element and that should move forward as part of our 32 recommendation this evening. In addition to that the Middlefield Road Alternative 4 I am not a 33 proponent of, I don't support that at all. But I do support the Middlefield Road Alternative 3- 34 Modified. I think that is a really good approach here. 35 36 Now, my comments are really based on the primary thing, which is pedestrian and bicyclist 37 safety. I think if we promote Ross Road as a bicycle boulevard what it is going to do is take 38 bicycles off of Middlefield Road and allowing that to be the arterial that it needs to be for traffic 39 feeding into Oregon Expressway. What I want to do is separate out and I want to really get or 40 promote the students that are bicycling to both the middle school and Garland Elementary 41 School, whether it is a public school or private school, to take that Ross Road bicycle boulevard 42 as their main route. When I am out cycling I look for safe routes to bicycle on. I look for routes 43 that are marked. I look for routes that have bicycle lanes. I look for the measures that are put in 44 place that slow vehicular traffic. I am not going to find that on Middlefield Road. What I am 45 going to find is cars that are really trying to find the most expeditious way to get home or to get 46 to work. I am also going to find that on Oregon Expressway. But with the Ross Road element Page 46 1 built what happens is you come up Ross Road, you hit Garland Drive, and you can go left or 2 right. You can get over to Louis Road or you can get back onto Middlefield Road and wrap 3 around and get to the middle school there. So I think that is a very important element and it 4 pretty much keeps the bicyclists off of Middlefield Road, which is what I want to try to promote. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, comments. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: I would also like to commend the County in bringing forward a very 9 good process incorporating many divergent interests and bringing forward a proposal that seems 10 to be something that offers a great amount to different groups with different interests. 11 12 On Ross Road I think it is important that there be the signalized crossing with the bike slots. 13 Ross even without being a bicycle boulevard is relatively calm compared to the adjacent parallel 14 streets. It is wider and it is lovely to bicycle on with little kids but you can't get anywhere from 15 the northern end of Ross at Oregon. So having just that safe crossing across Oregon means it 16 becomes more usable even if we do nothing else on Ross. So I would definitely advocate for the 1 7 solution 3 on Ross. 18 19 For Middlefield I would concur with Commissioner Martinez's characterization that it is not 20 quite there yet. There are some parts of the 3-Modified plan that I think are ideal and there are 21 some parts of plan 4. In 4 that right tum lane just seems awful. I can also see a scenario where 22 people will pull up to the comer, talking on their cell phone, pass the sign that says right tum 23 only, be sitting on top of the right tum arrow, drive straight across the intersection and try to 24 merge with the car that has the lane, and it will not be something that promotes safety for 25 bicycles. So I don't think that one straight lane and the two tum lanes is an ideal scenario. 26 27 I don't think anyone wants to lose trees. But ifit nleans we get the intersection right with 3M, if 28 there is any way that can be reconfigured, out of the box thinking, I can't make suggestions of 29 that tonight, but that would sort of be the best of both worlds. I think with what is on the table 30 right now the modified third plan is the ideal scenario at Middlefield. 31 32 The only other thing would be if when the motion is made if whoever makes it remembers my 33 suggestion to add the PTA Council to the list of neighborhood groups that will be involved in the 34 furthering discussions. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller, do you have a motion? 37 38 MOTION 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I anl going to make a nlotion and we will see how many people 41 support it. So I am going to move the Staff recommendation with the following changes. First 42 of all I am going to emphasize that we are totally in support of Ross Road alternative that 43 includes the traffic light. I am also going to modify the Staff recommendation to recommend 44 Alternative 4 rather than Alternative 3-Modified. 45 Page 47 1 With respect to point four make three changes. One is to add to the list of people that Staff 2 works with the PTA Council Traffic Safety Committee Representative. The second is a Planning 3 and Transportation Commission Representative, and that the report is to the Planning and 4 Transportation Commission and then the Council rather than just directly to the Council. In 5 addition, I am not sure whether this should or should not be part of the motion but to consider the 6 potential for expanding the scope to include the landscaping improvements to Oregon 7 Expressway in part due to the damage that was done with the sidewalks that were added, if 8 necessary. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Is there a second? 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Commissioner Martinez: Second. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez seconds. Would the maker care to speak to his 17 motion or do you feel like you have already? 18 19 Commissioner Keller: I think I have sufficiently spoken to this. I realize there is a lot of 20 controversy with respect to Middlefield Road, Alternative 4 versus Alternative 3M. There is no 21 way to build the equivalent of Alternative 3M without widening Middlefield Road. You cannot 22 physically put five lanes in north of the intersection, north of Middlefield Road intersection from 23 the Garland direction. There is no way to put five lanes there without widening the roadway. 24 The roadway there is five feet narrower than the roadway to the south of Oregon Expressway. 25 That is the only way you can fit those five lanes is because of the extra five feet. So we have a 26 choice either four lanes north of Oregon Expressway and no widening, or widen by five feet 27 essentially and five lanes. My preference is to not widen. Thank you. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: If I might just clarify your motion is for Ross Road it is Alternative 3 30 because that includes the signal? 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, for Ross Road it is Altenlative 3, which includes the signal, which I 33 believe is the part of the Staff recommendation number three. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez would you care to speak to your second? 36 37 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. Since I am losing traction on getting anyone to listen to coming 38 up with a better alternative for Middlefield I was persuaded in part by Commissioner Lippert's 39 remark that the signalization of Ross Road would encourage more bicyclists to use that instead 40 of Middlefield. With some public education for the availability of a safe crossing at Ross Road I 41 am less inclined to feel that the single lane crossing Oregon Expressway would be as problematic 42 for bicyclists as it would be otherwise. So in a way I am supporting both Alternative 4 for 43 Middlefield Road and Alternative 3 for Ross Road working in tandem to improve a situation that 44 really needs our attention now as the highest priority of this project. Thank you. 45 Page 48 1 Commissioner Holman: Before the other Commissioners speak to the motion I am going to ask 2 for an amendment if I might, that has to do with your landscape component of your motion. I 3 would just make it a recomnlendation and not have all the conditions in it that landscape 4 improvements along Oregon be a necessary component and especially the inclusion of trees and 5 most especially at intersections. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Let me try rewording that statement to say consider the potential for 8 expanding the scope to include landscaping improvenlents along Oregon Expressway. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: That is not what I am looking for. 'Consider the potential for' does not 11 to me make it an imperative to make this a successful project. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So are you suggesting that the rewording be expand the scope, period. 14 Expand the scope to include landscaping improvements, period. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: Trees. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Expand the scope to include trees and other landscaping improvements 19 along Oregon Expressway. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: And most especially the intersections. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: Okay, sure. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: Accepted by the seconder as well? 26 27 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to the 30 motion? 31 32 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I would like to actually make a substitute motion, which is to 35 accept all of the language in Commissioner Keller's motion with the exception of adopting 36 Middlefield Road Alternative 3-Modified. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: Is there a second? 39 40 SECOND 41 42 Commissioner Fineberg: I will second that. 43 44 Commissioner Holman: I am hesitating here because I think you have heard three people speak 45 to favoring Alternative 4 so I am not quite sure the purpose of the motion. 46 Page 49 1 Commissioner Lippert: Well, let me make my case. 2 3 Comnlissioner Holnlall: Make your case, okay. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: Actually my feeling about it is I honestly believe that a good solution 6 has not been found here, that there is really a marriage of the two proposals somewhere in the 7 middle. I honestly believe that the two lanes going north are the most compelling for me. 8 Coming south I do agree with this scheme number 4. Maybe there is a way for us to find a 9 middle ground and just say it is not totally resolved and this one area that needs additional work. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, care to speak to your second? 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I would agree and this goes back to Commissioner Martinez's 14 comment that I don't think we have the right solution yet at Middlefield. The one through lane 15 at a large intersection of an arterial road is a greater negative to me than the loss of a beautiful 16 aesthetic area for a couple hundred feet. I think back to when I was learning to drive and I was 17 convinced if I couldn't see over the hump of a hill the road was going to end. If I didn't see 18 where the highway exit was going I didn't trust that it was going to continue. I was 15 and a half 19 driving on interstates and I remember my dad told me a big road isn't going to go down to one 20 lane. We have areas like on Charleston where in the whole corridor we are doing traffic calnling 21 but people just don't expect a big road, Middlefield, which for miles has been two lanes to 22 suddenly go to one lane. So to me it is more than just how is a bike going to get across it with a 23 right turn lane there. It just doesn't fit traffic patterns that people are used to functioning in. So 24 because of that south, the intersection going north on the southern side of Oregon it just doesn't 25 work. It wouldn't work for me. So I would encourage my fellow Commissioners if they would 26 be supportive of a compromise where we direct Staff to rework that and not take a position. I 27 would be supportive of that but I don't think I could vote for the entire package if we went with 28 Alternative 4. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: If I could restate my motion, I would say that I would prefer to see a 33 melding or a compromising of Alternative 3-Modified and Alternative 4 as originally proposed. 34 That would be my restated motion. Do you concur with that? 35 36 Commissioner Fineberg: I will second that. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: Conu:ltissioner Martinez you have comments? 39 40 Commissioner Martinez: It sounds like we are coming around to a position that we don't have a 41 solution for Middlefield that a majority can support. I would be in favor of asking Staff to take 42 another look at this, asking the County as well, with the provision that we not reduce the planting 43 strip or remove trees. I think it is somewhat ironic after our study session earlier where we are 44 trying to put language into Comprehensive Plan that sticks that we are now perhaps looking 45 away from this and supporting a modification of Middlefield that removes trees. So I would be Page 50 1 entirely in favor of looking for a compromise between 3M and 4 that we ask Staff to look at that 2 doesn't remove trees from the planting area. Thank you. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: If I nlight ask Staff, do you anticipate or maybe the designers or 5 engineers here too, is there is any concept that might be possible or feasible to come up with a 6 melding of the two that did not remove trees and planting strips? 7 8 Ms. Likens: I would just say, and the County can respond, they looked at alnlost every 9 conceivable layout that would work, aside from the current configuration, which is six phases, 10 which has split phasing on Middlefield and doesn't have left turn pockets. Their interest is to 11 provide the opportunity to go to eight-phase operation, which requires exclusive left tum lanes 12 on Middlefield. Looking at the alignment of the north and south segments of Middlefield and 13 the different widths of those two segments and aligning the lanes perhaps there is an alternative 14 out there that wasn't looked at but I am not sure what it would be. 15 16 Mr. Collen: I think that Commission Melnber Keller has stated the mathematics pretty 17 succinctly. There are 41 feet if you want to put five lanes in there then without moving the curb 18 you would have to go to an eight-foot lane, which I don't think anybody would recommend. A 19 car is about six feet wide, a truck is about eight-feet wide, and a bus is about eight plus mirrors. 20 So there is no real way to shoehorn anything more in there. It is a difficult tradeoffbut the 21 tradeoff is going to have to be confronted and you are going to have to pick a direction. I don't 22 see the two directions as being compatible. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Commissioners, if I might in just an effort to move this along and try to 25 get a vote on the motions. I am going to support the original motion rather than the substitute 26 motion and here is why. Currently when you are going north you have to merge. Actually 27 Commissioner Lippert almost made the argument for using 4 because of I think his right thinking 28 about with the improvements at Ross Road we would be encouraging bicyclists to use Ross 29 rather than Middlefield. I think that having the right tum lane coming north on Middlefield to 30 Oregon is going to relive the stacking that happens there. So I think there are a lot of advantages 31 to Alternative 4 and would encourage Commissioners to, based on comments that we have seen 32 and the amount of time that has been spent, that it is not perfect but I would encourage 33 Commissioners to accept either the substitute motion or the original motion and not ask for this 34 to do a go back. Commissioner Keller. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: I thank Staff for their comments and County Staff for their comments that 37 you essentially can't have eight-foot roadway and therefore we have to make the decision. I 38 agree with Acting Chair Holman that we have to make a decision between 3M, 3-Modified, and 39 4 and it is a judgment call. Essentially going through various plans the County has done their 40 work and now the judgment is for us. 41 42 I do have one quick question that I would like to first ask and then speak to. In the back of the 43 book, in the back of the report, Attachment G refers to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 for 44 Oregon and Middlefield. Which is 1 and which is 2? Do you know? I may have read it 45 somewhere but I am not sure what it refers to. 46 Page 51 1 Mr. Prasad: Are you talking about graphics? 2 3 Conunissioner Keller: I anl talking about the data in the very back. There are all these pages 4 upon pages of numbers in the very back. 5 6 Mr. Collen: The Level of Service Chart? 7 8 Commissioner Keller: The Level of Service Charts in the very back. The reason I am asking 9 this is because tlus is the detail data on exactly what the differences are between 3M and 4 in 10 terms of traffic flow. I am trying to understand because I didn't see much difference between 11 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in terms of AM or PM and I couldn't tell which was which. I 12 think there is not much difference in traffic and if one of them was 3M and the other one was 4, 13 and we don't know which is which then there is not much difference in the flow of traffic on 14 Middlefield Road across Oregon Expressway. If there is not much difference then why not pick 15 4? 16 17 Mr. Collen: Well there are several pages involved. 18 19 Mr. Prasad: Actually what you have in the back are supporting documentation that we went 20 through. It is not shown in the report about 1 and 2 because they were dropped out after the 21 second community meeting. There was overwhelming support for 3 and also we added a new 22 Alternative, which is 4 based on the feedback. What we have included here are the 1 and 2 that 23 we analyzed just for the records. So really these alternatives were dropped out. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: So we don't have an equivalent of the back for 3M versus 4. 26 27 Mr. Prasad: We do have that probably in the middle of the report somewhere. The end section 28 was just an appendix to show that we did look at 1 and 2 and those were different alternatives 29 with 1 requiring modifications on all four comers, and Alternative 2 requiring two side widening. 30 I think Alternative 1 was three side widening. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: There are a bunch of3-1s so I am not sure which is which. One of the 33 things that is interesting to me is that at least for all the data that has been presented to us there is 34 not much difference on Middlefield Road delays and throughput for Alternatives 3M and 35 Alternative 4. 36 37 Mr. Prasad: It is more often operational. Based on our experience in operating hundreds of 38 expressway intersections how the operation would impact is important and when you have a 39 major arterial like this and if you squeeze that down to one lane you are potentially going to have 40 problems at a later stage when you a bunch of cars that are just arriving and all of a sudden they 41 are all going through. So you will have a long stack of lines that will be still impacting the 42 neighbors whether they are able to get down or not. When you talk about the difference between 43 the two being the loss of trees, the loss of trees you can also look at as a safety. One of the trees 44 has already been hit. It is clearly marked on the tree. It is also in our report. We are removing it 45 but we can also replant it. We have an option to replant it. We can work with arborists. There 46 are sonle differences as to what kind of tree can go but we can come to an agreement and replant Page 52 1 it. Another option that we can explore is work with the neighbors that lost those trees and see if 2 we can plant something in their yard if they were willing to do that. Plus, on top of it we could 3 also add trees along Oregon, or places where it is possible to replace those trees. So it is not a 4 complete loss. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I just want to point out that the inlpacts of those trucks or 7 whatever that hit the trees that may have been a pedestrian that might have been hit if there 8 hadn't been a tree there. So for what it is worth. I thank you for your comments. I do think that 9 there isn't an opportunity to do more lanes on the southbound side so we have to make a 10 decision. I drive that route very often and when I am driving that route going northbound and I 11 am stuck in the right hand lane behind somebody who is turning right I get really frustrated and I 12 am sure that this will remove those frustrations. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: Is there any other necessary comments before we vote on the substitute 15 motion? Commissioner Fineberg. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: I know this is the 13th hour but is there any reason you can't have two 18 lanes going northbound with the left tum lane on Middlefield and then on the northbound side of 19 Middlefield taking the five-foot strip so it would receive the two lanes of northbound traffic and 20 then do the merge sinlilar to the way it is in the existing conditions, but having that extra five 21 feet. Is that the hybrid that we are looking for? I can maybe explain that again. 22 23 Mr. Collen: I think you just described 3M. 24 25 Commissioner Fineberg: No. You are right. Take it back. It is the 13th hour. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Okay, Commissioner Lippert. 28 29 SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: I think I persuaded myselfby comments that I made earlier. I am going 32 to withdraw the substitute motion. I think that what Commissioner Keller is proposing is 33 perfectly adequate and we are mincing words here. I think just fish or cut bait. 34 35 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Tuma conflicted) 36 37 Commissioner Holman: Thank you Commissioner Lippert. So we are ready to vote on the 38 original motion. I don't think Staffneeds it repeated. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) 39 Opposed? So that motion passes on a five to zero vote with Commissioners Martinez, Keller, 40 Lippert, Fineberg, and Holman all voting aye. So that will conclude that item. Thank you to 41 Staff, members of the public and the County Staff. 42 Page 53 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT CHAPTER 4.3: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION. AND PARKING BRADY ~ ATTACHMENT G For all intersections identified below where mitigation measures are proposed, as well as a representative selection of the street segments listed in Tables 12 and 13, the City will implement a Citywide traffic impact monitoring program. Mitigation measures for intersections shall be implemented only when the level of service reaches the thresholds identified therein.;, This is necessary because the traffic projections contained in this EIR are quite conservative and will tend not to be fully realized within the projected time frame. Palo Alto has employed traffic impact monitoring programs several times in the past, the most notable being those required for several Stanford University development projects in the 1980s. In addition to identifying when mitigation measures are required, this monitoring program will track annual peak hour traffic volumes measurements at all 20 study intersections, as part of the growth management policies adopted by the City Council. Following is a list of the basic elements that would be included in a traffic impact monitoring program. • • • • • • • Identifjcation of intersections and any roadway segments where monitoring is to be accomplished. Determination of the frequency of monitoring. Determination of the types of data to be gathered. Determination of types of reports to be produced and to whom reports should be presented. Determination of thresholds at which intersection mitigation measures would be triggered for implementation. Once the thresholds of implementation have been reached, determination of time frame, funding implications, and process to be followed to actually implement required mitigations. Determination of effectiveness of mitigations after one year of implementation. (1) Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway Impact CIRC-5: Development and growth assumed in 2010 with the Comprehensive Plan Update would result in a significant decrease in Level of Service at the Middlefield/Oregon intersection (LOS E to LOS F). (S) A capacity improvement was identified and recommended for this intersection in the 1989 Citywide Study, consisting of: (a) widening the northbound approach of Middlefield Road on the east side, (b) widening the southbound approach of Middlefield on the west side (both widenings within the existing right-of-way), in order to add a new left-turn lane on each Middlefield 166 • I II I ' II II .' • I BRADY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. DECEMBER 1996 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHAPTER 4.3: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING approach, "and (c) revising the signal operation to eliminate the north-south split phase. This improvement has not yet been implemented, due to lack of funding. Within approximately 300 feet north and south of the Oregon Expressway curb lines, these changes would result in narrower curb lanes on Middlefield Road for bicyclists, remove the planting strip separating the sidewalks from t~e traffic lanes, along with several mature trees, remove on- street parking, and require a moderate level of utility relocation. The only way to preserve the existing curb lane widths (needed for bicyclists) and the planting strips (needed for aesthetics and to provide a buffer between the sidewalk and moving traffic) would be to obtain additional right-of-way from existing development along Middlefield Road for approximately 300 feet north and south of the Oregon Expressway curb lines. This development consists primarily of single-family homes, with a church on one side. The City does not feel it is practical or appropriate to obtain this right-of-way. Even without this additional right-of-way, the travelled way of Middlefield Road would be widened from four to five lanes, thus increasing the pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance and the number of lanes of waiting cars in front of which pedestrians and bicyclists would have to cross. The negative impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists of the Middlefield Road widening would be considered significant. The improved signal operation would allow better coordination of signals along Oregon Expressway. This improvement would not preclude maintaining Middlefield Road at two lanes north of Oregon, nor, if desired, reducing the cross-section to two lanes south of Oregon (with left turn pockets), beginning approximately at Marion (one northbound through lane, one southbound through lane, and one two-way left-turn lane). Existing congestion at this intersection contributes to diversion of arterial traffic onto Midtown neighborhood streets east and west of Middlefield, which would increase significantly by 2010. As part of this current analysis, another possible capacity improvement was identified on Oregon Expressway-addition of a second westbound Oregon Expressway left-turn lane. This improvement would help reduce the length of the signal phase and thus, congestion. This improvement could be accomplished within the existing right-of-way, resulting in some narrowing of . the shoulder lanes. There would still be adequate room for bicycle travel on the shoulder. Because the traveled way would not be widened, crossing time for pedestrians and bicyclists would not increase, but they would have to pass in front of an additiopal lane of waiting traffic on the east leg. These two improvements together (additional left-turn lanes on north-and south-bound Middlefield and on westbound Oregon, and removal of split phase) would improve the 2010 LOS F (103 seconds of delay) to LOS D (40 seconds of 167 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHAPTER 4.3: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING BRADY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. DECEMBER 1996 delay). The conclusion is to construct both of these improvements, to be implemented by the following mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CIRC-5: When so indicated by the Citywide Traffic Monitoring Program, the City shall: • Widen Middlefield Road on the east side of the northbound approach and on the west side on the southbound approach to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and dual through lanes in each direction, and change the signal operation to eight-phase; and • Construct a second westbound left-turn lane within the westbound Oregon Expressway approach. In order to provide funding for this intersection improvement project, the City shall reevaluate its existing Traffic Impact Fees to be levied on new developments that contribute to the need for the improvement. The fee shall be determined and levied in accordance with· applicable legal requirements. (LTS) This improvement would mitigate the significant project impact according to both the Palo Alto and the CMP standards, resulting in a less than significant impact for traffic flow. Even though decreased traffic congestion and delay are beneficial to bicyclists, the improvement would have a significant negative impact on pedestrian and bicycle travel on Middlefield Road within approximately one block north and south of Oregon Expressway due to the narrowed lanes and removal of the planting strips. (2) Middlefield Road/San Antonio Road Impact CIRC-6: Development and growth assumed in 2010 with the Compre- hensive Plan Update would result in a significant decrease in Level of Service at the Middlefield/San Antonio intersection (LOSD to LOS F). (S) Three capacity improvements were identified for this intersection in the 1986 San Antonio/West Bayshore Study and the 1989 Citywide Study, none of which have been implemented, due to lack of right-of-way and funding. These improvements are to: (a) widen Middlefield on the east side of the northbound approach to add a northbound right-turn lane; (b) further widen Middlefield on the northbound approach and on the west side of the southbound approach to add a second northbound left-turn lane; and (c) widen San Antonio Road on the south side of the eastbound approach to provide an eastbound exclusive right-turn lane. The first two improvements would involve major utility relocation work and additional right-of-way from adj acent properties for approximately 300 feet north and south of the San 168 I I I I I I I I ~ City of Palo Alto Attention: City Council Dear Honorable Council Members, ATTACHMENT H November 3fd , 2009 At its October meeting, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) considered possible safety issues around the Planning and Transportation Commission's (PTC) recommended configuration of the Middlefield Road intersection at Oregon Expressway under the County's planned Oregon Expressway improvements. Specifically, the PTC recommended Alternative 4 which, on Middlefield just before Oregon in the northbound direction, consists of one left-turn-only lane, one through-lane, and one right-turn-only lane. PABAC was concerned that the right-turn-only lane would pose a hazard to pedestrians and to bicyclists who do not position themselves in the through lane, and who thus get stuck in the right lane trying to go straight with right-turning cars to their left. Following its discussions, PABAC unanimously passed the following motion: "With regards to the Middlefield Road intersection at Oregon Expressway, it is the opinion of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee that a right-turn- only lane in the northbound direction presents an increased hazard for bicyclists and pedestrians, especially for cyclists on the sidewalk or in the right-turn lane who are not comfortable taking the through lane." The Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee hopes you will take the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists into consideration when you weigh your options for this intersection. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sinc .. ereIY,. n A (( _ . " I. ~ ~~~ Cedric de La Beaujardiere Chair, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee Oregon Improvement Plan Letter From: Pam Radin Aug ust 25th 2009 Dear Planning and Transportation Commission: ATTACHMENT I I've been involved in community input for two years with the city and county planners on a regular basis regarding the Oregon Improvement Plan. I request the PTC provide further guidance to the City Council regarding Ross Alt. #3 prioritization, execution and funding. One main benefit Residents receive in mitigating the County project is the ability to maintain walkable-bikeable neighborhoods across Oregon. Enough has not been done to improve current accessibility for Residents that live nearest the project site. The city staff report Pulls the Rip-Cord short of providing equally prioritized mitigations for residential impacts especially at Ross Road. Ross is vel}' important because: > ~ Ross is a main Bike Blvd. in the Palo Alto Bike Plan e. of Middlefield Rd. ~ Is designed as a bike/ped alternative to Middlefield Rd. ~ Allows greatest crosstown distance bike/ped road access [no to s.], east of Middlefield ~ Crossing preserves future bike blvd. to serve the schools, employers, baylands [no to s.] ~ Allows midway bike access near Middlefield area [Louis & Cowper are far apart e. to w.] ~ Provides current access for bike/peds to cross Oregon now and safer access to continue I request the PTC consider the following: ~ Consider Ross Rd. coordinated signalization w/ Middlefield Rd. as other planned signals are prioritized now, important and to be implemented with all endorsed improvements ~ Consider the improvement of the coordinated bike signal sync, bike slots & loops ~ The City's goal & benefit in bringing residential areas in step with the comp plan and bicycle network plan providing continued and safer cross town access [no to s.] Consider prioritization of Ross amongst other proposed alternative projects: ~ W. Bayshore is a endorsed improvement and is a truck route/on ramp to 101 ~ The 3.5 million funding is now available to all Oregon, including Ross, and not limited to certain proposed alternatives only The County considers the Oregon Expwy. Improvement Plan at optimum design the best they can engineer with Ross Road. With the economy they project the entire project can be built. Please include Ross as a priority for design, testing and funding while the County is in town. Thank you, Pam Radin cc: City Council James Keene Gayle Likens Curtis Williams Page 1 of 1 Rius, Rafael From: Betten, Zariah Sent: Wednesday, September 02,2009 7:43 AM To: Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan Fineberg Cc: Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael; Caporgno, Julie Subject: FW: Oregon Expressway and Bikes fyi Zariah Betten, Admin. Associate Ofll!~3al"tm~lt1t of Planning and Community Environment Hamilton AverliJElf 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: 650-329-2440 Fax: 650-329-2154 From: Pat Smith [mailto.( @sbcglobal.netJ Sent: TuesdaYI September 01, 2009 4:07 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Oregon Expressway and Bikes > > Planning Con1IDission, City of Palo Alto: > > My name is Patricia Smith. I have lived at-'South Court since March = > 1965. My husband and I attended your meeting last Wednesday evening > regarding the Oregon Expressway and bike lanes. A simpler answer to = > your problem is to have all bikes use the frontage road of Oregon >A venue. All bikers on our street have used the frontage road for years. This way the = > bikers are away from traffic and look at a beautiful green hedge. > > Sincerely, > Patricia Smith > ------= 1114/2009 Page 1 of2 Rius, Rafael From: Betten, Zariah Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:36 PM To: Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan Fineberg Cc: Williams, Curtis; Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael; Larkin, Donald; Caporgno, julie Subject: FW: Comments on Oregon Expressway for meeting on Aug 26 fyi Zariah Betten, Admin. Associate Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto{ CA 94301 Tel: 650-329-2440 Fax: 650-329-2154 ~.t,:1ri..~.~.~.~~1:t.~.rl@«::i1:Y9fpt,:1~.9~.I.:t;9.~.9rg From: Robert Herriot [mailto:. I tcom] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:32 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Comments on Oregon Expressway for meeting on Aug 26 Commission members: , ......• I have a large concern about the meeting tonight. It seenlS to be ignoring the comnlunity process that has been going on for more than a year. The county has maintained a web site at oregonexpressway.info with current information about the project and they have sent postcards about each conlillunity meeting to all people who attended their meetings. The oregonexpressway.info doesn't mention the planning meeting and has no infornlation later than March 2009. The web site has an undated (probably early 2009) press release which says "The County plans to present the preferred alternatives to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission in early 2009, and seek formal City support for the project and any proposed side street improvements." I would expect the web site to have information about the preferred solutions based on feedback from the March 2009 meeting. It doesn't. A lot of interested people didn't receive notification about this planning commision meeting. I just happened to read a Post article on this hearing today. I have a large concern that the current plan is biased toward engineering thinking rather than one that best serves people. This 11/4/2009 Page 2 of2 bias has caused the county engineers to ignore data that doesn't fit their biases. This bias assumes that people are incapable of nlaking good decisions and thus they cannot be trusted to safely pass through an intersection that has no signal (e.g. Waverley) or make a left turn without a green arrow (e.g. Bryant on to Oregon Expressway). For example, the proposed changes have repeatedly added more controls on the Waverley intersection even though accident data doesn't support any need for change. The accident data shows that most accidents along Oregon are read-enders caused by traffic stopping for red lights. When the engineers advocate controlling left turns with left arrows, they don't want to consider the extra time (5 seconds or so) it adds to each cycle as the light controller determines that the left lane is enlpty. The plans also don't consider how much gas is wasted when a hole platoon of traffic is stopped for a single left turner, who could have picked a gap in the traffic to make the tum if only there were no left arrow to prevent the tum. People are better at determining a safe gap than the relatively blind light controller. The county has never indicated what the benefit is for these changes. It isn't clear how much time will be cut or accidents reduced for cars going from 101 to EI Camino. I have suggested an innovative solution for left turns that use a flashing yellow arrow to designate that it is OK to turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic. This solution is being using in many communities around the us. See "NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 495 Evaluation of Traffic SignaTJ!Display for Protected/Pernlissive Left Turn Control" at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp rpt 493.pdf. I suggest that the planning commission make no decision this evening and have the county notify all people on their mailing list for the next meeting. Robert Herriot 1114/2009 Rius, Rafael From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FYI Betten, Zariah Tuesday, August 25,2009 1 :08 PM Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan Fineberg Caporgno, Julie; Williams, Curtis; Larkin, Donald; Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael FW: Comment son Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Message----- Ito: .net] August 25, 2009 11:56 AM Commission son Oregon Expressway Improvement ect Commissioners, I am not able attend your meeting tomorrow evening (Wed 26, 2009) so this on the agenda item of the Oregon Even more fically, I wish to comment on the intersections of Oregon Expressway with Ross Waverly and Middlefield Roads. Wrt to both Ross and Roads, eliminating the crosswalks is a bad, lousy terrible, idea. The document stated that was "the crosswalks would be eliminated but pedestrian would still be permitted via an unmarked crosswalk." Most drivers don't know that they are legally to for pedestrians in a crosswalk, let alone for who are via an implied "unmarked crosswalk." This is a ridiculous idea, and muph worse than doing Less ridiculous, but unnecessary is eliminating travel across and left-hand turns onto from Ross and Waverley. This traffic in these instances is minimal, and does not affect the flow of traffic on Oregon. With respect to the fic proposals for the Intersections. Ross Road: Again, I feel eliminating through travel across and left-hand turns onto Oregon from Ross is but it must be done, than I Alternative 3, safer bike and pedestrian travel across and the creating of a Bike Boulevard on Ross Road. It looks at the images for the before and after for Alternative 2 easily see how this would ruin the intersection bicycli~ts, making it and causing them to travel an mile along the expressway, to cross the street. proposal does not consider but traffic on Oregon, impacts on the nearby residents, the walkability, bikeability and the very livability of the area, all of which should be considered the City's Comprehensive Plan. Waverley Road: See Ross Road and comments. Middlefield Road: I support Alternative 4, with no reduction in existing landscaping Middlefield Road, for all the reasons that have been Thank you, Joel Gartland Garland Drive, 1 Likens. Gayle From: Pam Radin [pamradin@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11 :01 AM To: Council, City Cc: Likens, Gayle; 'Masoud Akbarzadeh' Subject: ROSS SUPPORT LETTER FROM RESIDENT, Vijay Tella FW: Oregon Expwy Plan I am forwarding the below letter of support for Ross Road Alt. #3 from Vijay Tella, a nearby resident to Ross Road. Thank you, Pam Radin MRA, Traffic From: Vijay Tella [mailto:vijay.tella@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:29 PM To: pamradin@comcast.net Subject: Oregon expwy plan Dear Pam, I live off Ross Road on Bruce Drive and am supportive of Alt. #3 We would like to thank the County and City for incorporation of the design into the Oregon Expressway Plan Ask that Council prioritize the Ross #3 as a Residential feature to the plan and include it in Councils recommendations to the County as a priority of the Oregon plan. thank you, Vijay Tella, 870 Bruce drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 8/19/2009 RE: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives Page 1 of2 Rius, Rafael From: Betten, Zariah Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:31 AM To: Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan Fineberg Cc: Caporgno, Julie; Williams, Curtis; Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael; Larkin, Donald Subject: FW: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives fyi Zariah Betten, Admin. Associate Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: 650-329-2440 Fax: 650-329-2154 ~.~.ri~.h·iJ?:t:l;~n@<:i:t:Y9fp~19t:!.J~9·Qrg From: Neal Aronson [mailto~. • .com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:37 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Council, City; Frances Lim Subject: RE: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a Palo Alto native son and my family lives on the west of Middlefield, across the street and just south of the Garland Drive intersection. I'd like to share with you our view of the current Middlefield Road transportation alternatives being considered by the County and City. While we support the concept of improving traffic flow on Middlefield, we feel strongly that the current alternatives are favoring traffic flow over pedestrian (especially child) safety. Almost every weekend, my wife and I walk our three young children to the Midtown shopping center. These walks are already somewhat tense experiences for us as its always a challenge to keep the children together in an orderly group as we make our way down Middlefield, across Oregon and then down to the shopping district. The traffic moves very quickly, despite the 25 MPH limit, and vehicles often turn from Middlefield onto Oregon westbound without looking for pedestrians. If the planting median is suddenly gone, these walks will be even more stressful as it is highly likely the additional lane on the road will encourage vehicles to d rive faster. Because of this concern and the apparent lack of speed controls or safety measures built into either of the alternatives, we strongly oppose the removal of the planting median and therefore either of the current altertives. Please consider our concerns and the safety of our three children: Hunter 4 years, Aiden 4 years, and Reyes 16 months when you discuss these alternatives on Wednesday August 26th and ask the County to redesign the intersection without the dedicated turn lanes which require the 1114/2009 RE: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives planting strip to be removed. Regards, Neal Aronson ~Middlefield Road. 11/4/2009 Page 2of2 Page 1 of2 Likens, Gayle From: Elizabeth Schwerer [liz@laysoft.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 20094:35 PM To: Planning Commission; Likens, Gayle Cc: Council, City; liz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org; comments@oregonexpressway.info; Ann Crichton; Miriam Sedman; Ellen Ronan . Subject: Oregon Expwy Improvement Pjt: Ohlone Elem School support Dear Gayle and Commissioners: Please join us and the Ohlone Elementary School community in supporting the improvements to Oregon Expressway's intersections witl1 Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads that are recommended by the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department in their "Draft Report for the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Traffic Analysis for Conceptual Alternatives" of February 4, 2008 and also illustrated on their website www.oregonexpressway.info. We feel grateful to the project staff for making pedestrian and bicyclist safety a priority for these intersections. Please also support the elimination of left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive, which is shown as "Alternative 1 (modified)" for that intersection. We are a sub-committee of the Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee. In response to several accidents in which members of the Ohlone school community were struck by cars while crossing Oregon Expressway on foot or bicycle, we studied Oregon Expressway's intersections closest to Ohlone and developed a set of recommended pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements for Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads, as well as an automobile suggestion for Indian Drive. We are delighted to see that the county's recommendations include all of the pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements we identified and one of the alternatives for Indian eliminates automobile left turns. With the PTA Executive Board, Site Council, and Principal Susan Charles, we unanimously endorse the following improvements to Oregon Expressway's intersections with Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads, all of which are reflected in or consistent with the county's current recommendations for these intersections: At the intersections of both Louis and Greer Roads with Oregon Expressway 1) Change the signals so that cars do not make left turns onto Oregon Expressway at the same time as pedestrians are crossing. 2) Square the corners of the intersections to slow drivers making right turns. 3) Straighten the crosswalks and remove the median islands from them. At the intersection of Louis Road and Oregon Expressway 4) Eliminate roll-away sidewalks along Louis Road's northbound approach to the intersection; they encourage drivers to create an extra driving lane on the sidewalk. At the intersections of both Louis and West Bayshore Roads with Oregon 5) Trim vegetation that blocks drivers' views of pedestrians. At all intersections from Louis to West Bayshore Roads 6) Install accessible, pedestrian-and bike-friendly push-button poles for walk signals. At the intersection of West Bayshore Road and Oregon Expressway 7) Redesign the pedestrian landing on the median between Oregon Avenue and Oregon Expressway. A majority of us also recommend, at the intersection of Indian Drive and Oregon Expressway 8) Eliminate left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive because of the danger of automobile collisions, especially during the evening rush hour. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann Crichton Ellen Ronan 8/19/2009 Liz Schwerer Miriam Sedman 343 Oxford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 .cc Palo Alto City Councilmembers Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 8/19/2009 Page 2 of2 Likens, Gayle From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Forrester [intent@yahoo.com] Friday, April 03, 2009 4: 1 0 PM Council, City; Likens, Gayle Radin, Pam; Naoko Okumoto The Ross Road Crossing Proposal at Oregon To the Palo Alto City Council Members, I recently became aware of the proposed improvements to the Ross Road and Oregon Expressway interchange and have previewed them. I have to say I was impressed that the proposed changes were in the works. As a Ross Road resident with a family of two kids, we bike alot around town; to the library, downtown, california avenue and stanford. We cross on our bikes at Middlefield and Oregon; it's a difficult crossing to make with kids (we have a 12 and a 2 year old). My wife and I are fully supportive of proposal alternate #3 --establishing a bike crossing similar to Bryant and Embarcadero. It seems like a perfect fit for the mid-town neighborhood. Now I've heard there is discussion of making a bike-crossing at Louis or further down, but having biked all along there, I believe Ross is a better fit. It's a quiet street, lots of kids bike there going to school, and Louis is quite a busy street, especially at the Oregon intersection. If you've ever biked on Bryant, you know the joys of a quiet ride and a smooth and easy crossing going to downtown and coming back. What better motivation to get people biking and out of their cars (bike-friendly Palo Alto was one of the reasons we decided to build a house here several years ago). I really urge the Council to support the Ross #3 plan and hope it can be included in your recommendation to the County as a priority in the Oregon Expressway plan. Best Regards, John Forrester Naoko Okumoto 2651 Ross Road, Palo Alto 1 Likens, Gayle From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Forrester [intent@yahoo.com] Friday, April 03, 2009 4: 1 0 PM Council, City; Likens, Gayle Radin, Pam; Naoko Okumoto The Ross Road Crossing Proposal at Oregon To the Palo Alto City Council Members, I recently became aware of the proposed improvements to the Ross Road and Oregon Expressway interchange and have previewed them. I have to say I was impressed that the proposed changes were in the works. As a Ross Road resident with a family of two kids, we bike alot around town; to the library, downtown, california avenue and stanford. We cross on our bikes at Middlefield and'Oregon; it's a difficult crossing to make with kids (we have a 12 and a 2 year old). My wife and I are fully supportive of proposal alternate #3 --establishing a bike crossing similar to Bryant and Embarcadero. It seems like a perfect fit for the mid-town neighborhood. Now I've heard there is discussion of making a bike-crossing at Louis or further down, but having biked all along there, I believe Ross is a better fit. It's a quiet street, lots of kids bike there goi:p.g to school, and Louis is quite a busy street, especially at the Oregon intersection. If you've ever biked on Bryant, you know the joys of a quiet ride and a sn100th and easy crossing going to downtown and coming back. What better motivation to get people biking and out of their cars (bike-friendly Palo Alto was one of the reasons we decided to build a house here several years ago). I really urge the Council to support the Ross #3 plan and hope it can be included in your recommendation to the County as a priority in the Oregon Expressway plan. Best Regards, John Forrester Naoko Okumoto 2651 Ross Road, Palo Alto 1 Likens, Gayle From: Sent: To: Aberg, Michael [michael.aberg@lmco.com] Monday, March 02, 2009 12: 14 PM kruegsegger@pausd.org; Likens, Gayle; Radin, Pam; Council, City Cc: Radin, Pam Subject: Heartfelt Thanks for Ross Road Crossing To the Palo Alto City Council Members and the Santa Clara County Staff: Page 1 of 1 I just want to extend a heartfelt thanks to all of you involved in the bike/ped crossing improvements to Oregon Expressway. I am especially pleased that there are plans in the works for improvements to the Ross Road Qrossing. I, like a number of other people living in the Midtown area, especially like Option #3 for the Ross Road . crossing. I am happy about this improvement for a number of reasons: For one, it helps solidify the plans for a bike boulevard on Ross Road. I am a pretty serious bike commuter, and I use Ross Road several times a week to get from my house near Ross and Moreno down to Ross and cross at Louis & Charleston, where I then proceed on to Mountain View and then to Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale. I also have a number of neighbors who bike with their kids down to the YMCA on Ross. Ross is a fairly quiet street, and a nice bike route alternative to Middlefield, especially when kids are involved. The Ross Road crossing makes a great, crossing for us -the current alternative, Middlefield is a crossing that I consider to be fairly challenging for kids. The Middlefield alternatives in the County plan do not include bicycle features, but Ross Road, does. Ross Road is the closest aligned street to Middlefield Road, servicing the Midtown shopping area -it is a great alternative to Middlefield Road for my family. Thanks again so much for all your work; I can't say enough about how this will improve the quality of life for my family!! Mike Aberg 757 Moreno Ave, Palo Alto 8/19/2009 Page 1 of 1 Likens, Gayle From: Kerry Kenny [kerry@skylineventures.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 422 PM To: Council, City; Likens, Gayle; Nora.Chung@rda.sccgov.org Cc: kruegsegger@pausd.org; Radin, Pam Subject: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Thanks DearCoundlMembeffi- I want to take the time to send a note, and probably you do not receive this kind of note often enough, but thanking City Staff and the County Team for their efforts in working with the Residents on the Oregon Expressway improvement project! I recently received an e-mail from the county notifying me of the latest design alternatives. I viewed the plans online and I am so pleased to see that both the City and the County are listening! The design #3 for Ross Rd, which looks to build in the necessary items for the proposed Bike Blvd for Ross Rd is wonderful. This is such a timely thing for me personally, as I know we are about to embark upon re-drawing school boundaries in the city. I live in South Palo Alto, and will likely be asked to send my children across Oregon Expressway to Garland School (once opened), and then to Jordan Middle school. This is not something that I take lightly; it is good to know a safe method for crossing is coming. Now I often ride my bike to drop off my daughter at Pre- school north of Oregon and then head to my office in Downtown Palo Alto, it will be so nice to have a safe and direct route to do this as the City tries to reduce car trips. For now my bicycle route is very circuitous due to the limited access of bike lanes in our area. Alternative #3 will be very practical and will allow me to continue my drop off routine while still on my bicycle once my kids are going to school on the other side of Oregon! Again, I just wanted to say thank you for listening and I look forward to the meeting next week to hear more about the timeline of the County's project. Sincerely, Kerry Kenny Midtown Resident Kerry Kenny VP, Finance & Operations Skyline Ventures 525 University Ave. Suite 520 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-475-0144 650-329-1090 FAX www.skylineventures.com 8/19/2009 ATTACHMENT J DRAFT REPORT FOR THE OREGON EXPRESSWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES Prepared by: February 4, 2009 ~ .. n Kimley-Horn I11II.....I_ U and Associates, Inc. ........,_.,. Kimley·Horn IIIIII......I_~ and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................•.......................................................... i Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... S 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.0 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Data from the County .................................................................................................... 1 0 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 10 2.3 Collision Review ........................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Field Observations ......................................................................................................... 12 3.0 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 17 3.1 Summary ofItnprovements ............................................................................................ 17 3.2 Intersection Summaries .................................................................................................. 20 4.0 Op.erational Analysis ................................................................................................... 33 4.1 Model Development ...................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................................... 33 4.2.1 Level of Service Methodology ............................................................................... 33 4.2.2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Results Summary ......................... 34 4.3 Corridor-wide Analysis .................................................................................................. 36 5.0 Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 42 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 46 List of Tables Table 1 : Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts .......................................................................... 11 Table 2: Collision Summary ...................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................... .34 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Summary ....................................................................... 34 Table 5: Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road Benefits Summary ....................................... 36 Table 6: Corridor-wide Scenario Summary ............................................................................... 37 Table 7: Oregon Expressway Corridor-wide Performance Measures ........................................ .38 Table 8: Oregon Expressway Corridor-wide Benefits Summary ................................................ 39 Table 9: Itnprovement Alternatives Evaluation ......................................................................... .42 Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 1 February 2009 ........,_.,. Kimley-Horn II1I.....I_ ~ and Associates, Inc. List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area Map ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 13 Figure 3: Weekday Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes ................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Weekday Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes ....................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Contro1.. ........................... ~ .... 16 Figure 6: Estimated Traffic Diversion for Indian Drive Alternative 1 Modified ......................... 28 Figure 7: Estinlated Traffic Diversion for Indian Drive Alternative 1 Modified ......................... 29 Figure 8: Estimated Traffic Diversion for Indian Drive Alternative 2 ........................................ 30 Figure 9: Estimated Traffic Diversion for Ross Road Alt. 2 Modified & Alt. 3 .......................... 31 Figure 10: Estinlated Traffic Diversion for Waverley Street Alternative 2 Modified .................. 32 Figure 11: Scenario 1 Corridor-wide Intersection Geometry and Signal Phasing ...................... .40 Figure 12: Scenario 2 Corridor-wide Intersection Geometry and Signal Phasing ...................... .41 Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ii February 2009 ......., .. .,. Kimley-Horn 1IIIIIr....I .. [..J and Associates, Inc: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oregon Expressway, as part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, is designed to relieve local streets of commuter and other non-neighborhood traffic. The expressway connects US-IOI to El Camino Real and I-280, serving as a major commute route to Stanford Research Park. It is also a primary emergency response route, and a limited truck route from US-IOI to midtown. However, Oregon Expressway has some unique needs that vary from the other expressways in Santa Clara County. These needs are recognized in the vision for Oregon Expressway as a multi-modal, pedestrian-friendly arterial roadway with slower, smooth-flowing traffic. With residential neighborhoods, schools, and community services on both sides of the expressway, accommodating pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle crossings of the expressway are just as important as the multi-modal travel along the expressway. The challenge is balancing the needs of the many users while maintaining a safer environment for everyone. The County adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study in 2003 that provided a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system, with improvements tailored to the vision of each expressway. For Oregon Expressway between Bryant and US-IOI, the 2003 Study recommended a list of improvements to advance the overall operations of Oregon Expressway and enhance pedestrian,. bicyclist, and motor vehicle safety in using and crossing the expressway. Community outreach for this project began last year in 2008 with meetings in April and June. A project website www.oregonexpressway.info was developed to host project related information, including an email comments@oregonexpressway.info to communicate with interested groups and individuals. On April 3, 2008, the frrst community meeting was held to share the project goals, listen to connnunity concerns, and seek community input. From public outreach efforts in ApriL the following community issues and concerns were identified for Oregon Expressway: I) Congestion and delay at red lights on the expressway; 2) Need for safer pedestrian, bicycle, wheelchair, and vehicle crossings of Oregon Expressway; 3) Speeding of motor vehicles traveling along the expressway; and 4) Safety issues at signalized intersections (vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to pedestrian/bicyclists conflicts. Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives Development Based on the comments received at the fIrst community meeting, several preliminary conceptual alternative plans were developed for the nine (9) intersections between and including W. Bayshore Road and Bryant Street. The improvement concepts were developed to relieve congestion and improve traffic flow and, at the same time, improve non-motorized travel by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles, reducing speeds, improving visibility between drivers and pedestrians/bicyclists, increasing awareness of pedestrians/bicyclists, and reducing driver impatience. These improvements generally include: • Intersection geometry and alignment • Pedestrian curb ramps and push button accessibility • Bicycle slots (where possible) County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 1 February 2009 ......, .. .". Kimley-Horn IIIIIII....I .. ~ and Associates, Inc. • Traffic signals upgrade including sequence and visibility • Crosswalk( s) alignment/visibility • Pedestrian countdown signals • Red light indicators (aka rat boxes) • Other safety and operational enhancements to minimize pedestrian/bicycle/vehicular turning conflicts Proposed Conceptual Alternatives The preliminary conceptual alternatives were presented at the second community meeting and the Midtown Residents Association (MRA) meeting on June 9, 2008, and August 28, 2008, respectively. The purpose of these meetings was to seek public input and comments from the residents and the traveling pUblic. County staff also met with other project stakeholders. Based on the comments received, the preliminary conceptual alternatives were modified and new proposed conceptual alternatives were developed to address community concerns. This report focuses on these proposed conceptual alternatives and the related traffic analysis. The most substantial enhancements to the preliminary conceptual alternatives to address public input include the following: • At Indian Drive: A new alternative, Alternative 2, has been developed to maintain left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive. • At Louis Road: Alternative 1 has been enhanced to extend the bicycle lane all the way to the intersection and is illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified" • At Ross Road and Waverley Street: Alternative 1, which included median closure on Oregon Expressway, is no longer being considered. Alternative 2 has been revised to maintain the existing left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Ross Road and Waverley Street and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified". • At Ross Road: A new alternative, Alternative 3, has been developed to demonstrate potential conversion of the intersection to include traffic signals for full bicycle access and pedestrian crossing. This concept is consistent with the City of Palo Alto's bicycle plan and is similar to the existing bicycle boulevard design at Embarcadero and Bryant Street. • At Middlefield Road: Alternative 1, which included impacts to the existing landscaping strip on three sides of Middlefield Road, is no longer being considered. A new alternative, Alternative 4, has been developed which does not require widening on Middlefield Road and will maintain the existing landscaping strip as is on all four sides. • At Bryant Street: Alternative 2 has been revised to preserve the north leg as is and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified". • On Oregon Expressway: A new bicycle shoulder is proposed in the eastbound direction by narrowing the median (0-3 ft) from Bryant Street to Cowper Street. This will provide County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 2 February 2009 1IIIl"1-W1I Kimley·Horn II1I.....I_ LJ and Associates, Inc. continuous shoulder (bicycle travel way) between Bryant bicycle boulevard and W. Bayshore to the bicycle bridge over Hwy 101. Key statistical findings of this report include: • Traffic Collisions: Between January 1, 2003, and July 19, 2008, there have been a total of 200 reported collisions at the nine (9) intersections studied. Nearly half (92) of the collisions were rear-enders, while the next highest type of collisions were broadside collisions (57). Rear-end type collisions are fairly common at signalized intersections, with higher numbers typically occurring on more heavily traveled corridors such as Oregon Expressway. Broadside collisions can be more severe, and they could be attributed to many factors, but are generally due to the existing permissive phasing (where left tum vehicles do not have their own signal phase, or arrow indication, and must yield to opposing through vehicles and conflicting pedestrian/bicyclists movements) on the side streets. There were thirteen (13) sideswipe collisions and nine (9) collisions with fixed objects. In addition, five (5) collisions involved vehicles with pedestriansibicyclists. The Oregon/Middlefield intersection had the highest number of collisions (37), with Oregon/Greer close behind at 31 collisions. Of the three unsignalized intersections, Waverley experienced the highest number of collisions (24), e~ceeding four of the signalized intersections despite its relatively low turning volumes. • Traffic Volumes: Currently, Oregon Expressway carries approximately 40,000 vehicles on a typical weekday and about 24,000 per day during weekends. Weekday peak hour traffic volumes indicate that Middlefield Road has the highest cross-street traffic demand, followed by Louis Road as a distant second. The three (3) unsignalized intersections had the lowest cross-street traffic. Over a four-hour peak period (two hours each for AM and PM), less than ten (10) vehicles turned left onto Oregon Expressway from Ross Road and Indian Drive or went straight across at Ross Road. The number of vehicles turning left in the highest peak hour during a four-hour peak period (two hours each for AM and PM) from Oregon Expressway onto the cross-street was 70, 60, and 40 for Waverley Street, Ross Road, and Indian Drive, respectively. Key findings from the traffic analysis of this report include: • Intersections Level of Service (LOS) and Safety: Traffic analysis for the intersection improvement alternatives showed that all Middlefield alternatives resulted in a significant reduction in average intersection delay at Middlefield Road. All other locations generally showed the same amount of or a reduction in delay, with the exception of a few minor signalized .crossings that experienced a few seconds of increase in delay during the peak period, primarily due to additional signal phases. However, these signalized intersections would continue to operate at very good levels of service and the additional signal phasing (protected left tum or left tum green arrow) would significantly enhance vehicular, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety at the intersections. • Corridor Analysis: Two scenarios utilizing potential intersection alternatives were also evaluated and compared to existing conditions in terms of the peak hour traffic flow along Oregon Expressway. All scenarios resulted in a drop in average travel time and delay at signals along Oregon Expressway resulting in an average speed of 20 to 23 miles per hour. In other words, traffic would move slowly but more smoothly. However, in every scenario, County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 3 February 2009 ....... 1-.". Klmley-Horn I11II.....I_ L.] and Associates, Inc. the traffic signal at Middlefield Road controlled the cycle length and timing operation for the corridor. Therefore, only by adding left tum lanes on Middlefield Road, can reductions in delay and congestion on Oregon Expressway be realized. • Benefit Analysis: A benefit analysis was conducted by using the existing traffic vo lume as the baseline parameter. The impact of the proposed conceptual alternatives on travel time, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions during the AM·. and PM peak periods were calculated. All proposed conceptual alternatives resulted in substantial reductions in travel time, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions along Oregon Expressway. Translating these cotnbined AM and PM peak period savings into dollars for traffic traveling along Oregon Expressway based on value of time, cost of fuel, and health costs related to vehicular emissions, the estimated annual savings range between $852,000 and $888,000. The savings of the improvement alternatives for the Middlefield Road intersection alone range from $757,000 to $770,000 per year. There is also the potential for additional significant cost savings, such as a reduction of loss from injuries and property damage as a result of reduced collisions due to improved traffic flow, which are not quantified in this savings estinlate. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 4 February 2009 ........-J-.,. Kimley-Horn liliii.....i_ ~ and Associates, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by the County of Santa Clara to provide traffic engineering services for the Oregon Expressway Inlprovenlents Project. The goal of the project is to evaluate various improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant and W. Bayshore Road to improve pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular operations and safety. Improvement alternatives have been reviewed and operational analysis performed at nine intersections between Bryant Street and W. Bayshore Road on Oregon Expressway. This report summarizes the improvements, operational analysis, and evaluation of the alternatives. 1.1 Background The County of Santa Clara maintains eight (8) expressways totaling 62 centerline miles, which serve 1.5 million vehicle trips daily. The vision of the expressway system recognizes the unique characteristics, function, and community relationship of each expressway, and the types of improvements developed are tailored around each expressway's vision. For Oregon Expressway, the vision is to maintain a multimodal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway with slower, smooth-flowing traffic. A Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study was conducted from 2001 to 2003 to provide a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. The Expressway Study included the following proposed improvements for Oregon Expressway: 1. Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding impacts on safety at unsignalized intersections 2. Construct pedestrian curb ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections 3. Study operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverley, Ross, and Indian to enhance bicyclist and pedestrian safety, and maintain vehicle safety 4. Conduct feasibility study of adding tum lane at Middlefield Road and converting to 8-phase signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking right-of- way The Oregon Expressway Improvement Project has secured approximately $3.5 million as a federal grant and County match to implement the above proposed improvements on Oregon Expressway. Two community meetings were held. The frrst one took place on April 3,2008, and the second one on June 9, 2008, at the Jordan Middle School in Palo Alto. The purpose of the frrst meeting was to collect public input in order to refme the project description and to clearly define the project needs. The purpose of the second community meeting was to present the preliminary conceptual alternatives and to seek community input. The community outreach program also included a project information website and e-mail address for submittal of comments, a phone number for comments and inquiries, and questionnaires that County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 5 February 2009 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2009 CMR: 420:09 REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District), and Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in the Downtown Area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . The purpose of these changes to the Zoning Ordinance is to address concerns about the loss of revenue generating retail and potential degradation of downtown economic vitality. Specifically, degradation resulting from an increase in ground floor office space in the downtown core due to dispersal of retail and personal service uses into the area outside the core. The existing Ground Floor Combining District regulations allow the Director to approve ground floor office use if a Use Exception is requested at a time when the City's annual downtown ground floor vacancy rate calculation is above 5% if allowed by the underlying CD-C regulations. Since a vacancy rate of approximately 10% is anticipated this year, the section of the code allowing Use Exceptions is recommended to be removed in order to ensure preservation of downtown retail uses. To balance this action, and concentrate retail in higher foot traffic areas, an amendment is proposed to relax existing restrictions in the CD-C zone outside the GF combining district, to allow the flexibility to lease ground floor space for either office or retail uses. Also recommended are adjustments to the boundaries of the Ground Floor Combining District to better reflect the critical areas of retail in the downtown core. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to include: • Removal of P AMC Section 18.30(C).040 eliminating the option for a Use Exception based on vacancy rate in the downtown core covered by the GF Combining District; CMR: 420:09 Page 1 of5 • Removal of PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) providing an increase in flexibility for ground floor uses in the periphery of the downtown; and • Addition of GF Combining District to the existing properties on the south side of Hamilton Avenue (the 200 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street) and to the Aquarius Theater and the two restaurant sites immediately to the north on Emerson, to protect these strong retail areas. Staff generally concurs with the P&TC recommendations, but continues to support adjusting the boundaries of the GF district to remove sites that are marginally viable for retail uses as described below: • Removal of GF protection from properties along Alma Street, and portions of High Street (near Hamilton Avenue); • Removal of GF protection from properties along the circle ramps connecting University Avenue and Alma Street; and • Removal of GF protection from three miscellaneous non-retail parcels along Kipling and Cowper north of University. BACKGROUND In order to address concerns about the vacancy rate of downtown ground floor retail spaces, the P&TC initiated the zoning ordinance changes on July 22, 2009, requesting that staff conduct outreach meetings with owners of property and businesses in the downtown core. City staff attended and hosted meetings as described in the P&TC staff report (Attachment E). On Septeluber 23, 2009, the P&TC reviewed the ordinance prepared by staff that was based on the P&TC comments at the initiation hearing and comments from property and business owners. The P&TC staff report provides additional background regarding the current Ground Floor Combining District (GF) and the Downtown Commercial Zoning District (CD-C) code which are included as Attachments B-D. DISCUSSION The draft ordinance (as recommended by the P &TC) is included as Attachment A. The proposed ordinance is intended to modify the land use regulations in the downtown based on a re- examination of current conditions and the efficacy of the existing regulations. The goal of these changes is to support the vitality of the downtown core of strengthening controls in the core and allowing more flexibility in the periphery. Based on the discussion at the initiation meeting on July 22,2009, and comments received dU11ng public outreach, staffmade four recommendations to P&TC of what areas of the downtown should be included in the core as described in the staff report dated September 23,2009, and in the discussion below. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On July 22 and September 23, 2009, the P&TC held public hearings regarding the proposed ordinance. There were two speakers at the first hearing and three speakers at the second hearing. The P&TC staff reports, meeting minutes, and responses to Commissioners' questions are attached to this report as Attachments E-I and are available on the City's website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.orgicivica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=l7098 CMR: 420:09 Page 2 of5 The P&TC divided its recommendation into six separate votes. 1. The P&TC voted unanimously to recommend removal of PAMC Section 18.30(C).040 so that there will no longer be the option for a Use Exception based on vacancy rate. 2. The P&TC voted (4-3) to remove PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) so that existing and future retail located in the CD-C zone outside the GF zone could become office in the future. 3. The P&TC voted unanimously to add GF protections to the existing retail on the south side of the block of retail on Hamilton Avenue (the 200 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street) and to the Aquarius Theater and the two restaurant sites immediately to the north on Emerson. 4. The P&TC voted unanimously to not limit "uses of concern" (restaurants, financial institutions, etc.). 5. The P&TC voted unanimously to retain the existing zoning of University Avenue east of Cowper Street and the properties on Bryant between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. 6. The P&TC voted (4-3) to retain the existing zoning of properties on Alma, High Street, University Avenue, Kipling or Cowper. Attachment A is the revised draft ordinance as recommended by the P &TC at the September 23, 2009, hearing. In addition to the elements included in the formal recommendation other issues were discussed in depth by the P &TC at the meeting. These include the following: r.' Retaining the current restrictions on existing retail in the CD-C to apply to retail existing between March 19, 2001 and 2009. 2. Adding the GF combining district to the properties located on both sides of Emerson Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue. ALTERNATIVES An alternative to the P &TC recommendation, as recommended by staff, would be to adjust the boundary of the GF combining district to remove several properties including: • Removal of GF combining district from properties along Alma Street, and portions of High Street (near Hamilton Avenue). (525, 529, 535-539 Alma Street, 115 & 135 Hamilton Avenue, 542 High Street) • Removal of GF combining district from properties along the circle ramps connecting University Avenue and Alma Street. (115-119, 102-116, 124, 125 University Avenue) • Removal of GF combining district from three miscellaneous non-retail parcels along Kipling and Cowper north of University. (440 Cowper Street and 437 & 443 Kipling Street) Staff supports this alternative in order to remove the ground floor restriction from sites that are not viable for retail uses. RESOURCE IMPACT The GF cornbining district does not ensure that businesses will provide a point of sale (personal service and service businesses which do not generate sales tax, are allowed in the GF), but focus CMR: Page on the core of the downtown retail district would add to the vibrancy and walkability of the business district. By clustering retail and personal service uses, retail studies show that foot traffic and additional sales will result. For example, in the recent studies by Gruen & Gruen Associates, retail experts in the Bay Area, found that "a critical mass of proximate and synergistic retail" is required for a successful downtown district. The additional proposed change recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, providing flexibility to property owners to change from retail to other uses (after March 21,2001 or thereafter), would also allow owners to bring in retail tenants into formerly non-retail spaces, by providing for reversion from retail to the former non-retail use. The potential economic impact of this primarily is in the occupancy of buildings that have been left vacant rather than locating a retailer that "locks in" the retail use forever. The lack of flexibility for marginal retail uses (e.g., 529 Alma) has resulted in vacancies for as long as 3 years. With the ability to alternate between retail and other approved uses, long term vacancies can be avoided and the economic vibrancy of the shopping district will be maintained. Allowing this type of flexibility will allow property owners to change from retail to other uses as the economy and demand for space fluctuates. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In addition to Policies that support the retail vitality of the University AvenuelDowntown area, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan specifically directs evaluation of the ground floor retail requirements through Program L-9: Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor retail requirement, in the University A venuelDowntown area. Keep the Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 420:09 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: CMR: 420:09 Draft Ordinance with Exhibits (Exhibit 1, property list, and Exhibit 2, map showing proposed revised locations ofGF combining district) Map showing existing location of CD-C zoning and GF combining Ground floor use restrictions for CD-C zoning district (pAMC Section 18. 18.060(f) GF zoning district regulations (P AMC Section 18.30(C).060) P&TC staff report dated September 23, 2009 (w/o attachments) P&TC staff report dated July 22,2009 (w/o attachments) Excerpt Minutes ofP&TC meeting September 23,2009 (Council only) Excerpt Minutes ofP&TC meeting July 22, 2009 (Council only) Commissioner Questions and Response to Questions Page 5 of5 NOTE YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. --Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.30(C).040, 18.18.060(F), and 18.08.040 (The Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Ground Floor Use Restrictions in the Downtown Area The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that: (a) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held September 23, 2009, reviewed, considered, and recommended that Sections 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), 18.30(C), and 18.18.060(f) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to delete Sections 18.30(C).040 and 18.18.060(f)(1), and to rezone properties as listed in Exhibit 1 and shown on Exhibit 2. (b) The Council, held a public hearing on November 9, 2009, and considered the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission. ( c) The proposed ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by adding the Ground Floor (GF) combining district to the properties listed on Exhibit 1. SECTION 3. Section 18.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Section 18.30(C).040 (Use Exemptions). SECTION 4. Section 18.18.060(f) (Restrictions on Office Uses) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Section 18.18.060(f)(l) and rename Section 18. 18.060(f)(2) to 18. 18.060(f)(1 ). SECTION 5. This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQ A as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts. II II 1 091103 syn 0120418 NOTE YET APPROVED SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 091027 syn 0120418 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager 2 EXHIBIT 1 The following properties will be added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 200-228 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-27-008 230-238 Hamilton Avenue -APN 120-27-009 240-248 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-27-010 412 Emerson Street APN 120-26-106 420 Emerson Street APN 120-26-025 430 Emerson Street APN 120-26-026 EXHIBIT 2 ~ ---I 2SD !!I 2 I I w lO) I ~ iUEROON8T1fi:T 11 11 MIGHI :rAII!ET • I I: ! 1:' ~ 1132 ill! m I I i. 116-122 !-- HIO i '1 I Legend c:::J CD-C (GF) (P) Zone c::J CD-C (P) Zone ALMA STREET v .. = .. = .... = ..... = .. = ... = ...................... c.= .... =,.,-J!I,----,--,=== The City of Palo Alto JcuUer, 2009~18 15:48:30 Jc Downlown Zoning (\\oo-mapslgls$\glsladmln\PersonallPlamlng.mdb) ATTACHMENT 8 S01 COWPER STREET I-1--'-- -- ···························1 ~l!l I--J:~i h~ 457-4671 ! WAVERLEY STREET Downtown Zoning with Ground Floor Retail Protections This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. 0' 3.58' This documanll. a graphIc "'p",senIaUon only of besl available SOIJrtes. The CIIy of Palo AIIo assumes no rSSPDnsiblll1y for any errors @1989102009 CIIy of Palo Alto j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j ATTACHMENT C 18.18.060 Development Standards (d) Hotel Regulations (1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT), may develop to a maximum FAR of2.0: 1. (2) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: (A) No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use; (B) No more than 25%) of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use; and (C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building( s). (e) Exempt Floor Area When a building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the chief building officia~ does not increase the usable floor area, and is either necessary to conform the building to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regarding handicapped access, or is necessary to implement the historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as floor area. (f) Restrictions on Office Uses (1 ) In all CD subdistricts, no medical, professiona~ or general business office shall be located on the ground floor, except such offices which: (A) Have been in continuously in existence in that space since March 19,2001, and, as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process ofbeing amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(D; (B) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, or automotive service on March 19,2001 or thereafter; (C) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19,2001; (D) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after March 19, 2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease; or (E) Are on a site located in an area subject to a Specific Plan or Coordinated Area Plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, or general business offices. (2) In the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, the following requirements shall apply to office uses: (A) No new gross square footage of a medical, professional, general business, or administrative office use shall be allowed, once the gross square footage of such office uses, or any combination of such uses, on a site has reached 5,000 square feet. , (B) No conversion of gross square footage from any other use to a medical, professional, general business, or administrative office use shall be allowed once the gross square footage of such office uses, or any combination of such uses, on a site has reached 5,000 square feet. Ch. 18.18 -Page 9 (Supp. No 13 10/1/2007) j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j ATTACHMENT 0 18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses Chapter 18.30(C) GROUND FLOOR (GF) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.30(C).010 Specific Purpose 18.30(C).020 Permitted Uses 18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses 18.30(C).040 Use Exception 18.30(C).010 Specific Purpose The ground floor combining district is intended to modifY the uses allowed in the CD commercial downtown district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. For the purposes of this chapter, "ground floor" means the first floor which is above grade. Where the ground floor combining district is combined with the CD district, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in lieu of the uses normally allowed in the CD district. Except for the regulations relating to uses set forth in this chapter, all other regulations shall be those of the applicable underlying CD district. (Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992) 18.30(C).020 Permitted Uses (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the OF combining district: (1) Eating and drinking; (2) Hotels; (3) Personal services; (4) Retail services; (5) Theaters; (6) Travel agencies; (7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving nonground floor uses; (8) All other uses permitted in the underlying district, provided such uses are not on the ground floor. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), not more than twenty-five percent of the ground floor area not fronting on a street may be occupied by a use permitted in the applicable underlying CD district. (Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992) 18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses (a) The following uses may be conditionally allowed on the ground floor in the OF ground floor combining district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Ch. 18.30 -Page 7 (Supp. No 13 -10/1I2007) 18.30(C).040 Use Exception Chapter 18.76 (permits and Approvals) and with the additional finding required by subsection (b): (1) Busmess or trade school; (2) Commercial recreation; (3) Day care; (4) Financial services, except drive in services; (5) General business service; (6) All other uses conditionally permitted in the applicable underlying CD district, provided such uses are not on the ground floor. (b) The director may grant a conditional use permit under this section only ifhe or she makes the following finding in addition to the findings required by Chapter 18.76 (permits and Approvals): The location, access or design of the ground floor space of the existing building housing the proposed use, creates exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. (c) Any use conditionally permitted pursuant to this section shall be effective only during the existence of the building that created the exceptional circumstance upon which the finding set forth in subsection (b) was made. (Ord. 4826 §§ 94, 95,2004: Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992) 18.30(C).040 Use Exception (a) Application may be made to the director of planning and community environment for an exception to the otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted ground floor uses, to allow a use permitted in the applicable underlying CD district, if the following conditions are met: (1) The initial application for the exception is made when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the GF combining district, as determined by city survey, is five percent (5%) or greater. (The city shall conduct the vacancy rate survey in September of each year.); and (2) The applicant can demonstrate that the ground floor space for which the application is being made has been vacant and available for occupancy six months or more at the time of the application. (b) Any exception granted pursuant to this section shall be for a specific use, and shall be effective for five years, or less time if requested by the applicant. (Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992) {Supp. No 13 -10/1/2007 Ch. 18.30 -Page 8 ATTACHMENT E PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Jennifer Cutler Planner AGENDA DATE: September 23, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SlTBJECT: Amendment of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.0S.040 (the Zoning Map), Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District), and Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in the Downtown RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend amendment of the Zoning Map and Text Changes to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter IS.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter IS.18 (Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District) to City Council for the purpose of modifying the restrictions on ground floor uses, as set forth in Attachment A with attached Exhibits. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: The purpose of these changes to the Zoning Ordinance is to address concerns about the loss of revenue generating retail and potential degradation of downtown vitality from an increase in ground floor office space in the downtown core and due to dispersal of retail and personal service uses into the area outside the core. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance were initiated by the P&TC on July 22,2009, with the request that staff conduct outreach meetings with owners of property and businesses in the downtown core to get feedback on the potential code changes. City staff attended meetings of the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Improvement District on August 5th and 12th, respectively. Following those meetings, staff sent out notice cards to downtown property and business owners for two meetings held at City Hall on August ISth and 25th, A follow-up meeting with interested parties to discuss potential map changes was held on September 2nd, City of Palo Alto Page 1 Ground Floor (GF) Combining District The regulations contained in the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District were initially implemented in 1986 with the creation of the CD zoning district as a subdistrict to that district. The GF combining district restricts ground floor uses, unless a conditional use permit is granted, to the following: (1) Eating and drinking; (2) Hotels; (3) Personal services; (4) Retail services; (5) Theaters; (6) Travel agencies; (7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving on ground floor uses. The only significant changes since the original 1986 code are the inclusion of conditional uses which include commercial recreation, daycare, financial services, and others (see Attachment C for the full list). This combining district also contains a section allowing for a request for a use exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the GF combining district is five percent (5%) or greater, and the ground floor space has been vacant and available for six months or more. Commercial Downtown (CD) District The restrictions on ground floor use in commercial districts throughout the City were implemented at a City Council Meeting on November 19, 2001. These restrictions bar medical, professional, or general business offices located on the ground floor except in certain situations, including existing offices, and locations that have not been occupied by housing, retail, restaurants, personal services or automotive services since March 19,2001 (Attachment B). These restrictions are different from the GF restrictions, in that they protect only existing ground floor retail by preventing ground floor office if there is or has been retail (or one of the uses listed above) in that location on or since March 19, 2001. These restrictions do not include a provision allowing the Director to issue Use Exceptions upon a determination that a specified vacancy rate has been exceeded, as is found in the GF district. Vacancy Rate Current estimates place the vacancy rate for ground floor spaces in the downtown core Ground Floor (GF) Combining District at approximately 10%. The formal calculation of the vacancy rate in the downtown core is conducted each September and reported to City Council shortly thereafter. It is calculated based on the square footage of ground floor space vacant at that time. This report outlines proposed changes to these existing zoning designations and the zoning map developed by staff, based on input from downtown property and business owners, to help address potential problems related to high vacancy rates. DISCUSSION: The predominate zoning classifications in the downtown area are CD-C(GF)(P) on both sides of University Avenue and north of Hamilton A venue between Alma and Waverley Streets, and CD- C(P) located on Lytton A venue between Alma & Kipling Streets to Forest Avenue between City of Palo Alto Page 2 Emerson & Waverley Streets. Attachment A shows a map of these zones. Most of the unmarked properties in the downtown core area are either Planned Community (PC) zones or Public Facility (PF) zones (Attachment B). The CD-C regulations, as well as those of the other commercial districts within the City, include restrictions on ground floor office uses. These restrictions focus mostly on protecting existing housing, retail, restaurants, personal services and automotive services in the ground floor space. These regulations do not provide any opportunity for sites with these uses to revert to office under any conditions but they do not prevent office from continuing where it currently exists. The intent of the OF restrictions is to modify the uses allowed in the CD commercial downtown district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. The OF code, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.30(C).010, lists specific uses allowed on the ground floor, but allows for a Use Exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the OF combining district is five percent (5%) or greater and the applicant can show that the location has been vacant and available for six months or more. There is no provision for a Use Exception in the similar restrictions existing within the CD district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)). Business Outreach: Two meetings with downtown property and business owners were held at City Hall on August 18th and 25th to discuss four key questions. These meetings had an attendance of approximately 15-20 people each. A follow-up meeting with interested parties to discuss the specific map changes was held on September 2nd• The four questions addressed in these discussions were as follows: 1. Should the vacancy rate required for a use exception request to allow ground floor office in the Oround Floor (OF) combining district be increased (from its current 50/0), or should the use exception process be removed completely? 2. Should the restrictions in the Commercial Downtown Community (CD-C) district outside of the OF zone be revised to allow office space where retail currently exists? 3. Should the OF district boundaries be revised? If so, what areas should be added to the OF district, and which should be removed? 4. Are there certain uses that should be limited in quantity in the downtown core? Restaurants and financial institutions are two that have been discussed. If so, what limits might be set? The meetings revealed a high level of consensus between those who attended the meetings, as well as those who called in with comments. Attendees voiced strong support for removal of the use exception from the code (Item 1) so as to protect what was felt to be the essential continuity of retail in the downtown core. Item 2, the increased flexibility in ground floor uses outside of the OF Combining District, also received significant support, as long as the map boundaries were adjusted to include certain valuable retail areas, and provide relief for some OF-zoned sites that City of Palo Alto Page 3 are not desirable for retail (Item 3). Alma Street was called out as a particularly difficult location for retail, but the vitality of the Emerson Street retail corridor was discussed as a potential area for added protection. Attendees agreed that financial institutions that act like offices were inappropriate on the ground floor of buildings in the core where the continuity of the pedestrian environment is so important, but acknowledged that could be addressed through existing conditional use permit process. There was strong opposition to the idea of restricting other uses, such as restaurants, which support the vitality of downtown and are generally limited and controlled by economic factors. Staff Recommended Changes to Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations: Staff recommends removal ofPAMC Section 18.30(C).040 so that there will no longer be the option for a Use Exception based on vacancy rate. Staff Recommended Changes to Downtown Comnlercial (CD-C) District Regulations: Staff recommends removal of PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) so that loss of flexibility of ground floor uses in the downtown core covered by the OF Combining District will be balanced by an increase in flexibility for ground floor uses in the periphery of the downtown. Staff Recommended Revisions of Zoning Map: Staff recommends revisions to PAMC Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) to remove from and add specific properties to the OF Combining District. The list of properties is provided as Exhibits 1 and 2 of Attachment A. The key changes and other considerations included: • Removal of OF protection from properties along Alma Street, and portions of High Street (near Hamilton Avenue). • Removal of OF protection from properties along the circle ramps connecting University A venue and Alma Street. • Added OF protections to the existing retail on the south side of the strongest block of retail on Hamilton Avenue (the 200 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street) and to the Aquarius Theater and the two restaurant sites imnlediately to the north on Emerson. • Three miscellaneous non-retail parcels along Kipling and Cowper north of University are also proposed to be removed from the OF zoning. • No changes to University A venue east of Cowper Street. • No changes to Bryant between University A venue and Hamilton A venue. Staff believes-that these changes reflect the areas of downtown that are most valuable as retail assets and provide a logical retail core that is not just University Avenue, but the "t" created by University A venue and Emerson Street as it connects to the Aquarius Theatre in one direction and the SOFA district in the other. Discussion of the properties along Emerson Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue resulted in the conclusion that those properties are not as strong candidates for the OF combining district as they are separated from the downtown core retail by Casa Olga on the comer of Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street and likely to stay retail without additional restrictions. The retail emphasis is also focused only on one side (west) of Emerson Street. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Staff Recommended Limits on Businesses of Concern: Staff recommends no changes to the limits on specific businesses of concern. This recoriunendation in regards to financial institutions is based on the finding that financial institutions are currently restricted by a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit within the GF Combining District, and can therefore be required to provide an active pedestrian environment on the street prior to granting of any permit. In regards to a concern expressed by the P&TC about the number of restaurants, the public feedback received strongly supported the idea that economic forces would provide sufficient controls, and that the additional process and expense that would be imposed on potential new restaurants in order to limit their numbers would have a significant negative impact on the vitality of downtown. Planning & Transportation Commission Comments at Initiation: Minutes of the meeting to initiate these changes to the Municipal Code are included as Attachment E of this report. Staff has prepared a table of the comments received at that meeting and responses as Attachment F. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In addition to Policies that support the retail vitality of the University AvenueIDowntown area, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan specifically directs evaluation of the ground floor retail requirements through Program L-9: Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor retail requirement, in the University A venueIDowntown area. Keep the Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance with Exhibits (Exhibits 1 and 2, property lists, and Exhibit 3, map showing proposed revised locations of GF combining district) B. Map showing existing location ofCD-C zoning and GF combining C. Ground floor use restrictions for CD-C zoning district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(f» D. GF zoning district regulations (pAMC Section 18.30(C).060) E. P&TC Meeting Minutes, July 22,2009. F. Table showing PTC's Concerns and Staff's Responses Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager DepartmentiDivision Head Approval: __ C]~..I-~Z.lI"-~:oo.......;:~~~~~:..3w' ~~.~~~.--____ _ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 5 j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j ATTACHMENT F PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Jennifer Cutler Planner AGENDA DATE: . July 22, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT: Initiation of Zoning Map and Text Changes to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) initiate changes to the Zoning Ordinance to modify the restrictions on ground floor uses in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.30(C) (the existing Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District), and direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) to prepare the proposed zoning ordinance text and potential zone district boundaries. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: The purpose of these changes to the Zoning Ordinance is to address concerns about the revenue generating retail and downtown vitality of downtown through increased office uses on ground floor in the downtown core and due to dispersal of retail and personal service uses. Ground Floor (GF) Combining District The regulations contained in the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District were initially implemented in 1986 with the creation of the CD zoning district as a subsection to that district. The text of the regulation, which stays essentially intact from the original 1986 regulations, was converted as a combining district separate from the CD zones in 1992. The only significant changes since 1986 are the inclusion of conditional uses which include commercial recreation, daycare, financial services, and others (see Attachment C for full list). This combining district also contains the use exception wording from the original ground floor section of the CD zone. City of Palo Alto Page 1 This section allows for request for a use exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the GF combining district is five percent (5%) or greater, and the ground floor space has been vacant and available for six months or more. Commercial Downtown (CD) District The restrictions on ground floor use in commercial districts throughout the City were implemented at a City Council Meeting on November 19, 2001, in response to a Colleague'S Memo dated March 15, 2001. These restrictions bar medical, professional, or general business offices located on the ground floor except in certain situations, including existing offices, and locations that have not been occupied by housing, retail, restaurants, personal services or automotive services since March 19, 2001 (Attachment B). These restrictions do not include a provision allowing the Director to issue Use Exceptions upon a determination that a specified vacancy rate has been exceeded, as is found in the GF district. Vacancy Rate Current estimates place the vacancy rate for ground floor spaces in the downtown core Ground Floor (GF) Combining District between 10 and 15 %. The formal calculation of the vacancy rate in the downtown core is conducted each September and is calculated based on the square footage of ground floor space vacant at that time. With the vacancy rate potentially above the 5% threshold, there are also concerns that areas on the edge of the CD-C and GF areas may not be strong retail locations and therefore detract from the vitality of the downtown core. Some examples include spaces at 265 Lytton, and 530 University. This report outlines potential changes to these existing zoning designations and the zoning map to help address potential problems related to high vacancy rates. If the P &TC agrees that this issue should be addressed, it should initiate the zone change and staff will return with a proposed ordinance. DISCUSSION: The predominate zoning classifications in the downtown area are CD-C( GF)(P) on both sides of University Ave and north of Hamilton between Alma and Waverley, and CD-C(P) located on Lytton between Alma & Kipling to Forest between Emerson & Waverley. Attachment A shows a map of these zones. Most of the unmarked properties in the downtown core area are either Planned Community (PC) zones or Public Facility (PF) zones (Attachment A). The CD-C regulations, as well as the other commercial districts within the City, include restrictions on ground floor office uses. These restrictions focus mostly on protecting housing, retail, restaurants, personal services and automotive services that exist in the ground floor space. These regulations do not provide any opportunity for sites with these uses to revert to office under any conditions. The intent of the GF restrictions is to modify the uses allowed in the CD commercial downtown district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. This combining district is primarily used on properties in the downtown but since 2001, also applies to properties along Middlefield Road in Midtown. The GF code, Palo Alto Municipal Code (FAMC) Section 18.30(C).010, lists specific City of Palo Alto Page 2 uses allowed on the ground floor, but allows for a Use Exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the GF combining district is five percent(5%) or greater and the applicant can show that the location has been vacant and available for six months or more. There is no provision for a Use Exception in the similar restrictions existing within the CD district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(1). Revisions to the CD-C and GF zones that have been suggested for potential discussion include (but are not restricted to) the following: 1. Increase the vacancy rate (to 15 or 20%) required in the GF combining district applied to the downtown core before a Use Exception may be considered and issued by the Director (P AMC 18.30(C).040). This revision to the code would strengthen the downtown retail core by preventing significant requests for use exceptions when the City is in an economic downturn. 2. Allow office on the ground floor of buildings within the CD-C district outside of the GF downtown core, regardless of their previous use. This revision to the code would encourage property owners to allow retail without excluding the possibility of converting back to office at some future date. This revision to the code would encourage concentration of retail use to those locations covered by the GF combining district. Alternatively, this flexibility could be limited to certain sites only. 3. Revise the boundary of the downtown GF combining district to expand or contract the boundary to better reflect the current downtown core, and to Include the most viable CD-C retail areas. 4. Differentiating between retail use and restaurant use. This might be a method for limiting the number of restaurants within the downtown core, to maintain and encourage a greater variety of retail use. Since the City no longer limits the number of downtown restaurants serving alcohol on a block by block basis, the number of conversions from retail use to restaurant use in the GF area has increased and that number could increase further in the future. It is generally true for Palo Alto's downtown core that once a commercial space has converted to restaurant use, with all of the associated tenant improvements, it is less likely convert back to retail use. Business Outreach: On July 8,2009, city staffmet with developers, owners and managers of downtown properties, and representatives from the Downtown Business Improvement District and Chamber of Commerce, to solicit their reactions to the proposals listed above, as well as to receive any recommendations they might have on the subject. The comments received at that meeting included the following: 1. It is a misconception that more retail floor area means more sales tax, as the level of retail quality can decline. 2. A certain amount of office space is needed because office tenants support the retail and make the downtown active during the daytime. City of Palo Alto Page 3 3. Restaurants are the anchor tenants for Palo Alto's downtown and extend the active hours of downtown. 4. Downtown areas not covered by the GF combining district should have more flexibility of uses including office, similar to SOFA II restrictions. 5. Dentists and walk-in service banks are also good uses in a downtown because their clients also support nearby retail shops. 6. Removal of the use exception provision contingent upon a 5% vacancy rate in GF district was generally supported, but support was not unanimous. 7. Removal of GF combining district from certain properties along Alma Street, and 'from properties on University Avenue north of Cowper Street. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In addition to Policies that support the retail vitality of the University A venuelDowntown area, the Palo Alto Conlprehensive Plan specifically directs evaluation of the ground floor retail requirements through Program L-9: Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor retail requirement, in the University AvenuelDowntown area. Keep the Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action (initiation of zoning changes) by the Planning and Transportation Commission is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any subsequent zoning map amendment would be subject to review under CEQA. ATTACHMENTS: A. Map showing location of CD-C zoning and GF overlay B. Ground floor use restrictions for CD-C zoning district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)) C. GF zoning district regulations (p AMC Section 18.30(C).060) D. Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report CMR, May 18,2009. Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: __ Q~~E.Z...::...........,;.~_UJ.-;......;=-..;:om~~L_~.w:;.""'::...-~:--____ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director City of Palo Alto Page 4 ATTACHMENT G 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatint Minutes 3 September 23, 2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Ground Floor Retail Vitality and Protection Ordinance: Review and recommendation to 8 city Council to amend the Zoning Map and Text of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9 18.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions 11 on Ground Floor Uses. 12 13 Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Yes. Good evening Commissioners. This item is a City initiated 14 action. In the Staff Report for this item we have provided a draft ordinance, which includes 15 changes to both the CD-C zoning district and the GF Combining District, as well as the map 16 where these zones apply. 17 18 These changes are recommended by Staff based on extensive research and public outreach since 19 our last meeting on this item when it was initiated. The public outreach included attending 20 meetings of the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Improvement District, as well 21 as three separate meetings at City Hall to which property and business owners in the CD-C and 22 GF Districts were invited by custom notice cards that were sent to all listed property owners and 23 business owners. The intent of these recommended changes are to modify the ground floor use 24 rules in the Downtown, to enhance and protect the vitality of the Downtown core. 25 26 The existing GF District covers the core of Downtown, which you can see in orange on the map 27 up above here. In these code sections there is a list of seven permitted uses and five 28 conditionally permitted uses on the ground floor level. None of these uses are office. This 29 district also has a provision in it that allows a use exception when the City's calculated vacancy 30 rate of the ground floor area in this Ground Floor District grows above five percent. The current 31 estimate is approximately ten percent, though the official count for 2009 has not yet been 32 completed. So the previous count of 4.21 percent still stands. So at this time use exceptions are 33 not currently available. 34 35 The CD-C Zone covers all of Downtown and is shown in yellow where it is not combined with 36 the GF Combining District. This district has a greater number of allowed uses including office, 37 but there is a section of this code, which prevents office on the ground floor if the space has been 38 occupied by housing, retail services, restaurants, personal services, or automotive services since 39 March 2001. This protects existing retail but Staffs outreach has told us that it also prevents 40 some cautious property owners from taking a chance on retail if there is a chance that they might 41 want to switch back to office in the future. The fact that the CD-C District does not have 42 flexibility for ground floor uses once it has been retail also has the effect of spreading the 43 Downtown retail thin rather than allowing it to concentrate in the core orange section of the map 44 for the Downtown. 45 46 Staff s recommendation included in the Staff Report and draft ordinance are based on comments 47 fron1 the Commission at the initiation of this zone change in July and the public outreach 48 meetings. The recommendations include, first to strengthen the ground floor retail protections in 49 the GF core by removing the provisions for the use exception and vacancy rate calculation. Page 9 1 Second, to balance this increased restriction by loosening the restrictions on ground floor uses in 2 the periphery of Downtown, in the areas that are yellow covered by the CD-C District but not the 3 GF. Three, revisions to the map so that the GF District is adjusted to include some areas that 4 should continue to have protection on ground floor uses but remove it from those areas that are 5 not part of that essential Downtown core. 6 7 The public outreach also involved a discussion of possible limits on restaurants and other uses of 8 concern. The public feedback that was received strongly supported the idea that economic 9 factors would provide sufficient controls and that additional process and expense that would be 10 imposed on potential new restaurants in order to limit their numbers would have a significant 11 negative effect on the vitality of Downtown. 12 13 The next steps in this process will include additional outreach and then review by the City 14 Council. We expect the additional outreach will include sending additional custom notice cards 15 to all property and business owners within the CD-C and GF Districts as well as making specific 16 calls to the owners of those properties who are proposed to be specifically added to or removed 17 from the GF District. 18 19 Several questions were received by Staff from the Commissioners and responses have been 20 provided at places. Staff is available to answer any additional questions. Thank you. 21 22 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we will go directly to public comments. If you would I would 23 like you to hold any questions of those members of the public that may be speaking but we will 24 leave the public comment period open so that if we have questions of them when it comes back 25 to us for questions and comment we can ask people to approach and ask them directly at that 26 time. After we get through the public comments my proposal here is that we give each of us five 27 minutes to ask questions and/or comments so we can get through one row of comments. Then 28 potentially I would suggest that we do some straw polls querying the Commissioners specifically 29 on the recommendations by Staff and then we can open it up to further discussion. Ideally we 30 would get through this item in about an hour and a half or so under that plan. Is that acceptable? 31 I am seeing general nods of heads. Okay. 32 33 Let us invite the public to come and speak. We have three cards. The first is Jim Thoits 34 followed by Chop Keenan. You will have three minutes. 35 36 Mr. Jim Thoits, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I am with Thoits Brothers. First of all I 37 would like to thank Staff and Curtis for the outreach to the business community and the property 38 owners on this process. We have attended the meetings and had a very good session and I 39 commend them for their work on this. 40 41 We have added some properties into the GF zone and we feel we have a good relationship with 42 what is being presented. There is one exception I would like to address and that is the property 43 at 285 Hamilton. We built this in 1969 as Thoits Brothers. It was designed around an office "Use. 44 Originally Great Western was in there for quite a few years if you remember. They left to move 45 across to 300 Hamilton. When they moved there Cornish & Carey occupied that space and was a 46 realty office for some time. When Cornish & Carey vacated your own developmental center 47 showed interest in it and they have been there since. 48 Page 10 1 We feel that the configuration of the building lends itself to an office use. It has a deep eave 2 setback. The retail accessibility and visibility is limited at that building. The use of the building 3 since inception has been office. We have enjoyed the office community there. I think it brings 4 vitality to the comer in its use. The use as a bank, the Cornish & Carey office, and now your 5 Development Center is an area that does see vitality. It sees a lot of activity back and forth. So 6 we feel that we would like to exclude this one property from the GF zone. I would like the 7 Commission to give this some consideration. Thank you very much for that. If there are any 8 questions I can answer now I can do that. 9 10 Chair Garber: There ~s a distinct possibility that you may be asked questions once we get 11 through the rest of the pUblic. Thank you. Chop Keenan followed by Faith Bell. 12 13 Mr. Chop Keenan, Palo Alto: Good afternoon. Well, I too want to echo Jim on the Staff 14 outreach on this. It has just been a delight to engage. It has been a lot of fun, a lot of arm 15 wrestling. There was no fait a complete, here is what we are going to do. It was really to gather 16 our input in huge contrast to maybe the Measure A output. Sorry, I couldn't help myself 17 18 So I know Jennifer walked every block in town. She had her walking shoes and so did the 19 people in my office. So we looked at every single property. We want to see the core 20 strengthened. The safety valve of the vacancy rate has been important, but hasn't been relevant 21 because it has been pretty vibrant for a long time. That vacancy rate is well in excess often 22 percent. There are spaces that are paying rent but that are vacant such as the old Magnolia's. 23 My guess is this is well north of 15 percent right now. 24 25 The other point I want to make is that these are symbiotic uses, office and retail. Those office 26 workers are customers so it is important that it be viewed that way and not as something that is 27 mutually exclusive. 28 29 I own the Aquarius Theater. It is one of those that is being proposed for GF on Emerson. I don't 30 have a big problem with it. I have turned down a lot of other alternatives for that property 31 because I just like to have the theater Downtown. I think it brings some vibrancy. Although 32 theaters don't pay a lot of rent it adds to our other holdings and so I would say that it is a little 33 deep, and I am not going to worry about it. Ifwe want to do something different there we will 34 come forward and talk about it then but it is way too deep to be all retail. Maybe the first 60 feet 35 would be more appropriate. 36 37 The ability to flip in and out of office in the yellow CD-C zone is essential. It is in my opinion 38 the quid pro quo here. We do not, when we have an office vacancy, even consider retail because 39 it is a one-way street. Once it goes to retail you can't flip back to office. The market has a funny 40 way of figuring these things out. Retail buildings, we get retail users and so I would encourage 41 you that that is a critical part of our endorsement of this densification of the GF zone. Thank 42 you. 43 44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Faith Bell, our last speaker. 45 46 Ms. Faith Bell, Bell's Books, Palo Alto: Hello once again. I would just like to lend my support 47 to the idea of the ground floor retail being extended along Emerson Street. I think that is 48 historically a retail district and has grown a lot in that way recently. I am distressed to think 49 about the circle at the end of University Avenue not being retail. I am also distressed to think Page 11 1 . about High Street not staying with a retail orientation. I think that to exclude that end of town 2 from a retail requirement will deaden it. I think that traditionally and historically it has been 3 retail. My father had a business going on the circle in 1935, and I would like to see that end of 4 town stay vibrant. I think that once you let it all revert to office spaces that won't happen. 5 6 I would also like to make a quick comment about the process here. While there are many people 7 in the development community who I respect I am somewhat concerned that it seems as if they 8 are the people who are primarily asked to give input to this process. I would have hoped that 9 there were some kinds of present legal parameters for determining which buildings count as 10 more suitable to retail application rather than people whose financial interests are so very strictly 11 tied to it. I would have thought that the master plan or some such document would have had 12 some guidelines to that and I would certainly like to see that brought to bear on it. So thank you 13 for your attention. 14 15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, let's give ourselves each five minutes to ask 16 questions andlor make comments. We will get through one round of that and then we will do a 17 couple of straw polls to find out where the sensitive points are and then try and focus our 18 remaining discussion on those particular points. Commissioner Holman would you like to go 19 first? 20 21 Commissioner Holman: Sure, and I won't initially take five nlinutes. One question is a 22 procedural question. I do see that Susan Barnes, the Economic Development Planner, is here and 23 I was wondering if she might be asked to sit at the table because I am sure there are going to be 24 questions. 25 26 Chair Garber: Perfectly happy to have your five minutes start now. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I had asked a question about SOFA II because my recollection, 29 and I did not have time to look it up, but my recollection of SOF A II is that ground floor retail is 30 required on the street fronts on Emerson Street. Could Staff give that indication, please? 31 32 Ms. Cutler: Yes, there is a specific section of SOFA II for sites on the Homer/Emerson corridor, 33 which is defined as Homer Avenue between Alma and Ramona, so I believe that is three blocks, 34 and Emerson Street between Forest Avenue and Channing, which I believe is two blocks that are 35 under restrictions that are very similar to what the CD-C has at the moment as well. Protection 36 for ifit has existing retail, eating and drinking, personal service, automotive services now or 37 since March 19, 2001. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: You said between Homer and Addison, right? What were the streets? 40 41 Ms. Cutler: Channing and forest. 42 43 Commissioner Holman: Okay. So what consideration was given to connecting those retail 44 requirements or was that considered? 45 46 Mr. Curtis Williams. Planning Director: There was much consideration. I would say that that's 47 probably the -although I have to say that we didn't focus on the fact that SOFA had that down 48 there but more the fact that there was retail down there and particularly that this is sort of a 49 corridor to Whole Foods and that node. So there was a lot of discussion about that. I think Page 12 1 ultimately the reason it wasn't was it starts to make that GF corridor start to stick out in a 2 different direction then and it is not sort of clustered together and separated by I guess it is Casa 3 Olga there too. That is certainly an issue for the Commission to discuss. There is logic to that 4 kind of connection but again starting to extend fingers of the GF down seemed somewhat 5 contrary to trying to sort of focus on it and compress it between Lytton and Hamilton. So 6 certainly we heard opinions on both sides of that issue and they both have some valid points. I 7 think you can probably ask for some of the folks out here to comment about their perspectives 8 because you will get both from them. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: I had hear, and I only heard this, I am not trying to start a rumor it is 11 just something I heard, that Casa Olga was going to be redeveloped, the property is going to be 12 redeveloped. Has Staffheard anything about that? 13 14 Mr. Williams: I have heard that from time to time but there has not been any kind of 15 presentation to us about any change on that site, not that I am aware of. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: A question for Susan Barnes. When I look at the circle and removing 18 the ground floor requirements there what pops into my mind is the situation that we have at 19 California Avenue where the train station is. It is not too dissimilar to the situation that we have 20 here. One of the things that are really problematic about California Avenue is leaving that train 21 station there are just dead walls there. While this wouldn't be dead walls I would like your 22 feedback on the impact of people again coming from the Stanford side, people coming from the 23 train station. They are coming along and they are not going to see the interface with retail and 24 services there but potentially offices. Could you comment on that and compare it to California 25 Avenue if you might? 26 27 Ms. Susan Barnes, Economic ResourceslRedevelopment Program Manager: We talked quite a 28 bit about that and what we were hearing from a number of the businesses and property owners 29 there is that the configuration of the buildings specifically on the south side there was not very 30 conducive to retail uses, and what was happening was people were walking directly from the 31 train station and were not stopping at those businesses. There had been a lot of turnover and that 32 type of thing. 33 34 I actually kind of like that circle and I kind of often gave the position that if we really did have a 35 walkable comnlunity that those places were accessible and the parking wasn't as difficult and 36 things like that. But really what we heard from property owners and a number of businesses was 37 they didn't think it was very conducive, especially in those first few spaces there. 38 39 I think it is a little bit different than the California Avenue area just by virtue of the types of 40 businesses that are there. The Plantation Cafe tried very, very hard to make it there and had a lot 41 of difficulty. So I don't know. I think it is one of those areas that we had kind of want to ..... 42 43 Mr. Williams: If I could add, I think also one of the difficulties was that isn't, unlike the other 44 streets here where you are up on a flat surface and it is easily walkable and connectable, you 45 have the vehicular traffic coming under there and up, and just is kind of a mess and sort of 46 difficult to anticipate particularly a highly viable retail space but celiainly there have been retail 47 spaces there. They have not been too long lasting but they continue to pop up there. So like 48 Susan said, it is another one of those areas that there was a lot of discussion about. 49 Page 13 1 Commissioner Holman: I will pass now of course because of the five nlinutes but I am going to 2 have some follow-ups to that line of questioning. 3 4 Chair Garber: Sure. Commissioners, someone else? Commissioner Fineberg. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to follow up on Commissioner Holman's question about 7 Casa Olga. If one is to believe what one sees in the newspaper the intermediate care facility that 8 located at that site is being closed. The folks that called that home are moving out in a very short 9 period of time, and I believe there was a quote from Jim Baer talking about working with the 10 developers to determine an advantageous way to redevelop the property that would benefit the 11 public. Again, I understand that until there is something concrete they are not going to come to 12 Staff but that plants a seed in my mind that more than any time in the last 30 years that property 13 is likely to be redeveloped. So I don't necessarily know what the answers are for that block on 14 Emerson but I think we ought to consider what happens with Emerson with the assumption that 15 there is high likelihood that in a short period of tinle it will be developed. We need to zone for 16 what we want, the community, what gets built will be what we allow. So the community needs 1 7 to have some discussion and thought as to what should be there when it is, if it is indeed 18 redeveloped. Again, I am going from what I read in the press, it is likely to be redeveloped more 19 so than in the past. That's it. 20 21 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, Chair Garber. First of all, Ijust want to let you all know, I apologize, 22 but I need to go next door to the Council Candidate orientation. I will probably be running back 23 and forth during this meeting. So if you see me get up and leave I will probably be back. 24 25 I did want to point out that one of the things we want to stress here is that just because something 26 or a site is in this yellow area, which wouldn't have the same protection as before, does not nlean 27 that it would not be retail. There is nothing that says that it now has to be office. There are lots 28 of areas around the perimeter of this that either developed as retail before we had these 29 regulations or even outside the yellow and have developed as retail. So it is just a matter of is 30 there flexibility to go in and out. Maybe Casa Olga is a location that it is a criticallynchpin and 31 you feel like that needs to have that protection. I just want to be sure we are not assuming that 32 everything in yellow is automatically office just because it doesn't have that same level of 33 protection. 34 35 Chair Garber: Thank you. I failed to inform the Commission that the Planning Director is going 36 to be flipping between meetings. The other thing to note is that both the Planning Director and 37 the City Attorney will have to leave early this evening in preparation of arriving here very early 38 tomorrow with the anticipated furlough issue. So take advantage of them while we have them. 39 40 Commissioner Fineberg, did you have a follow up? Okay. Commissioner Tuma and then 41 Keller. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: I want to delve into a little bit about the input from the community and 44 various components of the community because I think this is a situation where obviously Staff 45 highly valued the input from the business community. They are probably better well situated 46 than Staff or the Planning Commission for that matter to really understand the nuances of the 47 business climate. So I am very inclined to rely on that information as well but I want to make 48 sure that we have an adequate cross-section of different players who have had not only the 49 opportunity which was through the invitations that were extended by Staff but who actually did Page 14 1 come in and talk to you folks. So there are a couple of specific areas in the Staff Report where it 2 sounds like you are relying fairly heavily on that input. 3 4 One of those has to do with whether or not there should be any limits put on restaurants. So that 5 is by way of example, but I think it would be helpful for us and the public to understand, and 6 there was one comment made by one of our speakers as to who all was involved in these 7 discussions, not only who was invited but who was actually involved and formed the basis for 8 some of the recommendations that we have here. I did see the list that was provided in response 9 to Commissioner Martinez's question but that didn't really sort of identify for me on the 10 particular issues that were relying on this input, who were the players that were given that input. 11 So if you could give us a little bit more background on that that would be great. 12 13 Ms. Cutler: One of the other attachments that I included with our responses to Commissioner 14 Martinez's questions was the list of questions and kind of the outline we provided at each of 15 these meetings. We started with a meeting that was mostly property owners. The second 16 meeting we had property owners and business owners were both invited. We held it here. That 17 meeting was really a useful because we did have a good mix, a number of different business 18 owners or managers as well as property owners. Also in addition to that Curtis and Susan 19 attended the Downtown Business Improvement District meeting, the Chamber of Commerce, so 20 we got some more feelers out there to the business owners. We covered all of these topics as 21 best we could in those discussions with all of them. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: I know sometimes with outreach we ask for participation and we don't get it, 24 or we get it but it only comes from sort of one perspective or a couple of perspectives. Do you 25 feel that through the discussions that you have had that the various different perspectives are all 26 reflected in the recommendations that you have made or were some of the recommendations that 27 you have made in the absence of input from certain sectors? 28 29 Ms. Cutler: From the diversity of people that we had I feel that we did have representatives of 30 small business owners, people who owned just one property, larger property owners. So we had 31 representatives from each of those sectors. While there are different opinions between the 32 different people we had good discussion and at the end of these meetings I feel like in general the 33 consensus was of support of these recommendations. 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Could you comment on Mr. Thoits' request regarding 285 Hamilton? 36 37 Ms. Cutler: At the moment I believe our recommendation is to keep that block of Bryant in the 38 GF overlay. While it has some difficulties at the moment with the new development on the 39 comer of University and Bryant I think it is important to hold onto to trying to keep that a good 40 strong retail. Removing that comer from the GF might be of concern because it breaks up 41 potential future continuity but I think part of what he has to say about it not being conducive to 42 . future retail use because of the design of the building does have some merit as well. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but just be clear, we are not changing anything there. 45 46 Ms. Cutler: Correct. Weare not proposing any changes for that site. 47 48 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. 49 Page 15 1 Chair Garber: Go ahead. 2 3 Ms. Barnes: I think that Bryant Street has been problematic for a while. We have had sonle 4 concerns about the amount of turnover of businesses on Bryant Street. We also recognize the 5 fact that with the revitalization of the Walgreen's comer that that street is going to yet change 6 again. There has been an awful lot of construction there. It has been problematic for those 7 businesses that have been located there. The reason that we have kind of kept that particular 8 piece in is for the kind of continuity that Jennifer is talking about. There are a number of small 9 businesses across the street there and the synergy seenlS to work, but she is right also about, and 10 Jim is also right about the configuration of the business and it is problematic. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One last question again related to outreach. For the properties that are 13 being changed either in or out has Staffhad discussions with every single owner and business 14 operator of those properties to make sure they understand that this is going on and to get their 15 feedback on it? 16 17 Ms. Cutler: I don't believe that we have had individual discussions with everyone of them. I 18 believe our goal would be once we have a recommendation from the Planning Commission we 19 would do outreach to them so they are aware of what that final recommendation from the 20 Planning Commission is to Council before the Council sees this issue. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay, thank you. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Lippert. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First of all I would assume that there is universal agreement 27 with respect to eliminating the potential of the use exception, which is the Staff recommended 28 change to Ground Floor, the first change. I think we will probably see that in the straw vote. 29 30 Secondly, with the second item I hear a concern about the idea of there being two-way -in other 31 words, right now going to retail is a ratchet. Ifit becomes retail it has to stay retail. I understand 32 that that is a concern for property owners to go to retail. So firstly I think we don't want to lose 33 the existing retail that is there and reducing the protection for the existing retail uses if there is 34 some property that becomes vacant then there might be a desire to make it not retail, and that 35 would cause some sort of discontinuities in whatever retail exists. So I think there is a desire to 36 strengthen retail. I agree with the members of the public, the property owners that office uses do 37 enhance retail, but office uses on second or upper floors enhance retail more than office uses on 38 the ground floor. So office uses above retail is much more synergistic than office uses down on 39 the ground floor that cause a breakup of the retail uses and cause the pedestrian flow to be 40 broken up. An example of that if you will is that with the Wells Fargo Bank at University and 41 Bryant sort of breaks that up in a way that is not desirable. The Union Bank at Waverley is not 42 quite as problematic because there is nothing on Waverley that is there that you would really 43 walk to, but still that one is somewhat problematic. In contrast the American Express office, 44 which is a financial services office, is really small. It doesn't break things up, it looks like a 45 retail establishment, and it behaves like an ordinary retail establishment in the sense that people 46 go there for travel and things like that as opposed to -and even Union Bank is sort of open to the 47 public while the Wells Fargo is a private bank. 48 Page 16 1 In terms of flipping in and out of office I think that there are a couple of ideas that we could 2 have. One idea is either having a CUP to go into office from retail or to require the existing 3 retail stay as retail not to relax that, but if new retail then either allow that to go back and forth or 4 allow a CUP for new retail. So I would like us to consider more flexibility in terms of this than 5 simply deregulating the non-ground floor rules portion of the CD-C zone. 6 7 I also want to draw attention to Attachment D, 18.30(C).020. In particular it says permitted uses 8 and there is a big loophole in terms of letter (a)(7), entrance, lobby or reception areas serving 9 non-ground floor uses. There are examples of that that work reasonably well, if you look for 10 example, there is a small lobby area next to the Lululemon Athletica, there is a small lobby area 11 next to the CVS for example that works reasonably well, it is not intrusive. On the other hand, if 12 you look at the lobby area that has been put on the University Avenue circle, the circle portion, it 13 takes up the whole space, and it is much bigger than is needed for a lobby area. So I would 14 suggest that we constrain the size of the lobby/reception area. In fact by allowing that full floor 15 lobby area we have essentially de facto broken up that space along the curve. I would like us to 16 think more carefully before deleting things from the Ground Floor protection particularly if there 17 is no protection at all about ground floor. If it is completely deregulated that seems to me overly 18 problematic with that. 19 20 With respect to Bryant Street I think that the fact that the current building at, I think it is, 285 21 University sort of sticks out and sort of makes it uncomfortable to walk around the comer on 22 Bryant Street makes that retail on the logical west side of Bryant hard to get to. One of the 23 reasons I was in favor some time ago about having the full seven-foot setback would be to 24 enhance the pedestrian traffic going down Bryant Street. I think that whatever is built there I 25 would hope that it be done in such a way that it enhances that pedestrian traffic. 26 27 Finally, I would like to say thank you for keeping the Aquarius the way it is. I appreciate that 28 and I am sure that a lot of other people do. 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert followed by Commissioner Martinez, and myself. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: I have several questions and then I would like to make a couple of 33 statements. Looking at the map here I would like to follow up on Commissioner Holman's line 34 of questioning with regard to the areas around University circle that are going to be taken out of 35 the GF District. With the construction that is going on there isn't it a little premature to be 36 looking at that and saying we don't think it is going to function as a retail space? It really has 37 not come into the public domain. In fact, I remember what was there previously was a 38 Blockbuster video, and we know what happened to Blockbuster, and there was a luggage store 39 that was there for awhile. Then there was a travel agency that was there and they all seemed to 40 be doing moderately well until they were closed down for the construction work. Adjacent to 41 that where the E*Trade is that used to be NBBJ, an architecture firm, so that obviously fell under 42 office use. Then on the flip side or the backside looking at the comer I guess the comer of High 43 Street and Hamilton is the Fazani parking lot. The Fazanis' have never really done anything 44 with that lot. Isn't it a little premature to take a blank lot and then takeaway something that it 45 hasn't even had an opportunity to build a building? The Fazani's in fact have been very reluctant 46 to have landscaped it or made it into viable parking following our regulations. So that is the 47 question. 48 49 Ms. Cutler: Would you like an answer and discussion? Page 17 1 2 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, please. 3 4 Ms. Cutler: Part of what this really gives us the opportunity to do is to think conceptually about 5 the Downtown and what the important retail areas are, and which areas based on traffic patterns, 6 existing buildings, but also future desires for the area might work better or worse for retail, might 7 be more or less important to the Downtown core and the vitality. Spreading retail throughout the 8 entirety of Downtown, there isn't enough retail to do that, and so thinking about where it is is 9 really important and is really viable for retail. These ends are often more difficult because if you 10 are not a destination retailer then you don't get as much foot traffic because you are right at the 11 end there. When you are over by the train station that is slightly different because you do have 12 people coming from the train so you get a bit of that, so that was some of the discussion of those 13 over there in terms of the viability there. Also some of the discussion of some of the other side 14 streets and continuing it along, keeping all of the existing retail, part of this discussion of 15 loosening up the regulations in CD-C is a recognition that we want to focus our protection and 16 our attention on what areas of Downtown we think are really important for retail. Then let the 17 others follow economic factors. 18 19 Commissioner Lippert: One of the bright spots focusing on retail is that we do have Patagonia in 20 there and they are benefiting from the fact they are next to a parking structure. On the flip side 21 of that we have the last remaining full service copy shop in the Downtown. They are really 22 supported by traffic from I guess Stanford University, jobs that they have through people that do 23 large-scale printing. Doesn't it make sense with University circle being a gateway to the city to 24 think of it in terms of perhaps future mixed use where you wound up with ground floor retail and 25 it could even be housing above it because it is right near a transit center? Does that not make 26 sense? 27 28 Ms. Cutler: I think that is a valuable discussion for the Commission to have this evening about 29 what areas are going to be valuable and useful, being aware of those areas that are difficult in 30 terms of visibility as cars come through, as I believe Curtis mentioned earlier, as they come up 31 from underneath Alma along University they kind of miss the first few buildings on University, 32 so there is a loss there of visibility, and then also the connection to the train station and to 33 Stanford. That is traffic that goes through there. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: I will pick up my line of questioning on the other side. 36 37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 38 39 Commissioner Martinez: As a relatively new comer to Palo Alto I thought it was important to 40 listen to the comments and sort of get a sense of the history of this problem. When I first looked 41 at it I thought about one of the reasons why I wanted to live in Palo Alto, and that is because I 42 felt the Downtown was so vibrant that it was pedestrian friendly and encouraged us to walk, all 43 of those things as an urban designer that I really care about. So I had to ask myself well, what is 44 driving this problem? Is it from an economic perspective that we want to encourage retail that is 45 long lasting? To support the retail that we have that could benefit from having those vacancies 46 filled with retail that brings additional customers Downtown? Is it an urban design perspective 47 where we want to enhance the pedestrian experience? I anl sure there is a truth to all of this. So 48 I still was not sort of satisfied that I had reached the ultimate reason why we want to do this. 49 Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Certainly when I look at the map I agree with your recommendations for those changes. I have seen in other cities that retail that is located along high-speed or faster speed streets for some reason doesn't do well. Maybe people are not drawn to it because of the traffic noise and the idea of safety. Maybe there is something else to it, but I feel I can support your recommendations that on the circle we don't have retail or give it as an option that office would probably be as equally supported. 8 I do have some concerns about what we characterize and what-we have included as retail. I am 9 also sympathetic for those property owners that have buildings that are not suitable for retail. I 10 think we definitely have to take that into consideration. I remember when I was working in New 11 York there was a ban on travel agencies because the Planning Department felt they were kind of 12 boring to the pedestrian experience. Granted at the time there were a lot of them on 5th Avenue. 13 It also calls into question sort of our assumption about what is good retail and what we have 14 included. I think a design office like the former NBBJ was as vibrant as a travel agent, maybe a 15 little bit more. So I would really ask that we look hard at what we are including in this list of 16 ,acceptable retail. I think even financial institutions, I think the banks we have were designed a 17 long time ago before we invented urban design. I think if we looked at it from a pedestrian/retail 18 experience now, and even the banks would design them in a different way that they became more 19 pedestrian friendly. So just in closing I would really like us to take a hard look at what we have 20 included as acceptable retail before we go forth with what we include and exclude in ground 21 floor retail. Thank you. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Garber: Thank you. Although I have been here slightly longer than Commissioner Martinez I was not at this last meeting that this was discussed. I was out of town so I am benefiting from a lot of the discussion here. Thank you. A couple of quick questions. There is a property at the comer of Cowper and University, which is not included as one of the colors. Is there a reason for that or is there supposed to be a color there that is not shown? Ms. Cutler: The properties that are within the Downtown that don't have a particular color to them generally are either Planned Communities, PC zones, or are Public Facilities, PF, so are not part of the CD-C and don't have the GF. Chair Garber: So that one comer is probably a PC? Ms. Cutler: Yes. Chair Garber: I had one other question. I don't recall but I don't believe there has ever been an ordinance written in this way in this community. I am curious if the Staff is familiar with other communities that may have created ordinances around the amount of storefront that can be dedicated on a block to a singular use or occupancy. It may be all owned by a single landowner but it may have different occupancies or there may be percentages applied to that in order to establish the vitality that particular community is interested in. Is the Staff familiar with that sort of an approach? I am not recommending it I am just curious. Mr. Williams: I understand. You are talking about an amount of storefront for a particular use. Page 19 1 Chair Garber: Yes, so for a community that would seek to avoid for instance the B of A problem 2 that we have on that particular block where it is all one use. 3 4 Mr. Williams: Yes, but suppose that use were in three different buildings scattered throughout 5 the block that is not what you are talking about. Maybe you are talking about continuous .... 6 7 Chair Garber: Contiguous. 8 9 Mr. Williams: One use in one building. 10 11 Chair Garber: Yes. 12 13 Mr. Williams: I think there are cities that have done that at least for anything new coming in, 14 they probably have grandfather provisions for things that are there, that do try to set frontage 15 widths for businesses if they are narrower they tend to encourage more doors, more windows, 16 nlore retail probably than if they are larger spaces that might handle a larger retail. Then again, 17 that might be more difficult to get in and you end up with banks or offices or something like that. 18 I believe, I don't know what comes to mind right now, but I have seen in some locations where 19 they do that from more a design perspective maybe than the use, and say you have to have a 20 maximum width. 21 22 Chair Garber: For instance in like a PTOD zoning you might create that. 23 24 Mr. Williams: Yes, sure. 25 26 Chair Garber: Okay. That is all I have. Commissioners, lets do a couple of quick straw polls. 27 What I am going to be doing is walking down the Staff recommendations here. We will do these 28 quickly so that we can spend ..... 29 30 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Garber, I am really not comfortable we have had enough 31 discussion yet to do straw polls unless your straw poll is just an initial ..... 32 33 Chair Garber: I think it is just an initial here because I am thinking it might help us focus our 34 conversation. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Okay, as long as we can revisit. 37 38 Chair Garber: Yes, I am not precluding. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Okay. All right. 41 42 Chair Garber: In addition to you I think there are some other Commissioners that want to 43 continue lines of questions. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: All right thank you. 46 47 Chair Garber: Abstaining is fine too, yes. It is just a straw poll. So let me just ask the 48 Commissioners, if the Commissioners would raise a hand to tell me if they would support the 49 Staff recommended changes to Ground Floor Combining District regulations where the Staff Page 20 1 recommends the removal of P AMC Section such that there will no longer be the option for the 2 use exception based on vacancy rate. All those in favor? Okay, that is all of us. 3 4 Do the Commissioners support generally the Staff recommended changes to Downtown 5 Commercial Districts so that the loss of flexibility on the ground floor uses in the Downtown 6 core are covered by GF Combining District will be balanced by an increase in the flexibility in 7 the ground floor uses in the periphery of the Downtown? All those in favor? Four, so there is 8 some discussion there. Good. 9 10 Let me break the next one into three pieces. The Staff recommended revisions of the zoning 11 map. First let me ask if there is support for the Stafr s recommendation of the removal, the three 12 bullets that remove the GF protections. These are for the properties along Alma Street, portions 13 of High Street near Hamilton Avenue, removal of the GF protection properties along the circle 14 ramps connecting University Avenue and Alma Street, and then the three miscellaneous non- 15 retail parcels along Kipling and Cowper north of University. Support for those? One, two, three. 16 1 7 Then let's see if there is support for the addition to the GF protections to the existing retail on the 18 south side of the strongest block of retail on Hamilton Avenue and to the Aquarius Theater and 19 the two restaurants immediately to the north on Emerson. Support for that? That is six. 20 21 Then finally is there support to not change University A venu~east of Cowper and not change 22 Bryant between University and Hamilton Avenue. Support? One, two, three, four, five. 23 24 Okay, Commissioners, Commissioner Holman, and then Lippert. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: Yes, and I guess first I will make my argument for the circle. The 27 purpose of that is we talk a lot in this community about connectivity. That was a four-three 28 straw poll so I am going put out my best effort here, or hopefully. We talk a lot about 29 connectivity and I think what is similar to the California Avenue train station issue is that there is 30 that blank wall. I understand the restaurant there has had a hard time surviving but there is that 31 blank wall that leads you down there. It is really problematic. That building, I am not 32 particularly for demolishing buildings, but that building should just be blown up and start over. 33 It is terrible from a pedestrian and connectivity and retail vibrancy. It just loses it big time. I 34 don't want to create that same thing here. 35 36 When people come from Stanford campus, when they come offEl Camino, when they come 37 from the train station there really needs to be a vibrant comer there. There is a parking garage 38 right behind it so there is adequate parking. Along with Commissioner Lippert, I have been here 39 a long time 34 years I think it is, and there have been long-term uses, successful uses, there. 40 There was a sporting goods store there forever. I think it was Bungee Travel or somebody was 41 there for a very long tinle. Blockbuster was there for a very long time. There have been some 42 long-term surviving businesses there. 43 44 I guess I have a problem with the development on the south side of the circle not getting much 45 traction because in zoning we say that you can't create your own disadvantage, basically. That 46 building that new building is designed such the whole ground floor is basically a lobby. So it 47 seems to me that what we have allowed there with the design of that building is a difficult 48 building to rent as retail. So you have created your own challenge. 49 Page 21 1 Chair Garber: Commissioner, help me because I am either not following or slightly confused, 2 both of which are entirely possible. Are you relating that to this second Staff recommendation or 3 is that just specific to the changes to the map where we are removing things and that was the 4 item that was ...... ? 5 6 Commissioner Holman: I am currently talking about the removal of the properties on the circle. 7 That is what I am talking about. 8 9 Chair Garber: Okay. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: So that is one issue. I think they have created their own challenge 12 there. 13 14 I would agree with Commissioner Keller, and there have been proposals and opportunities that 15 have been presented down Alma and at the comer of Hamilton and High Street, so I just don't 16 see the logic in taking that out. So I could hit several different points here. 17 18 As far as Emerson Street and adding, it may be a finger but it is one block, all we are talking 19 about is one block being added to connect to the SOFA II district. It is one block. So I would 20 want to add that. 21 22 I don't want to confuse us by covering a whole lot of points at once so I will probably stop there 23 for the moment. 24 25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert and then Keller. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up on Commissioner Holman's comment with 28 regard to University circle. Again, I can see it being problematic but that is an area that has just 29 been born. There are many things that are going to be happening in that area over the years it 30 just hasn't been given a chance. Even though we are in an economic downturn tum right now 31 whatever happens there is vital to the transit center. The dream team plan is to make that a major 32 plaza and entry into the city. So in some ways if that ever turned to ground floor office and 33 remained that way we would be stuck with that if ever we were to enhance or improve the transit 34 center, and that connectivity with Palm Drive. So I think it is something that we dearly need to 35 hold onto in terms of it being a gateway to the city. 36 37 Chair Garber: Commissioner, forgive me Commissioner Tuma has a question related to that. 38 Sorry, never mind. 39 40 Commissioner Lippert: I had one other question in there. Once you demolish a building does it 41 revert back to the underlying Ground Floor Retail zoning or does that go with the previous use 42 that was there? So an example is an office that moved into a retail space. Let's say it was one of 43 the small retail shops on Bryant Street, which aren't doing particularly well, the gallery spaces. 44 Ifwe were to intensify what could be built there, and those were demolished, would that office 45 space remain with that property on the ground floor or would it then revert back to it having to 46 be leased as retail with whatever uses above it? 47 48 Mr. Williams: I believe that if it were demolished and start over that it would need to conform 49 then to the use which if the GF exists there then it would have to be a retail ground floor use that Page 22 1 comes back. Differentiate that from just changing the tenant but leaving the existing building 2 there that can continue to go as office, like 285 Hamilton has done, go from office to office to 3 office. If you scraped it and built a new building then our code as far as nonconforming uses 4 basically says that if you construct something anew that then you have to comply with the use 5 that is the basic use for the site. 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: So basically what I am looking at is there would be a viable life to it 8 because as smaller buildings came into wanting to take advantage of the land and the 9 intensification of that land there would be an opportunity for rebirth. So there would be in some 10 ways a self-fulfilling death to that ground floor office use with intensification of that land. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner, forgive me one more time. I apologize. I am thinking that the 13 topic of the University circle is a particularly hot one and maybe what we should do is draw out 14 any other comments that are specific to it before we move on and then we can come back to you. 15 Would that be acceptable? 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, except I keep losing my line of thought on this. 18 19 Chair Garber: Your choice. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't we go ahead and I will come back to my thought. 22 23 Chair Garber: I know that Commissioner Tuma had a comment about that. Commissioner 24 Fineberg and Martinez, and then we will come back to Lippert and then Keller. Commissioner 25 Fineberg followed by Martinez. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: When I am thinking about the area on University circle the question 28 comes to mind why are we considering making the changes, and what are we trying to 29 accomplish? In my mind, there are multiple factors that affect that area that come into play. So 30 it hinges to me on then what are we trying to accomplish? The multiple factors that come into 31 play are the economics. Right now we are in a recession. Retail tenants are hard to find. It 32 might be more profitable for a landowner to rent to an office use, office tenants. There are what 33 I will call safety issues. When a person is shopping in the neighborhood how safe do they feel? 34 Is there a vital environment with lots of people? Or is it dirty or unoccupied and dark, or light 35 and clean and open and vital? There is convenience. There is either parking or hard to find 36 parking. There are public bathrooms or not There are either lots of cars and traffic or it is easy 37 to get to. There are also profit motives of both landowners who want to maximize their income 38 streams, there are profit motives from business owners who would prefer probably paying less 39 rent and having more customers, and there are also the residents who live and work and shop or I 40 should say people who live and work and shop and who will be customers in those stores. They 41 don't all have consistent goals and desires. So what are we trying to accomplish? Are we 42 reacting and changing zoning because there is a short-term economic downturn? Are we going 43 to rezone and then regret it if the economy picks up or are these re-zonings things that will stand 44 the test of time that five and ten years later will serve us well? I am not sure on that University 45 Avenue area that I know the answer to that right now. I am not sure I know the answer to what 46 is going to make it vital for the people who are in the area. We have talked about the City's 47 outreach to the business owners and the landowner and property owners. This is actually a 48 question for Staff. Do we have any sense of what is it that people want there? Is it that the 49 businesses would need lower rents? Is there some type of business that we can say that is what Page 23 1 would attract people to come to University circle? Then what zoning would support that if it is 2 retail or have we simply come to the conclusion that we are giving up, it can't be retail, it needs 3 to be office? So if Staff could address that. 4 5 Mr. Williams: Well, first of all we are not saying anything needs to be office and we don't 6 believe that we are going to see some wholesale change by making that change. There are lots of 7 areas down here again that -this ordinance in the yellow that requires retail to remain retail is 8 now eight years old. There were lots of retail spaces in those areas before we had that provision 9 that required that. Now there are surely some properties where it may be found to be beneficial 10 to convert to office but there are also properties that I know I have fielded phone calls about 11 somebody wanting to put retail into one of those yellow areas that is office now. When they find 12 out that they can't ever convert that back to office they don't do it. So we don't have some retail 13 spaces come in that might otherwise. 14 15 I think your question is a good question as far as what we are trying to do. I think what we are 16 trying to do generally is assure that we don't begin to have, first and foremost, incursions of even 17 the flexibility for incursions of office into the primo core of Downtown retail, ground floor retail. 18 So that is what the first and obviously there is pretty good consensus there on that first issue of 19 the vacancy rate. 20 21 Then the others are I think not as clear-cut. The second recommendation relates more to a sense 22 but perhaps not a highly quantified one of having that flexibility and that being advantageous to 23 accommodate some retail in spaces that are not going to get it now, and by the same token not 24 sort of diluting retail by requiring it in outlying areas where maybe it could better be focused in 25 the core. 26 27 Then relative to the mapping I think again that is trying to look at are there spaces that are more 28 marginal where retail doesn't seem to be particularly strong to sort of rate the core restriction but 29 we still would anticipate that a lot of those areas are still going to remain retail, some of them 30 probably won't. I think those are the grayest areas you have already discussed. We have heard 31 and seen discussed arguments on both sides of those for University circle, for Emerson, and for 32 Cowper on the far end was one we discussed quite a bit and left it in, and Bryant at High Street 33 as well. So those are grayer areas and I guess there don't have to be chang~s to the map but we 34 think that these can help strengthen again identifying where that GF zone really goes and 35 providing more flexibility to the other sites. 36 37 Chair Garber: Please go ahead. 38 39 Ms. Barnes: If I could follow along, as we started to talk about this and got more concerned 40 about the retail vacancy in the Downtown I contacted Economic Development Directors in about 41 20 other Silicon Valley cities. We talked about our five percent threshold and whether or not 42 that five percent threshold made sense, and what their vacancy rates were like, and what numbers 43 they were looking at. Almost exclusively in the downtowns that were vital we found out that 44 there was no flexibility in that downtown core. That it was retail, however they defined retail, 45 and that they intensified that core. 46 47 The kinds of fluctuations that we did see were they had concerns about types of businesses. For 48 example in Los Gatos they were really concerned about chains. So they went about defining 49 what they thought a chain was and some place with seven or more establishments was Page 24 1 considered a chain according to their rules and that kind of goes along with the conversation that 2 we had about restaurants. People talked about restaurants but almost unanimously we heard 3 from both business owners and property owners that the market would dictate that and that was 4 part of why we were are as vital as we are was because the market had dictated good uses in the 5 spaces that we had. But we did actually try to get some more information from other cities that 6 had vital districts and were concerned about maintaining those districts as well. 7 8 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, Tuma, Martinez, Keller let's try and keep our comments 9 brief because we need to try and nl0ve this along. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So here is my thinking on the circles. I think when we look at what 12 Planning Director just told us about what we are trying to do here, which I think I agree with, 13 strengthen the core, keep it solid that area right there - I go Downtown for a lot of things and I 14 come up Alma Street from where I live down in Barron Park or I am coming from Stanford I 15 spend almost no time as a consumer at that end of University. That doesn't mean that there 16 aren't viable businesses that could be there from time to time but I am not convinced that that is 1 7 integral to strengthening the core. I think if you could have some from time to time office space 18 there with the proximity to transit it would make a lot of sense to be able to have that flexibility. 19 So to me keeping it only as ground floor retail isn't as big a driver and I think you could get 20 some benefit by having some ground floor office there. The people who work in those offices 21 then could shop and contribute to the retail. I don't know, I just think it is not necessarily that 22 accessible from a retail perspective. There may be certain businesses that it works for there. The 23 proximity to transit in a way says let's allow more office there. The strength of the office there 24 could participate in the retail. So I don't think removing this restriction is necessarily a bad 25 thing. I think it is actually a good thing. I think it would contribute to the flexibility and the 26 viability. 27 28 Chair Garber: I am going to interrupt just briefly. Do any of the public speakers that have 29 spoken like to speak to this particular issue? Mr. Keenan. 30 31 Mr. Keenan: Cicero said not knowing your history is like looking at the world through the eyes 32 of a child. In 1984 when we built the 300 and 400 office buildings there, Wells and now Chase, 33 the biggest grossing restaurant in Downtown was the Burger King where Pizza My Heart is. 34 Retail is a very fragile business. You see them come and they go. Frankly, no change is fine. 35 The impetus for this was gee, we have a vacancy factor that is starting to be meaningful, and 36 those protections are now the release valve is operative. The fact of the matter is that there is no 37 big rush. They don't get people saying we want to put offices in that core retail. It is not the 38 issue. But, we are almost unanimous, and you were unanimous on keeping that core solid. The 39 "best of' we really want to be restrictive. 40 41 There is a quid pro quo from a property owner's point of view and that is flexibility on the CD- 42 C, the yellow up there, to flip in and out depending on what the market is telling you. I can tell 43 you retail pays more than office right now but demand shifts. I own the Fazani parking lot. It is 44 just a terrible retail comer. I have a little jewel box of a retail building approved there and I am 45 not going to build it. It is just not a good retail location. Where Pampas is right now, that is my 46 first baby, my first building. We bought it from Earl Scheib for $70,000. He had all those auto 47 painting deals for $1995. I left that building three years vacant because I couldn't do anything 48 else but retail. My first use in there was an architect and then it switched to retail and now it is 49 retail forever. I don't want to look, if I ever lose that tenant, that I am going to have to go dark Page 25 1 three years waiting for the next retailer. I think Patagonia is doing okay so it flips in and out, and 2 the restaurant is doing okay. It is a tough market right now so I think they have more runway in 3 front of them. The Fazani building on the comer is not a good retail comer. Somebody said 4 high-speed traffic really affects those areas in terms of retail viability, they are not walkable, and 5 so I would encourage you to take that into consideration. 6 7 Then Karen Holman's comment that one block, just give me that one block on Emerson, I defer 8 that I am the daddy of the Emerson resurgence. I will let Faith be the grandmother of the 9 resurgence because she was there first, and she was the true pioneer. Coming down to Whole 10 Foods, which we developed, and the Little Bijou Theater and redeveloping all that into retail that 11 was us. You have Anna Eshoo's office on the comer there of Forest and Eme:t;.son, that's office. 12 My office is on the other comer. You have a skin guy. It is eclectic. These pure lifestyle 13 centers, retail, are dying all over America that are a lot better done than this with a lot better 14 parking. So the idea of really burnishing our golden geese here, which is University Avenue and 15 what you see in orange there, I think, is great but we need a little more flexibility to hard lining 16 those changes. 17 18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez and Keller. I am sorry, you have a question . 19 from Commissioner Keller, and then we will go to Comnlissioner Martinez. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Mr. Keenan. My question is the proposal by Staff is to have 22 no controls on the non-GF portion of CD-C. I am wondering whether some sort of control like a 23 CUP or something on the new experimental retail could go back or is there some sort of 24 approach that you think would work and allow you to experiment with retail and not have a one- 25 way ratchet that would be more than simply no control at all. 26 27 Mr. Keenan: It kind of gets to be more fashionable than the rule of law. The dirty little secret 28 about Palo Alto that I don't like to spread is that historically, it has changed but historically you 29 have zoning, you stay in the zoning box, you go to ARB, you are compelling at ARB. We don't 30 see you guys. We don't see the City Council. It is beautiful. The PC has sort of changed that. 31 You have never seen me do a PC. I stay in the zoning box. So I want to go and be compelling to 32 the Architectural Review Board contextually, what does this building look like, but the CUP 33 process, which incidentally everything in Menlo Park is a CUP. Everything is a use permit, and 34 everything is politicized. Decisions are not made in Palo Alto time they are made in commercial 35 time. So CUPs I think are a significant hurdle that is not enough to give up my safety valve on 36 really what is important in the GF. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: I realize this perhaps going too far but what I am wondering is suppose 39 what we did is we say any new retail in the CD-C you could go anyway you want, you could go 40 back and forth, and any of the existing retail that is over there in order to go from that that's 41 existing presumably for some period of time would require a CUP to go the other way? 42 43 Mr. Keenan: Well, I am always trying to find the middle of the table and I appreciate your 44 gesture but I will give you an example. The Thoits Brothers own, they have a gym in there on 45 Emerson and it is sort of on Karen's block. That was the Chronicle. They had their news bureau 46 in there, an office use, and it went to retail. These things get too theoretical. You are not going 47 to see that yellow all go to office tomorrow. It is like when we did the down zone in Downtown 48 Palo Alto from 3: 1 FAR to 1: 1 FAR. Everybody took the ground floor square footage and 49 multiplied it times three and said do you realize we could have 4.0 million feet of new buildings Page 26 1 in Downtown Palo Alto? The fact of the matter is that there is economic value in all of these 2 buildings that preclude that. It becomes too theoretical. I think this is that case. You are not 3 going to see any wholesale changes. You nlight see a little around the edges but from a property 4 owner's point of view flexibility and meeting the market and getting good retailers that is just 5 what helps us keep it vital. It focuses your good stuff where you do have good parking. We 6 work hard, spent $42.0 million on new parking structures Downtown. So I think keeping the GF 7 strong, stronger without a relief valve nobody here is arguing for a relief valve, but there is that 8 flip. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: If the Chair will indulge me I will just ask you one more question. 11 Sometimes on the Commission there have been discussions about the idea, which was mentioned 12 by Susan Barnes the idea of basically chain stores versus non-chain stores. Do you have 13 thoughts in terms of what kinds of restrictions we might consider sometime in the future? As 14 long as you have the floor. 15 16 Mr. Keenan: You want to go San Francisco? Retail is fragile and I will just leave it at that. You 17 eliminate chain stores which is where they get the capitalization and that would be a disaster, as 18 would eliminating restaurants or constraining restaurants. We don't have many anchors here. 19 Our biggest anchor is now Apple. It is a huge store. It is remarkable. The second biggest is 20 probably Borders. It is one of their very top stores. We are not going to get Urban Outfitters 21 where Magnolia went. I just heard that today. So it is a very fragile item. If we had to take 22 those stores off of the table what do we have left? 23 24 Commissioner Keller: I am not suggesting that we eliminate chain stores but if we limit them in 25 some way so that we have more of mix, do you have any thoughts on that? 26 27 Mr. Keenan: I think it is a huge nlix now and the pejorative chain I think is really misused. It 28 usually just means that somebody who is in that business doesn't want a new competitor. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 31 32 Chair Garber: Okay, let's interrupt and get refocused back on University circle. Comnlissioner 33 Martinez. I'm sorry, Commissioner Holman. 34 35 ConlIDissioner Holman: You asked for members of the public and there is another member of 36 the public who wishes to speak. 37 38 Chair Garber: Please, Faith Bell. 39 40 Ms. Bell: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. First I want to say that it is significant to me 41 that the landowners and merchants of the affected buildings are not being informed at this point 42 in the process. I think that is really a mistake. 43 44 Second, I would like to say that the owner of Jungle Digital Copy has spoken to me and is 45 strongly opposed to the lapse of the Ground Floor zoning for his building. I think that is 46 significant. 47 48 Third, I would like to note that there is the relatively new parking structure there in that location. 49 When we were discussing it at previous meetings people were saying that parking was Page 27 1 problematic there because there wasn't something visible at the street. I think that with proper 2 signage that could be really encouraged. 3 4 Fourth, I would like to remind everyone that the last figure I heard on empty office space vacant 5 in town was 110,000 square feet. I don't know if that is true or not but if that is the case we 6 certainly don't need more ground floor office space. 7 8 I would like to support Commissioner Lippert's comments regarding the potential of the 9 buildings that are under construction now. I know that the designer of the building that is on the 10 circle there spoke at one of the previous meetings where I was with you, saying that he had 11 dreams of a really vibrant retail for the bottom of that building. He had designed it with that in 12 mind. I would also like to mention that the rents could be a significant factor in this and if the 13 landlords were willing to bring the rents to within something more manageable we could get a 14 more vibrant retail mix that was not just chains. Ifwe want to bring a town into place here that 15 draws people to something other than what the Stanford Shopping Center looks like then maybe 16 we need to be looking at that. When the developers cry hard times maybe they need to be 17 looking at the rents too. I don't know because I am not in that business. I rent to myself. 18 Thanks for designating me the grandmother job. 19 20 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 21 22 Commissioner Martinez: If I understand this correctly we are not precluding retail on the ground 23 floor of University circle. 24 25 Ms. Cutler: No, it would just be removing the Ground Floor overlay. So it would be reverting 26 back to the CD-C, just those allowed uses, which include all of the uses that are allowed in the 27 GF District as well as a number of others. 28 29 Commissioner Martinez: So we can just allow the market forces to do what they are going to do. 30 31 Ms. Cutler: Precisely. 32 33 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. From my point of view whether it is retail or something else, 34 office, on the circle is less important than the circle itself. It feels like it could be a grand 35 gateway to University Avenue. The buildings with due respect could have been a little bit more 36 vigorous to reinforce that. Unfortunately we have what we have. That doesn't preclude public 37 improvements to street trees and street furniture and lighting and paving as a way to make a 38 grand sense of entrance to the Downtown. I think that is far more important than what type of 39 use occurs on the ground floor. 40 41 I think high-tech offices reflect greatly on Palo Alto as do sort of unique retail. There is no 42 guarantee that retail there would be more than a nail salon or a dry cleaners or anything else. So 43 I think to insist that it can only be retail is really putting the cart before the horse, and really 44 imagining something which may not come to fruition. 45 46 I just wanted to say on the plan that is being proposed when I first looked at it I thought well, 47 why are we imposing restrictions at this point in this recession? Then I looked at it again and I 48 asked why are we imposing restrictions at this point in the recession? I think in the latter way of 49 looking at it what I was thinking was that with vacancies of ten, 15, one speaker even said up to Page 28 1 20 percent we have the potential of having vulnerable retail spaces converted to office. This is 2 not for the duration of a recession this is five, ten, 15 years, who knows. That doesn't contribute 3 to the vitality of Downtown, not to the core. So I am very much in support of the planning 4 ordinance for the Downtown core and really looking at ways of enhancing our commercial 5 district. Thank you. 6 7 Chair Garber: Commissioners, before we go on we need to finish up with Commissioner Lippert 8 and I have not taken straw polls on the final two Staff reconunendations, which we need to do, 9 which will bring us into a conversation about restaurants. Commissioner Lippert. 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: One more line of questioning here real quick. With regard to the five 12 percent threshold that we currently have in place if we were to relax and allow for the conversion 13 of ground floor retail into commercial office because of this threshold that we hit, is it the 14 differential or the delta? Say we are at ten percent so it would be the difference between that ten 15 percent and the five percent that would be permitted to be converted to ground floor office or 16 would it be the whole ten percent? 17 18 Ms. Cutler: My understanding of the way that it works, and if I get this wrong you can correct 19 me, is that the City does a calculation of what percentage of the square footage in the GF zone is 20 vacant. Based on that calculation that is done once a year in the fall, around this time, then it is 21 either over the five percent or not. If it is over the five percent then people can request a use 22 exception to allow office on the ground floor given certain conditions, the six month vacancy and 23 available being one of the primary ones. Once that calculation is done in the fall we don't 24 recalculate it again until the following fall. So that use exception is available until it is 25 recalculated again and determined to be less than five percent. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: So that would be available to any ground floor retail space even if we 28 were to exceed, let's say we were fill all of that ten percent square footage with office space it 29 could even gobeyond that. 30 31 Ms. Cutler: If space could be shown to have been vacant for six months and available for six 32 months they could request that use exception until we recalculated the vacancy rate again the 33 next fall and determined that it was less than five percent. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I would like to make some comments here if I might? 36 37 Chair Garber: Go ahead. 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: I think that Commissioner Martinez really hit the nail on the head in 40 what he was saying in terms of preserving the Downtown. I would like to put some legs on this 41 if I might. By that what I mean is I think we have an opportunity here in the relaxation in the 42 yellow area. We are in a very, very, very difficult economic time right now. The idea that I see 43 or maybe this is what Staffwas trying to get across here is that because we have reached this 44 threshold trying to get more offices into the Downtown area and by relaxing that standard 45 eventually at some point we are going to see the economy return and there really is a symbiotic 46 relationship between office and retail. You cannot have one without the other. If you have only 47 office space you wind up with a Downtown Dallas. Dallas' zoning is two zones office and 48 parking. That is it. Sorry, there is one more zone, there is a retail zone. It is the Neiman Marcus 49 department store. Off in a small comer is a food court. That is what you wind up with. It is a Page 29 1 deadly downtown. It doesn't work. You need to have office and retail in order for the two of 2 them to be able to survive and they need to be symbiotic. So by relaxing I think the yellow area 3 and allowing for ground floor office uses in that conversion we will see a critical mass eventually 4 return and strengthen the retail core to our city. 5 6 I also feel that we must draw a line in the sand and preserve those retail uses. So I am in support 7 of what I see here today. I am not, however, in support of taking the area around University 8 circle and simply taking the Ground Floor overlay off of that, the Ground Floor retail overlay. 9 So those are my comments. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, to keep things moving here lef me poll you on the 12 last StaffreconIDlendation, which was the Staff recommendations on Limits on Businesses of 13 Concerns, in which the Staff is recommending that we do not limit. Commissioner Holman. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: Before polling don't you think we ought to have at least one round of 16 just comments on that one topic. 17 18 Chair Garber: Sure, we can do that. Would you like to start us off? 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Sure. I found the language in the Staff Report interesting because it 21 says in regards to a concern expressed by the PTC about the number of restaurants and public 22 feedback received strongly supported the idea that economic forces would provide sufficient 23 controls and that the additional process and expense that would be imposed on potential new 24 restaurants, so I am a little bit unclear on what that means the cost imposed on potential new 25 restaurants that is unclear to me, in order to limit their numbers would have a significant negative 26 impact on the vitality of Downtown. What is missing for me in these comments is but what does 27 good zoning practice say. That seems to be missing. The comments that are indicated here are 28 just from public and property owners. 29 30 There is a reason why, and I would Staff to comment, there is a reason why for instance Los 31 Gatos, I am not proposing this but, Los Gatos limits chain stores or doesn't allow chain stores. 32 There is a reason why Burlingame restricts the number of restaurants. So can Staff conIDlent on 33 that, please? 34 35 Ms. Cutler: I would say that in terms of what good zoning practice that we took into 36 consideration and maybe didn't mention in the Staff Report was more about a concern about 37 over-restriction. That in providing a list of allowed uses on a site providing flexibility rather 38 than narrowing it too much. Also, I have heard from the Planning Commission a strong interest 39 in supporting new businesses that want to come in and allowing them a process that is no over- 40 burdensome. So when we heard a lot of comments and concerns about that that seemed a very 41 important part of evaluating this option. If there was some sort of additional process that had to 42 keep track of how many restaurants for instance there were in the Downtown that that adds a 43 whole other layer whenever a new business is coming in. It wouldn't affect existing businesses 44 because they wouldn't need to be asking for pennission to·come in if they are existing. So we 45 definitely take into consideration both the input from the outreach as well as just a general 46 zoning practice of providing flexibility of what is or is not working because we can't as planners 47 dictate what types of uses really are going to survive in a certain location. 48 Page 30 1 Commissioner Holman: I guess what is still missing for me is the discussion about what creates 2 a good shopping and dining sector. It isn't an exact science, understood, but I have heard 3 retailers talk about people who come to eat don't necessarily come to shop. People who come to 4 shop eat. There is that. I have also heard developers say that once a building is converted to a 5 restaurant that it is going to be there for a very long period of time because of the capital 6 investment. I have also heard both members of Staff, members of the community, developers, 7 you have heard this Commission say too that restaurants, and I am not trying to pick on 8 restaurants or restaurant owners it is land use that is what it is about is uses. That restaurants are 9 parking hogs. They don't have the biggest return on sales tax dollars per square foot, and once 10 they are in place they are going to be there for a long time. So we are not going to get retail in 11 those locations. One of the major businesses Downtown that has left I went in after the 12 Thanksgiving big sales held this last year. They don't know I am on the Commission. They 13 don't know me from Adam. I was in shopping and asked how was it? Their immediate 14 comments from two people at the counter were well, it was okay but it really wasn't what it 15 could have been if we had more retail around here. There is no place for people to come 16 shopping for children's clothing or toys, and they named a few other things. And, he mentioned 17 that there are too many restaurants. That is one indication. I think there is serious consideration 18 for the impacts of restaurants specifically, and market forces are necessary but I think it is also 19 important to decide as best we can what is appropriate and what is most desirable in our retail 20 districts. So that is I guess what I find nlissing in the Staff Report and in that discussion, impacts 21 and benefits. I just don't see that here. So I am hoping the Commissioners will hopefully take to 22 heart some of these comments if you find value in them and we can discuss them. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma, Keller, Fineberg, and then Lippert. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Did you say that you had reached out to the other Econonlic Development 27 Coordinators 20-odd so in the area, and you talked about this topic about restaurants? Could you 28 give us a little bit more detail about what the feedback was from other cities? 29 30 Ms. Barnes: Sure. What we did when we initially began to sort of explore this situation, I 31 belong to a group called Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance, so what I did was I 32 reached out to the Economic Development Directors in all of these other cities and asked them a 33 couple of questions. One of the questions was if you had a restriction on your ground floor retail 34 and whether or not there was a threshold at which other kinds of uses could locate there. Like I 35 said, almost completely across the board they said now we don't have a threshold percentage. 36 Some of them were considering a threshold percentage. 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sorry, let me just for expedience sake, did you specifically discuss the 39 restaurant issue? 40 41 Ms. Barnes: I am trying to think. We asked if there were restrictions because that is how I got 42 the question answered about the chains. We asked if there were restrictions on restaurants and 43 Burlingame was not one of the cities that we reached out to. It was more sort of San Mateo and 44 south. That is where I got the answer back about chains and that was the only restriction that I 45 heard back from anyone in that group that responded. 46 47 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so of the 20 that you did talk to none of them that you know of have 48 restrictions on restaurants? 49 Page 31 1 Ms. Barnes: The only mention that I got back and I could explore it in further conversations a 2 little bit more deeply, from those that I got responses from that is where that information on 3 chains came. 4 5 Vice-Chair Tuma: In the discussions that Staff has generally had around in the various different 6 meetings and discussions have you had any input from anybody in those discussions that 7 indicated that limiting restaurants was a good idea? 8 9 Ms. Cutler: I did not hear that. There definitely was agreement that the capital investment in a 10 new restaurant is a significant one. There was definitely agreement to that but there seemed to 11 be a lot of enthusiasm for the importance of the restaurants and the vitality of the Downtown, 12 that it meant that businesses were open later, had more activity longer say in comparison to Los 13 Altos where most of the businesses close at five or six o'clock because there are so few 14 restaurants. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay. I am not in favor of putting a limit on restaurants. When I think about 17 just in the last couple of years the little bit of evening activity that I see on California Avenue it 18 generally comes out around the restaurants, and in particular having the counter and the Indian 19 restaurant and the Starbuck's, all those are starting to add some vitality and some presence of 20 residents in the evenings. I do think that the economy and the business trends will sort of take 21 care of this. I realize that for larger scale restaurants you do put in infrastructure, and they are 22 there, and they are there to stay. I think they add a lot of vitality to a district so I would not be at 23 all in favor of putting any kind of limits. I think we let the marketplace do that. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, Fineberg, and then Lippert. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: So let nle make some observations by way of comparison. If you look at 28 Castro Street in downtown it is essentially restaurants. There is hardly anything else there in 29 downtown. Basically, you go there for restaurants. I would say it is 80 or 90 percent restaurants, 30 there are a handful of other stores, there is a little market, the Mountain View Market, and a few 31 other uses like the Odd Fellows things, but essentially it is restaurants. There is hardly any other 32 retail. I think that shows the problem of having too many restaurants that essentially it is a 33 restaurant designation and nothing else. There are some office uses on top but that is basically it. 34 35 If you look at downtown Menlo Park it is a mix of restaurants. There are somewhat fewer 36 restaurants than in Downtown Palo Alto but there are a lot of other more healthy mix of retail. It 37 doesn't seem to go that much into evening, which does speak to Commissioner Tuma's point. 38 On the other hand the idea is that there is a lot more retail going on there, mixed kinds of retail in 39 downtown Menlo Park than there is in Downtown Palo Alto. Interestingly enough Menlo Park is 40 going through its own process of how much increased density that they want there. That may 41 wind up converting that entirely into who knows what. 42 43 I am also familiar with say downtown Los Gatos. There are a couple of streets in the Old Town 44 where there is a mixture of restaurants and other uses that seems to be a reasonably healthy use. 45 Downtown Los Gatos seems to have a lot going on there in the evening. Downtown San Mateo I 46 am familiar with 3rd and 4th Street, B Street around there. That has more restaurants but there is a 47 mixture of uses. There is a grocery store there that seems to do pretty well and a couple of other 48 uses like that. 49 Page 32 1 So it seems to me if you think about this it may be seen that there is an optinlal amount of 2 restaurants that one might have. If you have not enough then you get something which sort of 3 rolls up the sidewalks at night. I remember when I was a grad student here in the late 1970s and 4 early 1980s Downtown Palo Alto rolled up its sidewalks. Now the amount of restaurants that we 5 have now seems to have created a night life and a little bit more flow and that to keep more hours 6 as contrasted as was mentioned with Los Altos where there is hardly a soul there any time at 7 night. On the other hand, when you have too many restaurants you crowd all the other uses and I 8 think that is a problem. So just like in a shopping center one would have a reasonable mix. You 9 want a little bit of this and a little bit of that and a little bit of this in a shopping center or a 10 neighborhood center. You don't want one grocery store and two restaurants you want a mixture 11 of uses in a shopping center or neighborhood center. You similarly want a mix of uses 12 Downtown. I think that we don't know have the information to be able to make the decision 13 whether to limit restaurants to 30 percent, 50 percent, 70 percent because we don't have the data. 14 15 What I would recommend that we do is in ternlS of limits on Business of Concern is to get that 16 data. Find out what the uses are in terms of restaurants and what the uses are in terms of other 17 kinds of retail, and find out what the mixture is in Downtown. That will give us a sort of a better 18 idea of where we are in that threshold. 19 20 One thing that certainly affects the amount of businesses and the kinds of businesses there is 21 rents. In Palo Alto the rents are considerably higher than in some surrounding areas. Partly the 22 redevelopment and intensification of uses tends to increase the rents and there is a tradeoff 23 between rents and what kind of retail can go there. Particularly, as was mentioned, chain stores 24 can afford to pay higher rents and that can also crowd out local retail uses in some ways. For 25 example at one point in time Continental Chrome was Downtown and now moved to a side street 26 where it is a smaller space and the rent is cheaper. So I think we need to understand that a little 27 bit better to do that. 28 29 I do think that we are not actively proposing to kill retail by removing retail protections. Weare 30 more passively doing it. If we believe totally in market forces then we wouldn't have put the 31 CUP on housing in RLM districts, where market forces were causing large-scale conversions of 32 RLM on East Meadow Circle and on West Bayshore and the Hyatt to convert to housing. We 33 felt that was the pendulum moving too far in one direction. So the idea that market forces 34 themselves are good enough I think is not necessarily the case. We have seen the economic 35 downturn we are in is exactly as a result of market forces. So I don't think that in and of itself is 36 sufficient. We don't want Downtown to become Swiss cheese. I am really pleased that the 37 landowners are keen on allowing us to eliminate the potential for the use exception. I appreciate 38 that greatly but I do think that we need to think about what the optimal kind of relationship of 39 different kinds of businesses there and try to create that for our Downtown for the long-term 40 health of the Downtown. My understanding before I came here is that when the Stanford 41 Shopping Center came about Downtown basically died because all the retail traffic went to the 42 Stanford Shopping Center. That was before my time but I am hoping that we can nurture it back 43 to health through appropriate and judicious zoning rules. Thank you. 44 45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, then Lippert, Martinez, Garber, and Holman. 46 47 Commissioner Fineberg: The question of how to consider restaurants in the Downtown mix to 48 me absolutely begs for consideration viewed through the eyes of our Comprehensive Plan. I 49 have to admit I didn't drag my binder here to the meeting tonight so I can't look down at all the Page 33 1 policies and programs and see what it says. I do have a copy of the Vision Statements thanks to 2 Staff because it is going to be the third item on our agenda tonight. I would agree with 3 Commissioner Keller that we don't have enough information now to determine what the 4 Comprehensive Plan says and what that mix should be based on prevailing wisdom of what 5 makes a vital neighborhood retail district. 6 7 I want to read though part of the Vision Statement, I am sorry I shouldn't say it is a Vision 8 Statements it is one of the seven themes of our Comprehensive Plan. It talks about meeting 9 residential and commercial needs. The last sentence of that theme is, "The City is committed to 10 retaining existing businesses, nlaintaining vital commercial areas, and attracting quality new 11 businesses." So if I can construe from that a business district that is 1 00 percent restaurants is 12 too much. What that threshold should be less than 100 percent I don't know. I think that is the 13 question we are trying to answer and we need more information to answer that. 14 15 Given that we know that usually once a business has significant tenant improvements and it 16 won't revert back from being a restaurant, given that we know that if we are trying to build 1 7 walkable neighborhoods, if we are adding families in the PTOD districts, if we are adding family 18 housing near University that is walkable to the train, I would think it is assumed that we need to 19 have services that would meet the daily needs, the neighborhood serving retail services for those 20 residents. Things like restaurants. Things like dry cleaners, grocery stores, book stores, 21 children's clothing stores. There is that whole wonderful mix so that the residents who live there 22 can walk, that things can be attainable to them within a IS-minute walk. There are needs that go 23 beyond the restaurants. So I think we need to understand more what that mix would be before 24 we start either imposing or removing things that would change that mix. 25 26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, Martinez, and then Garber. 27 28 Commissioner Lippert: I begin by saying that I am not inclined to support putting any 29 limitations on restaurants. I will begin by saying that restaurants are probably the most intensive 30 retail uses that you can possibly have. I will back that up with talking about the occupant load 31 based on the Building Code. For a restaurant it is an occupancy load, which is one per 15 square 32 feet. A retail load is one per 150 square feet. What they take into account is that you are going 33 to have merchandise in that store. So from that point of view you have a ten times greater 34 occupant load with a restaurant use than you do with a standard retail use. Now that is just a rule 35 of thumb I am using and it is just from the Building Code, but from that point of view in order to 36 have an economic and viable Downtown you really want to have a lot of bodies there. You want 37 to have a lot of people, you want to have a lot of activity, and that is what a Downtown is really 38 all about, having activity on the street. 39 40 Mountain View I think is an excellent example. You can walk down that street on a weekend 41 and you run into people because the sidewalks are so packed. Yes, they are lacking certain retail 42 functions, but they have one of the most successful brick and mortar bookstores on the peninSUla 43 in terms of people visiting it. The reason why they have that is because they have a 44 concentration of people. They also have a used bookstore that is also one of the most successful 45 brick and mortar used bookstores on the peninSUla. They also have a theater for the performing 46 arts in their downtown, again another reason for having restaurants is that people can dine and 47 eat before and after going to the theater. So if you look at downtown Mountain View and Castro 48 Street as being a negative I wish that we had their problems right now in terms of a critical mass 49 of people. Page 34 1 2 So I don't see any reason to limit the number of restaurants in the Downtown area. I think: it is 3 like any other retail use. It is something that we need and especially if we want to have a viable 4 workforce and people working in our Downtown in office space, these people need to eat and the 5 best thing that we can do is provide them a wealth of wonderful places and not put any 6 restrictions on that. 7 8 In closing, I just want to say one other thing. When I moved to Palo Alto, Palo Alto was not a 9 destination for restaurants. You went out to dinner, yes you went our for Chinese food, you went 10 out for some other ethnic foods, but when you thought about it you didn't say oh, I really want to 11 eat at a wonderful restaurant. You went to San Francisco for that. Today we have some 12 wonderful restaurants that stand on their own that draw people from other communities here 13 rather than San Francisco. I am thinking of Junoon, Tamarind, and Chocolat. Those are all 14 wonderful restaurants. We are also beginning to see them crop up on California Avenue. By 15 putting a restriction on the number of restaurants we are beginning to say, you know something 16 Palo Alto isn't thought of as a destination any more in the way of people wanting to come here to 17 dine. 18 19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, then myself, and then Holman, and then I would like to 20 move to motions and we can work through them one by one. 21 22 Commissioner Martinez: I think we are all feeling kind of intuitively that we are kind of 23 reaching an upper limit on the number of restaurants. I know we are not in agreement of how 24 many that should be or if you could ever have too many. I am' sure as Commissioner Lippert 25 says that Mountain View is a wonderful place for having so many restaurants of so many 26 different kinds that no matter what kind of mediocre food you want you can find it there. 27 28 Palo Alto is different. Despite the nunlber of restaurants, going to Commissioner Fineberg's 29 point, we are still kind of a mixed retail area lacking in some businesses that provide family 30 retail. I was struck by the comments about the importance of chain stores. I thought that was a 31 fascinating insight into sort of what is driving a lot of our local economy. I think there needs to 32 be a greater emphasis on Gap, Gap Kids, stores of that nature Downtown. That also supports 33 some of the smaller retail. I don't think it is a time to put limits on restaurants but I think it is a 34 time to look at what we can do to invigorate the rest of the retail economy. Thank you. 35 36 Chair Garber: A couple of comments but let me first, because I did not weigh in on the 37 University circle conversation. In particular I want to align myselfwith some of the thoughtful 38 comments that Commissioner Martinez has mentioned. When I look at the map it makes sense 39 for me for the core protections to extend all the way down to Alma. I think Commissioner 40 Martinez really hit it on the head in that is the gateway and what really matters there, if I am 41 understanding his conmlents correctly, is that the expression and the streetscape create an 42 invitation, a gateway, to the rest of that street. What happens behind that really has far less 43 impact. This is and will become even more so, more important, hopefully as this whole area is 44 developed over the next ten to 15 years with the development of Stanford, etc., and will become 45 a very important entryway as well as linkage to the other side of El Camino. So I think the 46 comments that talk about how the street and how the city as opposed to what those specific uses 47 are, which are actually relatively small compared to the overall impact has caused me to think 48 differently about that. 49 Page 35 1 Regarding the general marketplace, I have spent a good portion of nly professional life dealing 2 with very large retail centers and malls, etc. I appreciate the public's comment about retail being 3 delicate. Getting a retail store into someplace and keeping them there for even three-quarters of 4 a year to get them going is not an easy thing and requires a tremendous amount of gumption, and 5 a tremendous amount of luck. The same thing is even more true with restaurants. I think one of 6 the key things that Palo Alto has going for it is a dramatically different demographic that 7 supports the retail that occurs along University Avenue than these other communities, certainly 8 something like Mountain View, to a lesser extent Menlo Park, but certainly nowhere near what 9 the demographic is for Palo Alto. Mountain View is much more of a destination although there 10 are residents of Mountain View that would argue with me. The demographic really supports a 11 lot more than restaurants and that is in large part why we have things, which are not restaurants 12 there. 13 14 I don't think, and I don't think anybody else here believes, that we would every get anywhere 15 close to 100 percent restaurants. Even if we did, about seven out often of them would die out in 16 that first year anyway and the luck of trying to get them back into place is pretty low. So I align 17 myself with Commissioner Tuma's observations. The marketplace structures a tremendous 18 amount of the activity and the urban vibrancy that occurs on that street despite the way that we 19 may want to zone it, which is not to say that we shouldn't. I think the concept of strengthening 20 the core is. spot on and should be rigorously supported by both the business community, which it 21 sounds like it is, as well as the Planning Staff and this Commission. 22 23 It makes sense to me that there is this little wing or fmger that begins to extend down Emerson 24 and ties that in. I don't necessarily have a sense as to whether it should be - I don't feel it is 25 necessary that it do that right now. I am really much more interested in focusing on University 26 Avenue. I really like that area of Palo Alto and it is in large part because the businesses are 27 small and you end up with all these different storefronts some of which are businesses, some of 28 which are retail, but seeing that mix and that vibrancy is working now. Knowing that the 29 ownership along those streets is so cut up into all these individual lots the likelihood of those 30 being accumulated and that sort of vibrancy going away is pretty low for many years to come. 31 So I am not as worried about trying to create a statement there and a policy around that just yet. 32 It is imaginable to me that we could come back and visit that in five or seven years or something 33 of that sort, but again I think the focus this evening is really around University Avenue. 34 35 The last thing I was going to mention is regarding restaurants. Again, I do not believe in the 36 short-term or the long-term that limiting restaurants is a key issue here. Ifwe suddenly find that 37 in five year's time the percentage of restaurants is 75 percent of the street or even 40 or 30 38 percent of the street I would say that there is probably reasonable cause to say what is going on 39 and we should be doing something there. Given what we have now and the sort of dynamic 40 environment that we want have where there is going to be a lot of change, and we talk about 41 dynamism, and the urban experience it is not just people on the street, but it is getting new 42 retailers on the street. There is a lot of give and play to that. The changing out of retailers 43 moving be it for rent or for market or because they have outgrown a space and they want to get 44 into a better marketplace and they take it upon themselves to move into a different marketplace 45 adds to the vitality and the renewal that has to occur on streets like this, and is I think unique for 46 Palo Alto, one of the great strengths that we do have a lot of things not just people but also 47 retailers and businesses moving through the community. So those are just some general 48 comments. 49 Page 36 1 Commissioner Holman, you had some final comments and then I propose that we take each one 2 of the Staff recommendations as a motion and then we can amend it as we go. I would like to do 3 those as separate motions so that we don't lose ourselves trying to get all the details into one 4 giant motion. Commissioner Holman. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Yes, maybe three or four comments. I agree that the restaurants are an 7 important part of a vital shopping district. Commissioner Tuma's comments I absolutely agree 8 about California A venue but we are not talking about California Avenue we are talking about 9 University Avenue. 10 11 I think frankly we have gotten either to the tipping point or very close to the tipping point in 12 Downtown. Restaurants whether they last a year and then trying to get another one in there 13 might be difficult but nevertheless the capital investment is there. There is an inclination and a 14 drive to try to get another restaurant there not another use. So that is another thing. 15 16 Market forces playa huge force. They are a big force, and a huge part in creating a good retail 17 sector for any kind of shopping experience. Again, I am a zone for what you want person. We 18 need to look at what the parameters are within which we want the market forces to operate. 19 20 I am going to make one more pitch for the circle there. It is, I agree with our new Commissioner 21 but I look at that in a little different way. I think that gateway and the continuation of the retail, 22 and now that we have that parking garage right there it seems all the more reason why retail 23 would succeed there. So I am not inclined to remove that. I do note also that it is not just a hard 24 economic time for the business community. We are compassionate about the challenges that the 25 community is facing. I hope we are also compassionate about the challenges that the City faces. 26 If you just do simple math, and I don't have the square footages here, but if you just do simple 27 nlath we are looking to remove 12 properties from the GF and add six. So are we reducing the 28 amount of retail square footage that we have that will contribute to the City's bottom line? 29 30 Commissioner Keller's comment also about we are not requiring these properties to convert from 31 retail to office but we are allowing it. The whole reason that the GF zoning was put into place to 32 begin with was because there was a large movement that was converting ground floor to office. 33 In a retail section you don't have to have a whole lot of conversions to office before you break 34 that synergy. The one thing I am disappointed about in the Staff Report is it doesn't really talk 35 about those synergies and the importance of them, and the connectivity like from Emerson, from 36 Forest to Hamilton that one block. Yes, there are, Mr. Keenan is absolutely correct and we owe 37 a lot to Mr. Keenan because he has done a lot of revitalization in this community. That said, I 38 think there is a great amount of flexibility within the GF zoning allowances service, retail, hotels. 39 There is a good amount of flexibility there and I think we need to be looking out for the public's 40 best interest even ahead of looking out for the private property interests, not being unsympathetic 41 to that in any means. 42 43 One thing that I had asked Mr. Williams if we could talk about tonight is I think the City ought 44 to be, and I am very interested in doing some things for the business community like working to 45 get the sidewalks clean like Mr. Keenan and I talked about beforehand. I know he is very, very 46 interested and I have watched it over time. It is one of my big frustrations. Like allowing the 47 sandwich boards that help promote business. We have now I think just one cross street sign 48 Downtown that leads people from University Avenue down the side streets. There are a lot of 49 things we need to do to help the businesses survive and thrive that we are not doing. I did ask Page 37 1 Mr. Williams to see if we could talk about that a little bit this evening and he said yes. So I hope 2 we will and this isn't just a matter of putting constraints on property owners. They seem to be 3 amenable to that but it is also not a quid pro quo swap. We need to be making best land use 4 decisions in the public's best interests. 5 6 Chair Garber: At the suggestion of Commissioner Fineberg let me read Policy B-20, which talks 7 about the University Avenue Downtown. The Policy states support and enhance the University 8 AvenuelDowntown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, office, 9 restaurant, and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix 10 including small local businesses to the continued vitality of Downtown. Then there are a couple 11 of sentences of description here. The University Avenue Downtown area is a regional retail and 12 entertainment attraction, and a professional office and service commercial center for Palo Alto. 13 Its historic buildings, architectural variety, and public improvements contribute to its economic 14 success. In the past the City has taken steps to maintain the area's strong retail function by 15 limiting the amount of first floor office space. To protect the area's scale and character the total 16 amount of nonresidential floor space allowed is also regulated. 17 18 So Commissioners, let's take these, and I apologize that this has gone on longer than we had 19 hoped here. Let us work through potentially four motions here. We will take the first two 20 recommendations as motions one and two, and then we will do the last recommendation the 21 Limits on Businesses of Concern as motion number three. Then motion number four will be the 22 recommended revisions to the zoning map and I am putting that last only because I think there 23 will be the most amount of discussion around that particular piece. 24 25 May I ask the Vice-Chair to make the motion here? 26 27 MOTION 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sure. Move that the Planning and Transportation Commission follow the 30 Staff recommendation with respect to changes to the Ground Floor Combining District 31 regulations, removal ofPAMC Section 18.30(C).040. 32 33 SECOND 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Second. 36 37 Chair Garber: The motion is seconded by Commissioner Keller. Any discussion by the maker? 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. 40 41 Chair Garber: The seconder? 42 43 Commissioner Keller: No. 44 45 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 46 47 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That motion 48 passes unanimously. 49 Page 38 1 Commissioner Tuma, a motion on number two? 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sure. Move the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the 6 Staff recommendation for removal ofPAMC Section 18.18.060(:t)(1). 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Chair Garber: I will second the motion. Any discussion by the maker? 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. 13 14 Chair Garber: None by the seconder. Any discussions by Con1ll1issioners? Commissioner 15 Keller and then HolnlaJ.l. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: I think that it makes sense to have some flexibility on CD-C but not 18 complete decontrol. In particular with respect to the potential for taking some of the green 19 parcels, namely the ones that are being rezoned from what is now nlandatory retail to no control 20 on that, the combination of those is particularly problematic. 21 22 It seems to me that the City can do things to enhance retail. The biggest thing the City can do to 23 enhance retail is to fix the permit process. I have heard from a lot of retailers and potential 24 retailers the process for getting permits out of our Development Office is worse than pulling 25 teeth and getting a root canal on the other ones. In particular I have heard before a lot of the 26 collapse of retail on Bryant that they wished that there was more lighting on Bryant. So before 27 we go through the process of allowing decontrol on that, complete decontrol, I think we should 28 take particular measures to figure out what we can do to strengthen the retail in this district at the 29 times when the economy does come back. In particular that we provide some flexibility in 30 particular in things that have not historically been retail to allow experimentation without it being 31 a one-way ratchet. Thank: you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Are those just general comments or was there an amendment that you were 34 proposing? 35 36 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Well, if I were to make a motion what I would recommend is to amend 39 Section 18.18.060(:t)(1) in such a way that existing retail uses have to stay as retail uses and new 40 retail uses can revert back to non-retail. That is something that I would float as a trial balloon as 41 a companson. 42 43 Perhaps I should make that as a substitute motion that existing retail uses according to Section 44 18. 18.060(:t)(1 ) stay as retail and new uses that are converted to retail could become retail and 45 revert back. 46 47 Chair Garber: Is there a second to the substitute motion? I am seeing none. That motion dies. 48 Is there any further discussion on the primary motion? Commissioner Holman. 49 Page 39 1 Commissioner Holman: Just kind ofa reiteration of what I stated before about removal of the 2 restrictions and working towards the City's and publics best interest. So it is comments I have 3 already made before. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Are you going to make a motion? 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Well, I think the way that we could go is a substitute motion would just 8 be the counter of this. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if you would simply not want any changes or if you 11 would allow some sort of flexibility? 12 13 Commissioner Holman: It is easier I think if we can point to locations on the map that you 14 would be referring to in terms of flexibility. I think that would be helpful. 15 16 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 17 18 Commissioner Keller: What I am simply saying is that things that are currently retail would stay 19 as retail that is what my substitute motion was, and things that are not currently retail which are 20 not covered by the restrictions on retail could experimentally be placed as retail, and if it didn't 21 work out it could revert back to office. So that was my motion because there were comments by 22 the Staff and by some members of the public that they were unwilling to convert existing office 23 uses to retail uses and have it forever stay as retail if it did work that way. That was what I was 24 proposing. 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I need you to either nlake an amendment, a substitute motion, or 27 otherwise we shouldn't be discussing. 28 29 SECOND 30 31 Commissioner Holman: I will second that. There is a little discomfort with that though because 32 there is no City Attorney here to comment on if we can kind of do this mish-mash. I will second 33 the motion and see what happens. 34 35 I do have one comment that actually plays into this that I meant to ask earlier and apologize that 36 this didn't come at actually the appropriate time. In the Staffpresentation ..... 37 38 Chair Garber: Actually, if I may if .... 39 40 Commissioner Holman: It is very relevant to this motion. 41 42 Chair Garber: Okay, so you would be seconding the Substitute Motion so I will remove the fact 43 that I said it had died. Weare moving on and the speaker therefore has no comments but the 44 seconder does. 45 46 Commissioner Holman: I do, again with the caveat that I don't know what the City Attorney 47 would say about that. The other thing is I am a little concerned because in the Staff presentation 48 there was a comment that said that there would be additional outreach after the Planning and 49 Transportation Commission meeting. Apologies to everybody, I did mean to ask this question Page 40 1 earlier because is that going to be as a result of our actions, and so we are not going to have 2 feedback on that, and then it is going to go to Council based on the outreach comments? What is 3 the purpose of that? It seems like all of that outreach should have happened before the Planning 4 Commission meeting unless I am missing something. 5 6 Ms. Cutler: I believe the goal of further outreach between now and the City Council meeting 7 would be to make sure that all of the affected members of the Downtown are aware of what the 8 Planning Commission's final recollunendation to the Council is. So if there are changes from 9 what Staff had been discussing that they are aware of that and able to speak to Council about 10 that. 11 12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that clarification. 13 14 Chair Garber: Discussion from the Commissioners. Comnlissioner Tuma, did you have a 15 comment relative to the planners? Okay. Commissioner Keller. 16 1 7 Commissioner Keller: One comment with respect to outreach to the pUblic. I believe that there 18 was a member of the public who pointed out that there was not sufficient outreach to the 19 business owners of the parcels that were being rezoned from the mandatory GF. I realize that is 20 not part of this motion but I believe that one member of the public had made that comment. I am 21 not sure how much outreach was made in terms of the people who are business owners in the 22 non-GF portion that are retail for which they might be at risk for raising rents at some point in 23 time and losing that as a retail use. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and Martinez and then we will call the question. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: I support the substitute motion because I think it honors the goals of 28 the Comprehensive Plan to retain mixed use and a diverse amount of varied businesses 29 Downtown. It protects the existing retail, which is in place but then provides the flexibility for 30 the areas to have that two-way ratchet if they are currently office space. I think it also honors the 31 goals that City Council has had of preserving retail. 32 33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 34 35 Commissioner Martinez: I have a question about the substitute motion. Arthur what do you 36 mean when you say retail will stay retail? 37 38 Commissioner Keller: What I mean is that the provisions of Section 18.18.060(f)(1) apply only 39 to those parcels for which the provisions now apply. 40 41 Chair Garber: If you would give us an example. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: Basically my understanding of this Section is that there are some parcels' 44 within the CD-C District, non-GF portion, which have retail uses now on the ground floor. 45 According to this provision those uses require that they remain retail. If the motion as originally 46 proposed, to which I am making a substitute motion, if that motion is passed then those parcels 47 could become non-retail use, could become office use. There was at least one member of the 48 public who .said that he has chosen not to take an office use and experiment with the retail use 49 because he has been concerned that if he did that it would have to stay office, it would be Page 41 1 ratcheted in one direction. So I am basically limiting the 18.18.060(f)(1) only to apply to those 2 uses that are currently forced to remain retail and to allow experimentation on the uses that are 3 not currently retail, to allow the offices use to become retail and to revert back, back and forth at 4 will. 5 6 Chair Garber: So, Commissioner Keller if I understand you correctly, and forgive me 7 Commissioner Martinez the properties, which are currently brown or orange up there, would 8 remain retail. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: No, I am refeni.ng to the yellow properties. We are talking about the 11 yellow properties for CD-C. The brown properties are CD-C with GF. So the yellow properties 12 currently are partially retail and partially non-retail. Anything that is retail now under this 13 current ordinance has to stay as retail and anything that is not retail if it becomes retail it ratchets 14 and stays as retail from now on. What I am simply saying is I am freezing it so that those things 15 that are forced to be retail now remain as retail and anything in the future that becomes retail that 16 is currently non-retail doesn't have to stay retail and can go back and forth. 17 18 Chair Garber: Let's see if Commissioner Martinez is satisfied with his question. 19 20 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I think I get it. 21 22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: The only concern I have is that what you have described, and I think 25 Commissioner Holman hit on is I think there might be some legal issues which could represent a 26 taking in that you have one zone and two disparate policies in terms of how to interpret that 27 zone. That runs into legal land use questions. 28 29 Chair Garber: Planning Director, forgive me and welcome back. Thank you for your ping-pong 30 game. Weare in the midst of a question here which I don't think you were in the room to hear 31 the beginning of. We are taking each of the recommendations bullet by bullet and making 32 motions around them. There was a motion made to support the Staff recommendation to change 33 the Downtown Commercial District regulations, bullet point nUlTlber two. A substitute motion 34 was made to create a -how would you describe it Commissioner Keller? The yellow properties 35 if they currently are occupied by retail they would have to remain retail. If they are not occupied 36 by retail they could be changed to retail but then would have to remain retail. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: The current ordinance if they are changed to retail they have to remain 39 retail forever. Under my proposal places that are not retail that become retail in the existing 40 building those could revert back. However existing retail uses have to remain as retail. In other 41 words, essentially what would happen is that certain sections would have a date of March 19, 42 2001 through some date in 2009 when the ordinance took effect. 43 44 Chair Garber: Essentially you would have a map where the yellow is and there would be some 45 of the brown or orange inside that yellow. 46 47 Commissioner Keller: No it wouldn't be brown or orange because it wouldn't have the GF 48 designation by zoning. It would have the GF designation. by continuation of the current 49 restriction. Therefore we are not taking from the current property owners because it is already Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 GF. We are simply allowing new properties that do not have the GF restriction to not have to have it in the future. \ Conm1issioner Lippert: My point is that you are giving property rights to one group but not the other. Chair Garber: Planning Director, any advice for the Commissioners? Mr. Williams: I don't think: there is a legal reason you can't make that distinction. I think: it is a little bit of a bookkeeping thing for us to keep a record of what is retail now. It wouldn't be our recommendation that you go there but that is obviously the Commission's determination. The reason we wouldn't recommend it is we have talked about some properties that currently are in that yellow area, they are retail, but we don't think: it makes a lot of sense to require them to remain retail, or at least not to the extent that they are already. So do you really want to do that and just give the flexibility to the new ones but that is your call. Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tuma. Vice-Chair Tuma: To me this is completely arbitrary. We are picking this time because this happens to be -we are not doing this based on a policy that we are trying to effectuate. Weare doing this because well, as of right now those are in and those are out. It just seems completely arbitrary to me. The other thing is having the flexibility in these outlying buildings, having a good vibrant Downtown is partly having enough office space and whether that is ground floor or not when you are outside of the core CD-C seems to me to be good policy. Again I go back to the marketplace will help this area resolve that. These are feeder areas. So the substitute motion to me just doesn't fundanlentally the problem I have with it is it just seem arbitrary. Those that are in now are in, those that aren't aren't, and that just seem inappropriate. Chair Garber: Just before I go to Commissioners Keller, Holman, and Lippert I will likely not support the substitute motion only because I believe that again the focus should be on University Avenue and anchoring that ground floor retail there, and to ,allow these sort of bits and pieces to exist outside of that doesn't support the overall concept of trying to focus our energies on University Avenue, it still allows these other occupancies to use but if there is greater diversity and change in those I think: that is fme. That is the way that those zones should work. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: So I notice that Planning Director had specified that he was' aware of some properties that are currently retail for which retail doesn't make as much sense. I am wondering if it would help the discussion if you could cite a property without being problematic. Mr. Williams: The one we have cited before is Spago at 265 'Lytton property, a very large space that has worked sometimes as a restaurant. It is probably maybe the only thing it could work as given the way it is configured. It has been vacant for some time. There is a small retail taking up a small part of that right now. It is out at the mid-block on Lytton where there just really is not the kind of foot traffic to support that and that is why a Stars or Spago or something has to be a destination that goes there. So it could sit vacant for a long time. So some of these at the periphery like that mid-block on Lytton or Hamilton, the sort of far reaches it seems counter Page 43 1 productive to require them just because they have most recently been retail to remain forever in 2 that designation. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So let me just quickly say that here we are allowing retail to become non- 5 retail perhaps by neglect if you will, allowing them to have anything. At least this is much better 6 than what the City deliberately did 20-some years ago where the City prior to my involvement 7 deliberately killed retail in South El Camino Real and forced it to become housing. So this is not 8 nearly as bad but I am wondering if some Planning Conlmissioner 20 years hence might wish we 9 hadn't done this sinli1arly. 10 11 Chair Garber: Well, every new Planning Commissioner is smarter than all the others by 12 definition. Commissioner Holman and then Lippert and then let's get to the question. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: I am actually going to remove my second but I sort of wish that this 15 topic and the next one were considered together because I do have comments and suggestions on 16 the GF where it goes and where it doesn't go. So I really think these go hand in glove but I think 17 this one as a standalone motion doesn't have the merit that I would hope that it might. 18 19 Chair Garber: Okay. In that case if Commissioner Lippert will allow let me call the question of 20 the primary motion, which is supporting the Staff s recommendation. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Excuse me but for me these go hand in glove. I am not going to be able 23 to vote up or down on this without also having the consideration of the next bullet point. They 24 go absolutely hand in glove. 25 26 Chair Garber: The next bullet point being the zoning map or the order that I had suggested 27 which is that we go to Recommended Limits on Businesses of Concern? 28 29 Commissioner Holman: The zoning map. Sorry, but I am sure you can understand why. 30 31 Chair Garber: So let me see if I am understanding what you are suggesting the Commission do 32 here. To no longer support the substitute motion but create another substitute motion where we - 33 well we could do it that way too but what I anl hearing is there is a substitute motion to say let us 34 consider Staff recommendations bullets number two and three together. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: That is correct. It could be a series of amendments it doesn't have to be 37 a substitute motion. It could be a series of amendments either to the main motion or independent 38 amendments, or we could table the current motion. There are a number of ways to address it. 39 40 The reason being depending on what we do with the zoning map is going to absolutely determine 41 what I do in regard to the current motion. 42 43 Chair Garber: So let's just table the motion. Do you think we can get through the Limits of 44 Businesses of Concern topic and then go to the zoning map topic? My recommendation is that 45 we create a motion supporting the Staff s recommendation here and then take an inlmediate vote 46 on that to just see if we can get through that. 47 48 Commissioner Lippert: I call the question. I have called the question you have to do it. 49 Page 44 1 Commissioner Keller: Actually sir, calling the question requires a vote and tabling is priority 2 over calling the question. I move to table. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: But we have a main motion and I was recognized to speak after 5 Commissioner Holman and you were not. 6 7 Chair Garber: Okay, now I am completely confused. Any help, Mr. Planning Director? 8 9 Mr. Williams: I think you should either vote on the main motion or vote to table. I think the 10 result is the same way, I assume it is going to reflect the same position. If there is a majority of 11 you that is not supportive of the substitute motion right now then that majority would vote to 12 table if you vote on tabling. Ifnot, then I don't know I just see it coming out the same way. So 13 whichever vote you take first but I do think it is appropriate to vote on either the motion or 14 tabling. I think that is the Chair's prerogative as far as who was first in line. 15 16 Chair Garber: Okay. I think that what we should do is go back to the primary motion and either 17 get that up or out and then we will move forward from there. 18 19 So without further comment. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: You can't. I object. 22 23 Chair Garber: Planning Director ... 24 25 Commissioner Keller: According to Robert's Rules of Order .... 26 27 Chair Garber: Which we do not follow. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Calling the question is a motion that requires a vote and it is not simply 30 an un-voted motion. 31 32 Chair Garber: Okay, rather than debating the issue. All those in favor of calling the question to 33 the original motions, all those in favor of supporting an immediate vote say aye. (ayes) 34 Opposed? (nay) That passes four to three. 35 36 Mr. Williams: Now you vote on the motion. 37 38 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg against) 39 40 Chair Garber: The primary motion. So let's vote on the primary motion which is to support 41 Staff's recommendation that removes PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) so that the loss of 42 flexibility of ground floor uses in the downtown core covered by the GF Combining District will 43 be balanced by an increase in flexibility for ground floor uses in the periphery of the Downtown. 44 All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) The motion passes four to three 45 with Commissioners Martinez, Garber, Tuma, and Lippert supporting it and Commissioners 46 Holman, Keller, and Fineberg not supporting it. 47 48 MOTION Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Okay, we will go to a motion that supports the Staffreconunendation on Limits of Business of Concern. Do I hear a second to that motion? SECOND Vice-Chair Tuma: Second. Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Tuma. The maker has no comments. Does the seconder? Vice-Chair Tuma: No. Chair Garber: None. Is there discussion regarding this? Commissioner Holman and then Keller. Commissioner Holman: I really ask Commissioners to consider what the consequence of this is and what the consequence is to the City and the public. So what we just did by majority vote was say that existing retail that is required to remain in place can convert to non-income producing, non-retail use. If we also take out 12 properties and add but six we are further exacerbating the loss of retail generating properties to the City. Am I not understanding the motion? Chair Garber: We are talking about bullet point number four as opposed to the map, restaurants primarily. Commissioner Holman: Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were looking at bullet point number three. My apologies. Skipped one on me. Chair Garber: I apologize. Are there comments regarding? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Briefly. I am going to support this motion just because we don't have any time to deal with this. I believe that the proper time for dealing with this is when we are doing the Comprehensive PIal.} Update, when we are talking about retail mixes and we are talking about retail in general. That is the proper venue and I hope we get the data back that I have requested one that so we can do the appropriate analysis at that time. \ Chair Garber: So noted. Any other discussion? Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Holman: If I might, Ms. French do you know if we are going to have opportunity to address this under the Zoning Ordinance Update? The primary focus has not been Downtown. Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: We are done with the Zoning Ordinance Update. Do you mean the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Holman: I am sorry, the Comprehensive Plan Update, yes. Ms. French: I thought I saw Julie blow through here and maybe she is on her way back, I don't know. So I don't know the answer to that. Could somebody just state what the actual motion is about, it is something about business restaurants, that one? Page 46 1 2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, the motion I believe was to adopt the Staff recommendation to make no 3 changes to the limits on specific businesses of concern. 4 5 Ms. French: Thanks, that's great for the record. 6 7 Chair Garber: With that let us .... 8 9 Commissioner Holman: I am going to oppose the motion because I don't know that we can 10 address this during the Conlprehensive Plan Update. I have no information that indicates we will 11 be able to and I think it is something that needs more study. So sorry. 12 13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: In preparing for tonight's nleeting I renlember reading something that 16 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can be initiated at any time by the Planning 17 Commission, I believe it was Staff, or project applicants. So is there a mechanism that we can 18 bring this back on our agenda whether it be concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update or 19 in advance of it or after it so that it as an item can get the consideration that it warrants? The 20 answer to that would influence how I would vote on this. 21 22 Chair Garber: If I may prompt Staff there just happens to be on November 18, under Future 23 Agenda Items, a review of business and economics chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. 24 25 Ms. French: That looks promising. 26 27 Chair Garber: Thank you for your optimism. Commissioner Fineberg, does that help. you? 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes it does and I think we can satisfy our needs then. 30 31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: With that assurance I can support the nl0tion. 34 35 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 36 37 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? 38 That motion passes unanimously. 39 40 Let us go to bullet point number three. Let us first state the motion. Conlmissioner Keller. 41 42 MOTION 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I move the third bullet of the third item, which is added GF protections to 45 the existing retail on the south side of the strongest block of retail on Hamilton Avenue (the 200 46 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street) and to the Aquarius Theater and the two 47 restaurant sites inlmediately to the north on Emerson. That is a single motion separate from any 48 other thing we consider on this item. 49 Page 47 1 SECOND 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Second 4 5 Chair Garber: Would the maker like to speak to their motion? 6 7 Commissioner Keller: I think that this is a clear area where retail is certainly contiguous with 8 existing retail and it certainly strengthens to add GF protection to these identified parcels that 9 Staff recommends. 10 11 Chair Garber: Seconder? 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. 14 15 Chair Garber: Discussion? 16 17 Commissioner Holman: Could the motion please be restated? I am sorry. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: The motion is if you look at Staff recommendation on the Zoning Map I 20 am making the revision to the PAMC Section 18.08.040 to add the properties that are listed on 21 the third bullet, added GF protection to that whole section, that whole paragraph. That is it for 22 this motion. It is just the entire third bullet of this. I am not doing deletions. I am not doing the 23 no changes at this time. 24 25 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 26 27 Chair Garber: Does that help? I see no lights for discussion. All those in favor of the motion as 28 stated say aye. (ayes) All opposed? The motion passes unanimously, thank you. 29 30 May I have another motion for the remainder or some portion of the remainder? 31 32 MOTION 33 34 Commissioner Keller: I am going to make the motion that we make no further changes, no 35 removals, and no further changes to the Zoning Map at this time. 36 37 SECOND 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. 40 41 Chair Garber: Would the maker like to speak to their motion? 42 43 Commissioner Keller: I think in particular with the way that the second motion went earlier 44 tonight that this is not the time to remove controls on these parcels. If the second motion had 45 gone differently I might have felt differently but not under these circumstances. 46 47 Chair Garber: The seconder? 48 49 Commissioner Lippert: I don't need to say anything. Page 48 1 2 Chair Garber: I see a light from Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Holman. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: I would like to add a friendly amendment to the motion, hopefully a 5 friendly amendment to the motion to continue Emerson from Hamilton to Forest both sides of 6 the street. There are a couple of other places but I would like to add those as an initial thought. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Let me restrict my motion simply to not recommending the first two 9 removals and let Commissioner Holman's proposals be separately voted on, is that okay? 10 11 Chair Garber: Okay, so that does not limit Commissioner Holman from making motions to make 12 other additions separately. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Yes that is correct. 15 16 AMENDMENT (SUBSTITUTE MOTION) 17 18 Commissioner Holman: So I will make a separate amendment motion to add .... 19 20 Chair Garber: This would be a substitute motion. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: No it is a separate amendment to the motion. 23 24 Chair Garber: I see, thank you. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: To add Emerson between Hamilton and Forest to connect the South of 27 Forest Avenue area and the Downtown GF District to be protected by the GF zone. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: May I inquire whether you are also referring to --there are some 30 residential or non-retail properties along there, are you including those? On the logical east side 31 of Emerson. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: There is a combination of uses. Again this doesn't require that they 34 change. 35 36 SECOND 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Okay, well I will accept your amendment. 39 40 Chair Garber: Seconder? 41 42 Commissioner Lippert: No. 43 44 Ms. Cutler: May I ask for clarification? 45 46 Chair Garber: Yes. 47 48 Ms. Cutler: I would like to clarify that you mean both sides of the street along that entire block. 49 Page 49 1 Commissioner Holman: Yes. 2 3 Ms. Cutler: Thank you. 4 5 Chair Garber: I believe that is understood by the maker and seconder as well. So that 6 amendment fails unless you make it a substitute motion. 7 8 Commissioner Holman: It is an amendment as a separate nlotion. I believe Commissioner 9 Keller seconded it. It is a motion. 10 11 Chair Garber: You were offering it as? 12 13 Commissioner Holman: As a separate amendment motion. 14 15 Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me the first time around she was making a friendly amendment. 16 I was not accepting it. The second time she was making it a formal amendment where we would 1 7 have to vote on it. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: So I already made the motion and I believe there was a second. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: I am seconding it. 22 23 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Holman would you like to speak to your motion? 24 25 Ms. French: I have to step in because there is no attorney here. We have not advertised this 26 portion of the map as proposed changes so I am a little bit concerned if we are adding tonight. 27 The first motion was that no further map changes would be added and now it is a substitute 28 motion saying oh yes, further map changes are being made and these are not ones that we had 29 put forward tonight. 30 31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: We can't do this. This has not been noticed. These owners, these business 34 members have no idea this is going on. I just don't see how we could just throw this into the 35 mIx. 36 37 Commissioner Lippert: We would need to initiate first and notice that this was going to happen 38 and then we would have to have a formal hearing on it. That is my reason for saying no to the 39 amendment. I should have spoken up. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate the Commission's predicament that we are in. Unfortunately 44 the motion that we made number two where we removed retail protection from there that 45 essentially removed retail protection from a large swath, which is much too broad and that is 46 why I was opposed to that. I realize that as a losing party to the second motion if we were to 47 limit that geographically so that the removal did not apply to these parcels along Emerson then 48 we wouldn't need this motion. But because the second motion essentially eliminated all 49 protection to Emerson, a thriving retail district that connects with the retail district in SOFA this Page 50 1 is problematic. So if somebody on the prevailing side would move for reconsideration on the 2 second motion so that we could amend it to eliminate that we wouldn't have this problem. 3 4 Chair Garber: Let's not make it more complex than it is. Commissioner Holman. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: This shouldn't be this hard. The Commission is very challenged 7 because we don't have legal representation, which is exceedingly frustrating. I am prone to say, 8 and I don't know if this is legally allowed either, is that we move the first motion. Somebody on 9 the prevailing side retract the second motion and we continue the whole rest of this until another 10 meeting when we can have proper legal representation and authority. 11 12 What I recall from past is because this is a recommending body, what I recall Attorney saying is 13 that we aren't restricted to exactly what was noticed because it is a recommending body. If we 14 were the City Council then it absolutely would not be allowed. Again, I am going from memory. 15 I am not the attorney. So I think if we could just get off the dime and move the first motion 16 forward and continue the rest of it to a date certain when we can have proper legal guidance I 17 would be most comfortable with that. Sorry for the challenges but we are in the situation that we 18 are in and it is most unfortunate. 19 20 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Full stop is what I am hearing. 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: I am going to call the question. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think you are hearing none of the Commissioners on the prevailing side are 25 willing to reopen those motions. 26 27 Chair Garber: That is true. I am uncertain at the moment what question is actually on the table 28 to be voted on. Thank you. Wouldn't you know it would be the one evening that our attorney is 29 not here? 30 31 Ms. French: I have to agree with Commissioner Holman that I don't think it is absolutely illegal 32 because as she says it is a recommending body. So you certainly can do what you would like to 33 that extent because it is not an actionable legislative act. However, we have done a certain 34 amount of outreach and we are going to be doing more I guess. Do you want to weigh in? Julie 35 is here to weigh in. 36 37 Chair Garber: So Commissioners let's do this let's take action on the motion that Commissioner 38 Holman has posited, the amendment. Then let's see if we can move forward as best we can. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: I have one question I apologize, like I said this really shouldn't be this 41 hard. Was there no discussion at all at that the Commission might do something different than 42 what the Staff recommendation is or what the discussions were? We do have that purview. We 43 do have that possibility. So was there no discussion that the outcome might be different than 44 what is recommended here? 45 46 Ms. French: In the outreach meetings there was discussion about Emerson as a possibility and 47 through those outreach discussions it seemed that things were just fine on Emerson so Staff did 48 not recommend it. It had been brought up as a possibility in the outreach sessions. It just is not Page 51 1 identified as a Staff recommendation so I think you can make statements and see where your 2 motion goes. 3 4 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: I haven't been involved with 5 this that much but my understanding is that you would be able to make a recommendation on 6 anything within the area that you currently looked at in conjunction with this. Now if you are 7 expanding beyond that area then you would have a problem. I think Staff would not be 8 supportive even if it is legally possible to proceed with something that wasn't noticed that was 9 outside the area I think for disclosure purposes and to make sure that there was an appropriate 10 public process we would definitely encourage you to come back and revisit that at a subsequent 11 meeting if it is beyond the scope of the area that was identified. 12 13 Ms. French: Technically it is not beyond the scope because it is in the CD-C. We are not 14 beyond the yellow. If we were beyond the yellow we would have real problenls. 15 16 Chair Garber: Okay. So the question has been called let us vote. All those in favor of the 17 amendment as stated, and forgive me would you please just restate the content of that? 18 19 Commissioner Holman: The GF Zoning District be extended on Emerson between Hamilton and 20 Forest. 21 22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Just so we don't have a problem, I assume you are referring to the portion 25 ofCD-C that is between Hamilton and Forest, and excludes the property on the comer of Forest 26 and Emerson that is not part of the CD-C currently. In other words, we are restricting it to 27 yellow. The portion of which Congresswonlan Anna Eshoo's office is in is not part ofCD-C as 28 far as I can tell from the map. 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: That property is a PC. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: I think that is a PC so that is fine. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 35 36 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert opposed) 37 38 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? 39 (nays) That motion passes with Commissioners Holman, Martinez, Keller, and Fineberg 40 supporting the motion and Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert not supporting it. 41 42 Ms. French: Who seconded that? We are trying to keep track. 43 44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. Okay, we are back to the main motion, which had been 45 attempted by Commissioner Keller. Would the Commissioner like to try that again? 46 47 Commissioner Keller: Is this the add voting? 48 49 Chair Garber: This would be the add voting, yes. Page 52 1 2 Commissioner Keller: So then it is the adds that we are doing I think. We didn't vote on the 3 adds yet. Sorry, we voted on the adds already that was unanimous. I think what we are voting 4 on is the removals. 5 6 Chair Garber: You are right it is the removals. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: This is the no removals and the only change is Emerson between the CD- 9 C between Forest and Hamilton. 10 11 Ms. French: I am sorry to interrupt this might be out of order. Can we just make sure there is 12 focus? The three miscellaneous non-retail parcels, they are not retail now, on Kipling and 13 Cowper north of University. They are kind of out there on their own. You are saying you are 14 not interested in touching those. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: We are not touching those at this time. 17 18 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second to that motion? I'm sorry that is already in place~ Remind me 19 who actually did second that. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: I seconded it but then they amended it. 22 23 Chair Garber: Okay, so' I am assuming that speaker that made the motion has nothing more to 24 say. The seconder? 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: I am not going to be supporting the nlotion because I was not in support 27 of the amendment. You can't withdraw the second so I am just not going to support it. I am just 28 not going to vote in support of the motion. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: I will second then. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: No. I have already seconded it. You can vote on it I am just not going 33 to be supporting it. 34 35 Chair Garber: He is just not going to be supporting it. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: I thought you were withdrawing your second. I apologize. 38 39 Chair Garber: No. So is there discussion by the Commissioners? Commissioner Fineberg. 40 41 Commissioner Fineberg: One issue that was just brought up that I don't know if it is going to 42 warrant a friendly amendment and maybe I will know from a show of smiles or thumbs down. 43 The question of whether we need to deal with whether any of these amendments apply to PCs. 44 We just talked about that one particular parcel. In our previous study session there had been 45 comments about whether we should address PC so that if they were ever redeveloped whether 46 the GF would apply to those PCs. I think if we do not do a friendly amendment now or a 47 substitute amendment then we will be deciding that PCs stay off on their own with no coverage 48 with the GF overlay. So how do we sort of thumbs up or thumbs down that? 49 Page 53 1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: My recollection is that the discussion and the feedback that we had from the 4 Planning Director was that PC is its own zone with its own zoning and it has its own parameters. 5 So if you are going to change anything there that PC would have to be revisited so there would 6 be essentially no effect whatsoever about having this overlay on it or not. I am not even sure that 7 you could do it but even if you did it wouldn't change it because the zoning is its own legislation, 8 its own PC, and has its own parameters. 9 10 Ms. French: Yes, I believe that you would have to individually each separate parcel, parcel-by- 11 parcel, go to add such a PC-GF legislatively. You could not do it blanket all PCs shall have or 12 all PCs in this area shall have. 13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: I will take that then as an absolute thumbs down on considering that at 15 this time and I would support the motion. 16 17 Chair Garber: Conunissioner Martinez. 18 19 Commissioner Martinez: I just wanted us to restate the motion. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 22 23 Comnlissioner Keller: The motion is with respect to the Staff recommended revisions of the 24 zoning map we are not doing the first bullet removal, we are not doing the second bullet 25 removal, we are not doing the fourth bullet removals, we are not making changes with respect to 26 the last two bullets, however we are adding the CD-C portions of Emerson between Forest and 27 Hamilton are being added to the GF Overlay protection. 28 29 Ms. French: Both sides of the street. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Both sides of the street with the exception of the PC portion that is not 32 currentl y CD-C. 33 34 Chair Garber: May I ask Staff to take the laser pointer and point to these areas? 35 36 Ms. Cutler: Let's see, the first bullet point is removal ofGF from properties along Alma and 37 portions of High Street near Hamilton so that is down here, which we are not doing according to 38 the current motion. The second bullet point is removal of GF protection from properties along 39 the circle ramps connecting University Avenue and Alma Street, which is here, which again 40 based on the current motion I believe you are not proposing. Bullet point four we skip down to 41 the three miscellaneous properties that are not retail currently but are currently in the GF zone 42 the current nlotion proposes to leave them as they are in the GF zone. Number five is that no 43 changes would be made to University Avenue east of Cowper Street so that is these properties 44 here, and the motion I believe is to go with that recommendation and not make any changes 45 there. Bullet point number six is no changes to Bryant Street between University Avenue and 46 Hamilton, which is right here this block, and I believe the motion currently on the table is to 47 leave that as it is in the GF zone. 48 Page 54 1 The amendment I believe was to take the block of Emerson between Hamilton and Forest on 2 both sides of the street where it is yellow in this picture in the CD-C and add those to the GF. 3 4 MOTION FAILS (3-4-0-0, Commissioners Martinez, Garber, Tuma, and Lippert opposed) 5 6 Chair Garber: Thank you. With that let's call the question. All those in favor of the motion as 7 stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) That motion fails with Commissioners 8 Martinez, Garber, Tuma, and Lippert opposed and Comnlissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg 9 supporting the motion. 10 11 So let me just ask the Commissioners if there is any other discussion or motion that needs to be 12 added to this particular item. Commissioners Tuma, Keller, and Holman. 13 14 MOTION 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to make a motion that with respect to bullet points five and 17 six, the no changes to University Avenue east of Cowper and no changes to Bryant between 18 University and Hamilton. 19 20 SECOND 21 22 Chair Garber: I will second that. Would the maker like to speak to their motion? 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: What I am trying to do here is knock off items that I think we have violent 25 agreement on. Those two bullet points seem to fall into that category. My sense is that at least 26 the vast majority of the Commission is fine with that and I just want to try to knock those off. 27 28 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 29 30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman? Okay. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. 31 (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously. 32 33 Commissioner Holman. I apologize Commissioner Holman. Con1missioner Keller was ahead of 34 you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller is giving you precedence Commissioner 35 Holman. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: There are other things I would like to do but I think out of frustration I 38 shan't. I don't want to let the opportunity pass without mentioning that this Commission I hope 39 would support expeditious activities on the part of the City and the City Staff to work with 40 property owners to make improvenlents such as an improvement to the I know actually that the 41 City Manager is looking at and working towards getting rid of the multi-tentacled process for 42 approvals and looking at improvements to the Downtown Business District including signage, 43 cleaning the sidewalks and such. So I am hoping the Commissioners would help support 44 Council in directing improvements in that area to support the business districts including plaques 45 and sandwich boards. 46 47 Chair Garber: So your recommendation here is not necessarily to make it a motion but we can 48 make that something that we ask Staff to revisit and we can agendize that separately. 49 Page 55 1 Commissioner Holman: Absolutely. If we could have a straw poll. It is not a motion because it 2 is not before us as an action but again Mr. Williams, Planning Director, did say that we could 3 comnlent on that this evening. 4 5 Chair Garber: Okay. I am happy to do a straw poll. Are the Commissioners in favor of asking 6 Staff to agendize that item for a discussion at a later time? Seeing nods around the table. 7 Commissioner Keller and then Tuma. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: I would like that to be done particularly if there were size limitations. 10 There are some sandwich boards off of Downtown that I noticed that are overly large, 11 particularly one on Alma Street. 12 13 MOTION 14 15 I move that we do not do bullets one, two, and four of the Staff recommended provisions of the 16 zoning map. 17 18 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second for that? 19 20 SECOND 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. 23 24 Commissioner Fineberg: Point of clarification. What do you mean by do not do? The opposite 25 of what is stated? 26 27 Conlmissioner Keller: We do not accept Staff recommendation for the removal of GF protection 28 on any of the parcels that has recommended. 29 30 Chair Garber: Bullet points one, two, and four. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: I will support that. 33 34 Chair Garber: That is seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to 35 their motion? 36 37 Commissioner Keller: No. 38 39 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Martinez, Garber, and Tuma opposed) 40 41 Chair Garber: If there is no more discussion, Commissioners in favor of the motion as stated say 42 aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) The motion passes with Commissioner Holman, Keller, 43 Fineberg, and Lippert in support and Commissioners Martinez, Garber, and Tuma not supporting 44 it. 45 46 Conlmissioners, anything else? Thank you. I will close the public hearing and we will take a 47 five-minute break. 48 49 Commissioners, let us start item number two. Page 56 ATTACHMENT H 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 h~~WM 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Initiate Zoning Map and Text Changes to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District and 8 Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District. 9 10 Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Good evening Commissioners. This item is a City initiated action. 11 The intent tonight is for the Commission to consider the initiation of possible zone map and text 12 changes for the Ground Floor Combining District and for the Downtown Commercial 13 Community, the CD-C, zone district, and to hear discussion of what these changes might include. 14 Since this is an initiation the issue will return to the Commission for additional discussion once a 15 draft ordinance has been prepared and which time they will make a reconunendation to Council. 16 17 A map of the existing CD-C zoning Downtown as well as the location of the Ground Floor 18 Combining District is available on the wall and we have actually put it up on the screen as well. 19 Both the CD zone and the GF Combining District zone text in relation to ground floor 20 restrictions are included in the attachments to the Staff Report. 21 22 One important element of tonight's discussion is to keep in mind that there are two places in the 23 code where ground floor uses are restricted. So we ask everyone to try and state clearly whether 24 their comments pertain to the Ground Floor Combining District or to the restrictions to ground 25 floor uses which can be found in the CD-C District because those are slightly different but there 26 are a lot of similarities and I know there is often confusion between those. 27 28 Staff has prepared several possible items that could be included in an ordinance revision and 29 welcomes additional suggestions. Tonight we are requesting input on the four changes that were 30 listed in the Staff Report. Those changes are one, increase in the vacancy rate, which is required 31 in the GF Combining District. Two, is the possibility of allowing office and other uses on the 32 ground floor of buildings within the CD-C District, but those that are located outside the GF 33 Downtown core. Number three is to revise the boundary of the Downtown Ground Floor 34 Combining District either expanding or contracting in places where appropriate. Number five is 35 a discussion of differentiating between retail uses and restaurant uses and whether there should 36 be a differentiation of those. 37 38 Staff is available to answer any questions and follow up with any additional research if 39 requested. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. We have just one card from the public. I see we now have two 42 cards from the public. So we will go to the public first before we come to Commissioners. You 43 will have three minutes to speak. The first speaker is Herb Borock followed by Bob Moss. Mr. 44 Borock. 45 46 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. I was in these Council Chambers 47 when the use exception of five percent vacancy rate was included in the CD zone district 48 regulations many years ago. I recall Council Member Levy opposing it because he said a five Page 9 1 percent vacancy rate is a normal vacancy rate. The idea of permitting an exception at a normal 2 rate didn't make sense. 3 4 I don't believe you should initiate any changes based on the Staff Report. This isn't something 5 that is being brought to you because you asked for the Staff to bring it to you or the Council 6 asked the Staff to bring it to you. It is coming from the Staff. Instead what you get on page 3 in 7 the passive voice saying that somebody has recommended changes and this is some of those 8 changes. I believe and if they are coming from people in the community there would be a letter 9 attached as to whoever it is that is making the proposal. If you are being given examples I would 10 like to see what the other suggestions are. If Staff itself has a recommendation as to what 11 specific things should be changed that is what should be appearing in the report. There is a 12 suggestion that this has something to do with preserving retail yet it has recommendations for 13 areas that would make it easier for offices on the ground floor. 14 15 You had a discussion earlier this evening about how long it would be taking to do a 16 Comprehensive Plan revision. Suddenly you are being asked on two items, this item and the 17 next item, to make very specific changes in what seems to me a hurry, especially since the 18 economic conditions at least in the minds of the property owners don't appear to be particular 19 long-term, otherwise they would be lowering the rents enough to fill those spaces. So I don't see 20 any particular reason or any crisis that requires us to suddenly change any of this. In any event, 21 ifStaffbelieves changes are warranted I would like to see a more specific recommendation with 22 the authorship of the proposers. Thank you. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Bob Moss will be our last speaker on this item. 25 26 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioners. I also remenlber 27 when this first was enacted more than 20 years ago. Initially surveys were made Downtown of 28 the vacancy rates on a regular basis. I can only recall one instance in the last 23 or 24 years 29 when the vacancy rate was over five percent and that was a very brief spike and it went back 30 down to about three and a half or four percent in about four or five months. So this is unusual. 31 The other thing I found unusual about it is I have been tracking vacancy rates along EI Camino 32 partiCUlarly in the Barron ParklVentura area since the mid 1970s. The last census I took was a 33 few months ago and the vacancy rate was approximately 12 or 14 percent. That includes several 34 properties that have been vacant for 25 or 30 years so you really shouldn't be counting them. In 35 the last four months there have been three additional vacancies where people have closed 36 businesses and gone out, which is not a huge amount even though there are something like 150 37 or 160 businesses along EI Camino and El Camino Way. 38 39 Where Downtown seems to be having a significant problem I am not seeing it citywide. I am not 40 seeing it on EI Camino and South Palo Alto so I am kind of puzzled about this. I think it is a 41 good idea to try to retain retail on the ground floor. It might be useful at least initially to put in a 42 temporary increase in the allowed vacancy rate to maybe ten or 15 percent. But have it expire in 43 two or three years when the economy has gotten better and go back to the five percent we have 44 now because this is a very unusual situation. As I say, we have had very rare occasions where 45 we have had over five percent. As Herb said full occupancy is usually considered a vacancy rate 46 of three or four percent. So we have been better than that consistently. 47 48 The one thing the Staff Report has that I find interesting although I am not sure I would 49 implement it is the problem with excessive restaurants. If you go into Downtown Mountain Page 10 1 View Castro is very heavily restaurant oriented. There are very few shops to shop in. There are 2 some down the side streets but it is overwhelmed with restaurants. This is not good for trying to 3 get a business type environment. So if we are getting a lot of restaurants we ought to look at 4 putting in some kind of limitation so we don't have restaurants taking over the temporary retail 5 vacancies and driving retail out in the future. So that is something you can consider. 6 7 The other aspect is this is revising the boundary and I am not sure whether that is really 8 something you want to do now. I anl not sure whether you want to make it bigger or smaller or 9 where you would change it and why you would want to revise it. So without a compelling 10 reason for adding or removing blocks I think it probably ought to, be left the way it is. 11 12 Finally, the office on the ground floor, if you are going to allow that it should be done very 13 carefully and very cautiously. Office uses will drive out retail. One of the biggest problems you 14 have with an office use is they close at five 0' clock and they go home and they leave a vacant 15 building and it kills the vitality of Downtown. So if you have too many offices on a block it is 16 really bad for retail. I would be very careful about allowing additional office on the ground 17 floor. Thank you. 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. 20 21 Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair can I make a couple of comments please before you deliberate? 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, please go right ahead. 24 25 Mr. Williams: Thank you. I just wanted to respond to a couple of questions and add a little bit 26 more to the Staff presentation. First of all as far as the initiation of the ordinance goes this is 27 something that has come upon us not in the last few days but in the last year certainly. Jim 28 Keene in his new role as City Manager and I, as well as Steve Emslie and the Staff you see here, 29 have met several times on this issue and our concern about the amount of vacancy that is in 30 Downtown. Downtown is one of our major sales tax generators and we have had a couple of 31 inquiries from property owners who have looked at this section of the code on the Ground Floor 32 Retail and the five percent vacancy and asked what is it now and how can I request putting in an 33 office use? I have somebody on the second floor in my building and I would like to extend them 34 down. They are ready to jump down and take that office space if they can. We have basically 35 told them we don't do the count until the end of the year, that is what the code says, and then we 36 will talk about it. So we have had a lot of concern that we are going to get more and more of 37 those kinds of requests as the vacancy rate, we know and when we come back to you we will 38 provide a better inventory of this, but right now it is approximately 15 percent, triple the five 39 percent number. So it is going to probably be awhile before it is back down to five percent. It is 40 not just a matter of it is 15 percent and in six months it is going to be back down to five percent. 41 So we are facing this issue right now. 42 43 We are also facing some issue about some of the properties on the perimeter of the Downtown 44 area that have not ever really functioned very well as retail but they have had retail there, but 45 they have been vacant for some tinle now and have not had retail replacements. Some of the 46 properties on Alma and Lytton and that do not appear to be very good, particularly when they are 47 mid block, very good retail spaces. To some extent that detracts from sort of the concentration 48 that we have on University Avenue and the side streets there. So that raised our concern about is Page 11 1 there a need to really look here at the fringe areas and providing more flexibility there and 2 providing less flexibility on the ground floor of University Avenue and the GF zoning area. 3 4 Then we have certainly talked to some of the major landowners and businesses Downtown and 5 our fear was that there would be a lot of resistance to raising this rate because they generally 6 want to have a lot of flexibility for what to do, but actually we have gotten sort of the reverse. I 7 think most of them are interested in preserving the retail. They know it is sort of synergistic with 8 the rest of the properties they have there so there doesn't seem to be much objection in the OF 9 area to doing that. 10 11 So in any event we thought it was important to bring this forward"and try to do it. It is not a rush 12 type thing where it needs to be done in the next month or even two months but certainly as we 13 get into fall we would like to be able to get something to the Council so they can consider this 14 and hopefully have something in place about the time or shortly after we do our next required 15 survey and report out to them. 16 17 As I mentioned, there is the sales tax generation aspect of the Downtown. There is also sort of 18 the question of if we do modify the vacancy rate what is the right number? I heard Mr. Borock 19 and Mr. Moss talking about five percent was adopted awhile ago that is a standard number. I 20 think we have to ask should there be any nunlber? Should there even be a vacancy rate outlet 21 here or should we basically be saying we want ground floor retail and it doesn't really matter 22 how high that vacancy rate goes. I think someone said once that office gets established there 23 then it is very difficult to move it out. The current language says that it is supposed to move out 24 in five years. I wouldn't relish being the person to try to tell that office user that might bea very 25 successful office user there that they now have to leave because the vacancy rate is back down to 26 five percent and it was only a five-year approval in the first place. 27 28 So I think we really do need to look at these things in a timely way. We certainly are willing, as 29 mentioned in the report, willing to look at the restaurant issue as well. That is something I think 30 the people we have talked to Downtown are very resistant to change. They would like to have 31 the flexibility to do restaurants and feel like that is almost the anchor of Downtown is I think 32 what one of them said is that is what really brings a lot of people to Downtown. By the same 33 token it does have, as Mr. Moss says, the effect to some extent of once you get a restaurant in 34 somewhere there is a lot of infrastructure that goes into that in terms of equipment and tenant 35 improvenlents that are often hard to undo to get retail reestablished in that place. So it is 36 something we would certainly be willing to look at as part of this effort as well. Thank you. 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. So procedurally just a couple of questions to clarify with Staff. 39 The only thing we can do tonight is initiate or not initiate. 40 41 Mr. Willianls: Correct. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: We are not actually giving any specific direction on what the components of 44 the changes would be. Although you have asked for guidance on not only the items you have 45 listed as one through four but any other thoughts that the Conlffiission has. You will be coming 46 back with a draft ordinance if we were to initiate. 47 48 Mr. Williams: That is right. 49 Page 12 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. So I have a question 'for Commissioners procedurally_ It seems 2 to me that we need to come to some consensus on whether we are going to initiate or not to make 3 the discussion about what the recommendations would be with respect to what those changes 4 might be. I would rather come to that consensus sooner rather than later in the discussion but I 5 don't think people would necessarily be prepared to do that now. Again, I intend to do that with 6 a straw poll and then assuming that we are inclined to move forward with initiation test each of 7 the various components of what the recommendations might be also with straw polls to give 8 some more concrete guidance to Staff. Does that make sense to folks? 9 10 If at any point people feel like we are there I think we should focus the first part of the discussion lIon to initiate or not to initiate and once we get there then let's get into the substance. 12 13 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify the initiation itself takes a motion but in terms of any guidance on 14 what would actually go into the changes that would just be done with a straw poll because the 15 Commission can't really act on that tonight. 16 17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, just to clarify that. We wouldn't necessarily want a motion that was 18 voted on prior to getting into getting into the discussion about the other items, correct? 19 20 Mr. Larkin: I don't know that it matters what order it is done. I think obviously if you are not 21 going to initiate it is not worth getting into the other items. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is what I was trying to avoid. I want to make sure that everyone is or I 24 don't want to have a whole big long discussion about topics if we are not going to initiate. 25 26 Mr. Larkin: I think rather than do a straw poll and then a vote you can just vote to initiate and 27 then talk more about what you would want to see come back. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, fair enough. Great. Commissioner Holman. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: We have had some other items that have come to us for initiation and 32 sometimes we end up getting into a lot of fine grain detail about what would actually be coming 33 back to us. So what I am hoping we can avoid is getting into the arguments pro or con, different 34 aspects of what might come back to us but rather focus on the kinds of things that we would be 35 interested in seeing in what would come back to us. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would concur with that completely. So with that I have lights from 38 Commissioners Keller, Fineberg, and Lippert in that order. Commissioner Keller. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I believe we have had problems in the past of making a 41 motion, which was voted on, and then having comments follow the close of the motion. We 42 have been told in the past that once we make a motion we may not comment further on it. We 43 were once told that. 44 45 Mr. Larkin: I don't know why that has been a problem. Because of the way that this was 46 agendized it is agendized in a way that would allow you to make comments. What you can't do 47 is direct what goes into the motion until that is in front of you because tonight you are just 48 initiating. I think you can make suggestions as to things that the Staff should be coming back 49 with as items to explore. Page 13 1 2 MOTION 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So with the understanding that we can make a motion, at some point vote 5 on the motion, and continue to make comments I am going to kick it offby making a motion that 6 we initiate. Then after that I would like to come back and make some comments. 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Second. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, motion by Commissioner Keller and seconded by Commissioner 13 Holman that we initiate. Would you like to speak to the motion? 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Firstly I take credit or blame for this particular item. When we 16 talked about the retail report for the Comprehensive Plan discussion a few months ago and that 17 was coincident with the Report to Council based on the study that was done in 2008. At that 18 point I specifically mentioned that we need to consider bumping up the threshold. There was a 19 member of the public that commented that this did not come from the Commission and in fact it 20 came from me and I don't remember if there were any other comments from Commissioners 21 about it but I do specifically remember having nlentioned that. 22 23 My thought or rationale at the time was that if we were to allow because of a there is a 24 difference between a blip, which this is essentially a blip. We hope that this is not a long-term 25 trend. We hope this is a temporary thing because of a deep recession. If it were a long-term 26 trend then you might consider allowing office to creep in but essentially that would be the death 27 of Downtown because you would be getting Swiss cheese. You would essentially have offices 28 creeping in creating holes in the retail of Downtown and thereby losing the vibrancy of the mix 29 of kinds of measures. 30 31 I will basically want to come back after we vote on this make more detailed comments but 32 essentially I think that we need to do this in order to prevent making Downtown into a Swiss 33 cheese of retail with holes of office. Thank you. 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman, would you like to speak to your second? 36 37 Commissioner Holman: Just briefly. I appreciate Staff bringing this forward and appreciate the 38 proactive aspect of it. I think we should initiate for a few reasons but among those primarily 39 would be the preservation of existing and ongoing retail uses. We need to support them with the 40 continuation and the synergy, as you mentioned Curtis, of other retail uses. So that is why I 41 seconded the motion. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, would anybody else like to speak on the motion? Commissioner 44 Fineberg. 45 46 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question for Staff that goes specifically to the need for 47 whether or not to initiate. It relates specifically to the discretion that the Director has when 48 reviewing and approving an exception. Weare now in a condition where we are it?-excess of the 49 five percent vacancy and a property owner may bring forward an application for the exception. Page 14 1 Does the Director have the discretion to simply say no? Can the Director say no sometimes? If 2 they say yes sometimes must the Director say yes in all similar cases? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Well, I think there are some findings and determinations that need to be made. It 5 says an application for uses permitted if the application is made and the vacancy rate is five 6 percent or greater, demonstrate that the ground floor space has been vacant/available for six 7 months, and then it is limited. Are there other findings? 8 9 Ms. Amy French. Current Planning Manager: We had a little discussion the other day at the pre- 10 Commission meeting and Curtis was not available for that portion of it. Basically we discussed 11 how there really are not findings here as you would normally see for a use permit or such. It just 12 basically said if these conditions are met five percent and they can demonstrate then there are no 13 other findings. So it would be rather difficult for the Director to say you haven't met the third 14 finding because there isn't a third finding. 15 16 Mr. Williams: Yes. 17 18 Mr. Larkin: It would be a quasi-judicial decision by the Director. The only way that the 19 Director would be able to deny the request is ifhe felt that it didn't meet the six-month standard 20 or there wasn't the vacancy rate or they weren't actually trying to market the property. So there 21 are areas where the Director would have discretion but it wouldn't be because we don't like this 22 particular office use or anything like that. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am going to chime in on this just for a second because we did discuss this at 25 some length at the pre-Commission meeting and one of the suggestions at that point is part of 26 what we certainly are in a position to do is to suggest that findings be developed. We may have 27 some thoughts on what those might be but one of the possibilities coming out of tonight's 28 meeting would be that findings should be developed, put together, and brought back as part of 29 the ordinance where there are specific findings that need to be made. So that is certainly one of 30 the opportunities that is before us tonight. 31 32 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So if the findings are met that the vacancy rate is greater than 33 five percent or it has been vacant for six months the Director could not decide that it is not 34 consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for retail retention, it is not consistent with 35 Council's mandate to preserve neighborhood serving retail, so those policies and co~es or 36 programs I should say wouldn't be sufficient to support the Director in a no decision. Is that 37 correct? 38 39 Ms. French: The first point is it is an 'and' not an 'or.' The second thing is there are other 40 permits in the Title 18 like a Conditional Use Permit or other permits usually one of the first 41 findings is that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So that would be one of the things 42 we could consider adding into a finding but it is not there now. 43 44 Commissioner Fineberg: So without that the Director has no discretion and the answer is a yes 45 and so we would be adding those controls. Okay, thank you. 46 47 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert on the topic of initiation. 48 Page 15 1 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I would definitely support initiation. One of the reasons why I 2 moved to Palo Alto, actually the area where we live is Downtown North, is because we are in 3 proximity to the Downtown. One of the things that we really love about being near the 4 Downtown is all the wonderful retail and restaurants and other services that there. Weare able 5 to leave our house, not take our car, and walk down University Avenue and treat it like it is a 6 neighborhood shopping center. I wish that there were some other uses that were defined when 7 we moved here to Palo Alto there were bookstores and movie theaters, which seem to have 8 evaporated. I think that it is hard to regulate bookstores but they surely are missed in terms of 9 the quality and character of Palo Alto. When we first moved here I think there were four or five 10 movie theaters in the Downtown all within walking distance. Those would have been desirable 11 uses to have preserved as well. 12 13 So I think that the crux of any smart growth and livable community is that we have a mix of uses 14 and that includes the preservation of retail and commercial. So I would definitely support 15 initiation of what is being proposed here. 16 17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Just to round out the crowd I am very supportive of this as well. 18 My wife and I from time to time, because we live in South Palo Alto, we go over to California 19 Avenue in the evenings. There are a couple of restaurants at one end but the rest of it has 20 nothing going on and we talk about this from time to tinle. It is generally because they have a lot 21 of office or the types of retail that close down early. So it is not a very vibrant section of town. 22 We certainly don't want that sort of result. 23 24 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Rosati absent) 25 26 So with that I am prepared to call the question and ask for a vote. All those in favor of the 27 motion, which was to initiate these changes say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That passes 28 unanimously five to zero. 29 30 What I think would make the most sense here is to go down the line. If each Commissioner is 31 prepared to when you get to your comments and questions address the four items that are on 32 page 3, and if you don't have any comments or a position on any of those that is fine as well. 33 Then add to that any additional items that you want to see considered. I will try to keep track of 34 these and then we will do some quick polling in the end to make sure we give some clear 35 guidance to Staf£ 36 37 Mr. Larkin: Sorry to interrupt. You had asked me at one point to do the time checks and I was 38 just going to point out it is nine o'clock. I think you are well on track but there is one other itenl 39 tonight. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right, thank you for that. That's great. We do have one other item and we 42 would need to sort of make a decision as to whether we would start that item after ten o'clock if 43 we don't think we can get through item three by ten. So Commissioner's thoughts, can we get 44 through all four of these items tonight and be done by eleven? Okay, very good point. So with 45 that let's go down the list here. I have in this order Commissioners Keller, Fineberg, Lippert, 46 and Holman, and then me if there is anything left. 47 48 Commissioner Keller: I guess I am next. So the first thing is that essentially we have an 49 anomaly. I guess there are a couple of anomalous situations. First of all we have a very deep Page 16 1 recession. It is interesting that the term depression came along because people were fearful of 2 calling the Great Depression a recession so they created a new term called a depression, which 3 turned out to be far worse. A little history for you. 4 5 So hopefully it is a big recession and not a depression this time. We also have the situation that 6 essentially what has happened over the last ten or 20 years is that retail rental rates have gone up 7 dramatically squeezing out things like bookstores, and essentially making it hard for nl0vie 8 theaters and other uses that provide a mix of uses Downtown. These rental rates have gone too 9 high and it may be tliat the desires of landlords/property owners for how much rent they should 10 charge are excessive and they need to recalibrate that to base market. 11 12 The reason I start offwith those comments is essentially if you charge a huge amount of money 13 you can keep a property open for six months. If somebody owned more than five percent of the 14 Downtown retail, which probably exists, there are probably a nurrlber of property owners that 15 own more than five percent of the retail Downtown. They could deliberately raise the prices on 16 their properties, keep their properties vacant, and trigger this situation. Thereby allow 17 themselves to get office space down there. Now I am not suggestion anybody would be as 18 nefarious as to do that but it essentially indicates that there is problem with our current 19 ordinance. Creating findings would go a long way towards reducing that but it seems to me that 20 one of the findings if we were to have findings should be that based on the vacancy and the rent 21 being asked in some sense is consistent with rents being chosen. 22 23 Now am I allowed to talk about specific properties as exemplary? 24 25 Mr. Williams: I think so as long as there is not any kind of permit in front of you for that 26 property. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. so the first thing I am not going to mention a particular 29 property but there was a recent opening of a restaurant Downtown that replaced a restaurant that 30 closed. I am not going to mention which particular restaurant it is. I happen to go in there to eat 31 and asked the owner, so you are new here. This particular restaurant moved from an off 32 University Avenue location to a University Avenue location and I asked how is the rent 33 compared to the old place? The restaurateur basically mentioned that the rent is killing them and 34 he or she hopes that they will be able to increase business sufficient to cover that rent. So it is 35 pretty clear that rents are not being accommodated significantly in order to be able to accomplish 36 fuller occupancy of these units. 37 38 Similarly, Bob & Bob off of Downtown on High and Forest was forced from Downtown because 39 of the rents being too high. They relocated over to Los Altos on El Camino to essentially the 40 middle of nowhere if you will. That business failed in part because of that relocation. Instead of 41 lowering the rent, which could have been done to that owner and retail establishment, and 42 keeping that retail establishment the rent is too high. In fact, since Bob & Bob moved out which 43 I believe was over a year ago that location is still vacant. So instead of the owner receiving some 44 rent for that place, which would have been lower in order to be able to keep that establishment, 45 we have a rent that is for this location that is effectively zero because nobody's paying it. So I 46 think that is a consideration. 47 48 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, if I may. We just collectively agreed we were going to 49 try to get through this item and the next item by eleven 0' clock. That gives us approximately ten Page 17 I minutes each to get through all the comments that are directly related to items that would or 2 wouldn't go in a potential modification of the ordinance. So if you stick to focusing on those 3 that would be great. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. I think that that is important prefatory material for us to 6 really understand what the impact of vacancies are and how they can be caused and not caused. 7 8 I think that it would be useful to increase the vac~cy rate formula perhaps 20 percent with the 9 understanding that we would revisit this in the future. In any event we should create findings, 10 that is item one. 11 12 Item two I don't really understand the issue here because in some sense if you allow office use 13 regardless of the previous use I am not sure I understand that. So I just request that that 14 reasoning be clarified because it doesn't quite make sense to me. Do you want to respond to 15 that? 16 1 7 Ms. Cutler: The issue there is the distinction between the area that is in the core of Downtown 18 that on the map is in orange, those are the areas that are covered by the Ground Floor Combining 19 District, and that is where we have the five percent vacancy rate as part of the code., The 20 distinction that we were making in item number two is about all of the properties that are in 21 yellow which are in CD-C but do not have the ground floor overlay. Since those areas are 22 farther from the core there has been discussion that maybe a concentration of the retail uses 23 along the center of this core is more important, and that maybe the fringes are not as appropriate 24 for retail all the time. That we would strengthen the ground floor retail restrictions for that core, 25 the orange area in the Ground Floor Combining District, but maybe loosen them some for the 26 yellow area which is just the CD-C with no combining district. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: What restrictions do we currently have for the yellow area? 29 30 Ms. Cutler: They are very similar. The precise code is attached to your Staff Report. They do 31 not contain this five percent vacancy rate. 32 33 Ms. French: I was just going to add specifically on number two what we are trying to get at 34 there, the flexibility is right now if somebody were to go in there and it had been office and a 35 retailer wanted to come in and occupy that space our code dis-incents allowing that retail to 36 come in because we are going to forever hold them to keeping a retail use there. Getting some 37 flexibility would mean they could have a retail use come in there and then they could at some 38 point maybe go back to office. So that is the kind of flexibility as an example. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So this is something that is referred to as a ratchet in that 41 sometimes you can go one way but you can't go the other way. So essentially what you are 42 allowing is to go both ways. 43 44 Mr. Williams: Right. So the real difference is the Ground Floor Retail District requires retail on 45 the first floor, period. I mean a retail, restaurant, personal service type business. The CD-C 46 District in general doesn't require those uses. It allows office and some other uses on the first 47 floor as well except if you already have retail then you can't do anything else with it, like Amy 48 said. Then if something right now is an office use, it is vacated, there is a change for retail to 49 come in, I know there have been instances I have heard of where they ask if there is any Page 18 1 flexibility and they end up not leasing it for retail because they don't want to get boxed in to 2 where they can't convert it back to office in three years or so if the retail doesn't work out. So 3 that really sort of frees the retail ifit is there but ifit is not there already then it isn't bound the 4 way the Ground Floor Retail (GF) District is. 5 6 So this would look at that area and there are a wide range of options that we could look at as far 7 as either just taking away that requirement so you had the flexibility to do either one, or we 8 might define it in a specific way so maybe if it is at comers it would still be restricted to retail. 9 Maybe we take the GF District and we extend it up to certain areas where we think that there are 10 really viable retail pockets but other areas aren't restricted. So those are the kind of things we 11 would be looking at and coming back to you with recommendations on. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Another thing you can consider is in terms of the findings is whether 14 there has historically been retail there, could be one of the findings to consider. That might be 15 another way of handling it. So in terms of that now I understand what number two is. 16 17 With respect to number three I just want to make sure that we don't have islands of retail 18 separated by office because that can be problematic. Even if you have a restaurant for example 19 there is the Tamarind Restaurant on University Avenue at the intersection of Tasso. If you 20 essentially make an island of that that may harm that restaurant if you don't have retail 21 continuing up through there. 22 23 With respect to number to four I do think it makes sense to think about limitation of restaurant 24 use. I think we have talked about that in the past. I realize that restaurants in some sense 25 collectively make an anchor to the Downtown hut there is another term for anchor, which is 26 something that makes something sink. If we have too many restaurants Downtown could sink in 27 the process of that and essentially become largely what Downtown Mountain View is which is a 28 place to eat and then leave, or go eat and then go to the Theater Works and essentially nobody 29 does anything else there as far as I can tell. 30 31 A couple of other quick comments. I am sympathetic with your issue that the use exception 32 being a limited duration in some sense is problematic. The issue is that leases might be aligned 33 with that use exception and you can make sure that the leases do not get renewed. People 34 typically amortize their tenant improvements along the lease duration. 35 36 Also with respect to office on the ground floor I observe that if you look at 18.30(C).020(a)(7), 37 which is Attachment C, it says entrance, lobby, or reception areas serving non-ground floor uses. 38 There appears to be no limitation to that. I would suggest that you consider a conditional use 39 permit to the extent that an entry, lobby, or reception area exceeds a certain square footage. For 40 example, the property on University Circle, if you understand what I mean by that, there is a new 41 building that went in there which is a facebook building and the entire ground floor is an entry, 42 lobby, or reception area for what used to be Bungee Travel that was a retail use. So by using this 43 exception that retail use was essentially converted into an office use. So I think that is a loophole 44 that should be covered by a ClTP since it is more than simply a certain square footage. 45 46 Finally, I would like to reiterate my comment earlier about the retail rental rate being somewhat 47 related to nlarket rate under some discretionary thing should be considered one of the fmdings so 48 that landlords can't charge excessive rental rates in order to obtain the six month vacancy that 49 they should charge market rates. If this brings down rental rates to the extent that we can Page 19 1 actually have new businesses thriving Downtown then we may get more of the mix of businesses 2 that we had ten or 15 years ago as opposed to the ones we have now, which are essentially . 3 restaurants and high-end retailers, so more people in Palo Alto would find it desirable to shop 4 there. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with a moments worth of prefatory comments. 9 The situation that we are seeing with redevelopment on University Avenue in my mind is more 10 complicated than simply a temporary economic downturn. Up until last September we had what 11 I call a lot of funny money in the economy. Money that was being used to develop properties 12 that were not viable, money that people were putting forward because there was no risk with the 13 development. The financial collapse that happened and subsequent reregulation that is coming 14 into play at the federal level is dramatically changing that landscape and that funny money at 15 least until we have our next colossal mess is gone. When we have properties on University 16 where landlords don't have tenants and landlords don't have lenders it is not the recession that is 17 causing it. It is simply not a viable redevelopment. That development is not going to happen in 18 six months. It is not going to happen in a year. They are going to have to have tenants. They 19 are going to have to have financing and the econonlies in the project are going to be completely 20 different. That is not Palo Alto process causing it. That is not residents causing it. It is not the 21 Staff. It is just how the world is now and it is going to change slightly in six months or two 22 years. 23 24 In order for developers, in order for property owners to plan they need a consistent set of 25 predictable conditions. Right now they know they can come to our Planning Director and with a 26 'vacancy rate in excess of five percent they can convert to offices. If offices pay rent in excess of 27 retail that is what they are going to plan on doing. They will run the numbers and if they can 28 make more money holding it vacant for six months, they will do that, take the short-term hit, and 29 then for however many more years they will have the increased revenue. So it is a simple 30 economic calculation that a landowner will do in his or her best interest. 31 32 So we have the option of changing the regulations that change the behaviors that change the 33 conditions that those landowners will use in making their decisions. On the first item I would be 34 curious to have more discussion on whether 15 to 20 percent is the correct amount to trigger an 35 exception process or whether no condition triggering that exception process would be a better 36 state. Should itsimply be an absolute it is GF that's that it will remain retail? I don't know what 37 the impacts of either path would be. Do we have two landowners that own 30 percent of 38 Downtown that could easily trigger it? Do we have such a disparate ownership that no one could 39 trigger a 15 or 20 percent vacancy rate? So we need to know what the concentration of 40 ownership is. 41 42 I would also wonder if we have no condition under which there can be a conversion to office, do 43 we then not need to have findings. I don't want to make it a simpler process just so it is a 44 simpler process but if we have it as an absolute condition that there be no exception we don't 45 have to go through the fine grain analysis of what are findings. If we want that flexibility to 46 allow exceptions when appropriate then those findings become critical and I would want input 47 from both the business community, Staff, and Commission in future discussions for what is 48 going to work. 49 Page 20 1 On the second point, thank you Staff for your comments because to be frank what was written in 2 the Staff Report I did not understand the intent of what the second item is and with the additional 3 comments from Staff it seems like a very reasonable incentive not just a giveaway. One question 4 with that is would there be wisdom in adding some kind of a starting date for when it would 5 become a two-way flow? So if it was retail prior to X date there is no converting to office so you 6 don't lose from you have now and that would not penalize people that made the right decisions 7 in the past. I think that is how that one would work. Then you won't lose the retail that you do 8 have in your CD-C. 9 10 On the third one I would want to get some information about, I am kind of trying to ask you to 11 predict the future, but is there any estimate of how many of those buildings in the CD-C would 12 convert from retail to office or raise rents on retail to drive retail out? I don't have any sense of 13 what those impacts might be. I would agree with previous comments that we don't want to tum 14 it into Swiss cheese. 15 16 On the fourth item I would be in favor of a mechanism to limit the number of restaurants. When 17 I go to Castro Street in Mountain View it is absolutely clear that it is a restaurant destination. 18 Our University corridor is trending in that same direction. I would also want to see some 19 discussion on if there are other categories of businesses. Do we want nlore nail salons and hair 20 shops? I don't what other and maybe off University on the side streets are there other categories 21 of businesses we are also seeing too many of? Would there be a way to make that something 22 that could change as distortions develop? And is there mechanism to build in that if there is a 23 distortion we could react quickly? That I think would be a good tool. That's it. 24 25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: Well, the restrictions that were put on back in 2001 were based on the 28 dot.com bubble or pre-dot.com bubble. At that time there were really significant high tech 29 ventures that were poaching retail space and converting it into office space. That is why that was 30 implemented. I would gladly welcome those times back at this point. 31 32 The truth is that when it comes to point number one what is important is that we have a blend of 33 uses and mixes. That 15 percent, 20 percent, or five percent really doesn't mean very much. 34 What is important is in order to have a viable Downtown you need to have commercial office, 35 you need to have professional services, you need to have financial services, and you need to have 36 retail, and they all need to be able to work together. Having ground floor retail really makes our 37 Downtown vibrant and alive, and it makes it a livable, walkable, usable community. To take 38 retail space and convert it into more office space at a time when we have a vacancy in office 39 space just doesn't make any sense. We have a glut of office space, empty commercial office 40 space. I just don't see us having when the vacancy rate number trips being able to open up and 41 make more retail space available for office space how that really benefits us. What we really 42 need is a viable blend of retail, office space that is going to work and make the Downtown area 43 vibrant. 44 45 So in some ways I was listening to what Curtis said and I almost support the idea of just 46 forgetting about what that vacancy rate is completely and shoving it out the door, and saying 47 look ground floor in that area is retail, we need it. 48 Page 21 1 With regard to the second, allow offices on the ground floor of buildings. When you think about 2 the Downtown it isn't just University Avenue, it is the fingers of streets that come off of 3 University Avenue. In the tin Ie that I have been in Palo Alto we have seen how Emerson, the 4 Emerson corridor, has become another almost like intersection of Broad Street and Market where 5 we now have an annex down in the SOFA area, which is a viable retail district. So what I would 6 want to see I guess is University Avenue and at least the first block on each side of University 7 Avenue to be viable ground floor retail. What it does is begin to then expand the Downtown into 8 other areas and begins to create a more viable Downtown. So I would entertain definitely 9 looking at being able to expand and contract that boundary and looking at what that means. 10 11 With regard to differentiating between retail uses and restaurant uses I don't think so. I don't 12 have a fear of Downtown Palo Alto becoming like Castro Street. In fact, Castro Street has 13 benefited from Palo Alto. Book Buyers used to be in Downtown Palo Alto. Book Buyers is now 14 on Castro Street. They have been there the last ten years. That is one of my favorite bookstores. 15 I go to Castro Street to go browsing through used bookstores and CDs and whatever. I don't see 16 a differentiation between retail uses and restaurants. I think it is whatever the market brings that 17 makes us into a viable wonderful Downtown for being able to spend time. 18 19 Lastly, the only other thing that I really want to make a comment on, and now that it is on the 20 table looking at this are banks. Banks are great activity killers. What I mean by that is banks are 21 only open from nine to four. They generally in these days and times turn their backs on the 22 street. They want to be secure themselves so they are not watching the street. They are closing 23 themselves off from the street. My bank, which is Union Bank, has frosted their windows on one 24 whole side. It used be that you could stand in the bank and look out across the street and you 25 can't do that any more. Wells Fargo bank now has three branches on University Avenue. They 26 have their private services, they have taken over the bank on Cowper, and they also have the 27 other bank on Hamilton. How much market share does a bank need in order to remain viable? 28 All that it does is kill those blocks from after four o'clock and in the early morning hours. So if 29 anything I wouldn't limit restaurants I would limit banks maybe, financial institutions. So that is 30 my two cents. I look forward to looking at the initiation and having more substantive things to 31 bring back. 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Great thanks. Commissioner Holman. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. One quick nod to Commissioner Lippert. Bijou, Festival, 36 Biographic, Aquarius, Varsity, and Stanford those were the theaters here in the early 1980s. 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: Not to mention the one that used to be at EI Maghrib, Moroccan 39 restaurant. 40 41 Commissioner Holman: That's right. That may have been the Biographic I am not sure. At any 42 rate as to item number one I have been known to say in the past zone for what you want so I 43 appreciate Curtis's comment about not having a percentage but just make it a ground floor 44 requirement. Other Commissioners have commented to that effect too and I would support that. 45 I think to answer Commissioner Fineberg if I might I think would of course eliminate the need 46 for findings. 47 48 Allowing ground floor in the CD-C district outside the GF regardless of previous use I think that 49 is a possibility in combination with number three. Number three from my perspective there are Page 22 1 some areas where again akin to some of Commissioner Lippert's comments, I think there are 2 some areas were we ought to expand the GF and I think there are probably a couple of areas 3 where we ought to remove it. Alma has been mentioned as a location to remove it and I think 4 that is probably very likely. 5 6 Differentiating between retail use and restaurant use, as Curtis knows I have been concerned for 7 a long time about how much restaurant use we have Downtown and how it displaces other uses 8 long, long, long term. Because of the capital investment once a restaurant goes in it doesn't 9 convert back to other retail for nlany, many years. They also have large parking impacts, not the 10 highest retail sales return. There are a lot of good things about them but they also in too large a 11 proliferation they have some pretty significant negative impacts as well. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert did however mention something else I had in my notes, which was 14 putting limits on financial institutions. 15 16 I was interested in the business outreach because as I read the comments I didn't see any 17 comments that looked like they came from retailers. They looked like they came from property 18 owners, and maybe larger property owners. So I would be curious to know what the PAd had to 19 say and what individual business owners, if there was outreach to them, I would be interested in 20 knowing what they have to say going forward. Some of the things that I think we could do to 21 help sonle of these owners and businesses is we have needed I think for a long time to do 22 something to improve the process. I hear so many complaints of people who don't want to go 23 public because they don't want to literally, valid or not valid, basis or no basis, they don't want 24 to go public with their complaints of getting permits to open a new business because they are 25 worried that if they want to expand or do any other revisions to their businesses or expand that 26 this would be held against them. Businesses just go through arduous process, at least as it is 27 described to me, to get permits. That may seem a little disparate from this but it really isn't from 28 my way of seeing this because I think if we are going to add some restrictions I think we ought to 29 also look at what we can do to make life easier to after all attract more retail business which is 30 what this is all about anyway, attracting and retaining. So that is one. 31 32 Just a couple of other comments about this, again in these conversations with these businesses 33 what else can be done to support the businesses. I know recently there has been an allowance, 34 rather than businesses just doing it I think there has been a trial allowance maybe it is to allow 35 sandwich boards. That is my understanding anyway. So perhaps there are other things like that 36 that are no cost but that really help promote the businesses. If they have to present something 37 then it can be done in a well-designed fashion rather than things just popping up. 38 39 The other thing is permitting for events. I have also heard just kind of torturous processes that 40 people have to go through for that. The other thing I would be interested in looking at is those of 41 us up here and sitting at the table down there are well familiar with the advantages to 42 communities of local independent businesses. So perhaps there is something we can do to 43 promote or incentivize the local independent businesses. They tend to stay longer, put more 44 back into the community, more likely to stay because of their investment in the comnlunity, and 45 they are more likely to stay in ups and downs in an economy. 46 47 While we are doing this if it is not going to delay things there have been issues that have come 48 up in the past having to do with hours of operation. One particular case on Ramona between 49 University and Hamilton for instance that I can recall they satisfy the literal definition of retail Page 23 1 but their hours of operation were very, very limited and then by appointment. So it really caused 2 a break in that retail synergy that we have long talked about. 3 4 The other thing again, if this isn't going too far and doesn't cause delays, is window coverings 5 and type of glass because that is another issue that has come up over time. Transparency of the 6 window materials is important if it is going to be retail and again keep people going from shop to 7 shop to shop. 8 9 It is important to have office. You do need a nlix but we have two, three, four story buildings 10 and offices can be located other than on the ground floor. 11 12 A question about PCs. Is it possible to initiate changes to PCs that might not have ground floor 13 retail? Again, not saying that it would have to change immediately but such that if the use ever 14 changed that it would have to convert to retail. We do have some PCs in this area. 15 16 Mr. Larkin: I think that would probably be possible. You can rezone it so that if it redeveloped 17 it would have to redevelop as ground floor retail. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: Redevelop is one thing. I am not talking about redevelopment I am 20 talking about a change of use. 21 22 Mr. Larkin: Or otherwise you could amortize the zoning and require them to -well, without a 23 specific example it is difficult. But you could amortize it and make sure they get full use out it 24 and after a period of years they would be required to change the use. I don't think you can do it, 25 pass the zoning ordinance to say tomorrow now you are ground floor retail. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: That was not what I was after. 28 29 Mr. Larkin: Or tomorrow if they change tenants. You would have to amortize that use. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Okay, Staff if you could come back with some information about that 32 maybe perhaps which locations that might apply to. 33 34 The other thing again, I alnlost hate to mention this but I will-I won't. I think I will stop there. 35 It is just one other thing which is signage. I think there is something that in hard economic times 36 we tend to look at how we can cut back on expenditures and attract new dollars or generate new 37 dollars and sometimes I think we get in kind of a gather the wagons around and kind of restrict 38 our thinking. I think there are some opportunities that might exist where the City could spend 39 perhaps a little bit of money to help make the retail environment more attractive. Clean 40 sidewalks are one thing I would absolutely mention. Doing something about some of those 41 things are an expenditure of funds that I think would be helpful to attract a long-term financial 42 benefit to everybody involved. So I will stop there. Thank you. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So before I go through the four items one of the things that is going to 45 be extremely important when this comes back is a fair level of detail on the outreach to the 46 business community. I would offer by way of suggestion things like -well first of all, not just 47 going to the usual suspects but rather making sure that we are talking to some of the smaller 48 building owners, we are talking to the Chamber of Commerce, we are talking to the Downtown 49 Business Association, a real spectrum, and offering a variety of opportunities or avenues for Page 24 1 input from those folks. Not just hey let us know, but holding some open forums for discussion 2 and things like that. So what is going to be real important is sort of the level of outreach and the 3 feedback from that. Everybody who is involved in this and who would be impacted by this 4 because I think that collective wisdom is I think very, very important to making sure we are 5 making the right decisions here. I think we all have the same goals in mind but these are people 6 that this is what they do every day. So I think we need to make sure we get that feedback. 7 8 That being said, on items one through four I anl supportive of looking at all of those. I think it is 9 all-important. Those are all important discussions to have. On item one I am not necessary open 10 or closed to it being zero as opposed to having some threshold. I think that is one of the key 11 issues for me in terms of input from the community. I want to make sure we don't have some 12 unintended consequence of doing that. 13 14 With respe,ct to the other three, I think having flexibility in the CD-C(P) District makes a lot of 15 sense. I think we definitely should reexanune the boundaries. I am supportive of differentiating 16 between retail use and restaurant use. 17 18 I did have a question. On the map there are a series of, I think there are five or six buildings on 19 University Avenue that are white. In other words they don't appear to be part of this district. Is 20 there some reason? Should those be reexanlined? Maybe the existing uses are not necessarily 21 but should that be looked at is the question for Staff 22 23 Ms. Cutler: Those locations that are not colored in by the orange or the yellow but are kind of 24 within that area, most of those are Planned Community, PC, Districts so they were developed 25 with individual zoning regulations, and therefore are not covered by these zoning designations. 26 Or they are Public Facilities. So they are plazas and Downtown parking lots, etc. 27 28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So if it is a parking lot and if at some point that parking lot was 29 converted to a building in that process would we look at whether it should be included? Is that 30 how that would work as a matter of course? 31 32 Mr. Williams: Well, they are generally right now public parking lots. So they are PF zoning. 33 So to be developed as private developments they would require a zoning change and in that 34 zoning change if it were to a PC you could consider the specific use otherwise it would be 35 probably to a CD-C or GF zoning that would require, especially ifit is on University Avenue, it 36 would be GF. 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One of the other things that I think is worth looking at or exploring in 39 this process is if we do go down a route of continuing to have a trigger, I don't know whether we 40 actually would put it in the code or not, but somehow an opportunity to reexamine this in three to 41 five years or some sort of timeframe like that. Where if the economy significantly changes, not 42 if someone just thinks about it, but we actually have a trigger that says we will look at this again 43 in some period of time to make sure that it is doing what we want it to do. So again not to be left 44 to the memories of those involved but rather actually make it part of the ordinance that in sonle 45 relevant amount of time we would look at this again. I think that is worth discussing as to 46 whether that would be in there or not. 47 48 It looks like we have a few more comments. Let's go through the rest of the comments. I think 49 Commissioner Fineberg was first. Page 25 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: On the fourth point, and I appreciate this extra round of comments 3 because sometimes other Commissioner's comments spur additional thoughts. On the fourth 4 point would it be worthwhile approaching the idea of differentiating restaurant use by looking at 5 it in terms of a regulation of single purpose uses? So that when lenders for instance loan money 6 to businesses for tenant improvements they have a different set of criteria when the tenant 7 improvement is a single purpose use, nleaning a restaurant. That may be a way to approach how 8 to regulate rather than as a class of businesses. Banks might fall under that too if they are a kind 9 of a bank that builds a vault. The cash vault tends to be very single purpose use. You are either 10 going to be cash or jewelry or it is going to be a really cool conference room with thick walls. 11 12 The idea of regulating banks made me think about what is a bank? It used to be we could all 13 define what a bank was and it was a place that people went in with cash, there were teller 14 windows, and now we have things that are called banks that are really offices where you go in 15 and get mortgage paperwork, or offices where you meet with an investment broker and you are 16 trading securities over the internet. They are really office uses that are owned by the institution 17 that is legally registered as a bank. So is there a way to look at the actual use in the space rather 18 than what is the form of ownership? The might trigger a way to reduce the amount of office 19 space that is owned by banks that are not behaving like a bank. So kind of looking at what the 20 purpose of the business is rather than the form of ownership, and then what the build out is. I 21 don't know whether you would control that through the regulations in zoning or at the place 22 where you issue the building permit for the single purpose uses. I will leave that to you to 23 explore. Thanks. 24 25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: Just a couple more comments. We have also lost a number of real 28 important services. The Downtown really doesn't have a viable copy shop. I know that there is 29 one. I use it when I have to but we don't have a Kinko's. I have to drive to Menlo Park. I have 30 to drive to California Avenue for Kinko' s. We used to have three or four copy shops in the 31 Downtown area. We used to have a cobbler in the Downtown area. So we have lost a lot of 32 those, they are not really retail they are personal services. So that would be something that I 33 would be interested in seeing that we try to retain or preserve. 34 35 Then with regard to theaters I used to go to Century 16 but now I go to Redwood City because I 36 can take the train up to Redwood City and then I can walk around, and I can eat dinner, and then 37 I can go to a movie in Redwood City. If I decide to drive because there are a lot of us we get 38 free parking. The preservation of our theaters, they are really puny, but they are inlportant art 39 house theaters. In the preservation of theaters, I hate to say this, but if there is some way to have 40 some sort of a TDR program where rather than seeing them get converted into bookstores or 41 some other retail use they were preserved and even added onto and get bonus floor area, that 42 would be something I think would be a positive thing. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A couple of comments. I am in support of the idea of 47 mandatory ground floor without exception. The way to handle exceptions could be by rezoning 48 it to non-ground floor. We have the ability to do that so that might be the best way of doing that 49 process if you will. Page 26 1 2 With respect to a trigger for CD-C for number two perhaps there might be findings in terms of 3 dealing with that so that you have a little bit more discretion in terms of that and also give some 4 more direction in that issue. 5 6 We might think in terms of density for particular uses like restaurants and such. I think that there 7 is a difference between a bank that behaves like a bank, although sonle people may have some 8 criticism, the Wells Fargo Bank on Hamilton and Waverley behaves like a bank. People walk in 9 there, they walk out, they see tellers and such. The Union Bank on Waverley and University 10 behaves like a bank. The Wells Fargo on University and Bryant does not behave like a bank it is 11 really an office. It should be treated as an office and we should make that distinction. I think the 12 Fidelity on Ramona and University doesn't really behave like a bank either. First of all it is a 13 brokerage house. So that should be more considered office. I don't see people have much of an 14 issue going to the second floor. So I would be in favor of amortizing those uses out to encourage 15 ground floor retail in both of those locations. I am not nearly as concerned with the E*Trade that 16 is on University Avenue between High and Alma because that is not necessarily that viable a 1 7 location for retail. It is sort of on the fringe. 18 19 I am wondering with the future transitions of what is going on with high-speed rail whether or 20 not there is a train station there for high-speed rail, what transitions are happening there. I think 21 that may make major transitions to what happens on Alma Street. So I would be leery of making 22 major changes to the zoning on Alma Street away from retail depending on what happens there. 23 If for example some of the proposal for under-grounding high-speed rail involve, even if we 24 don't have a station, involve more intensity of uses that may make Alma Street more viable. So I 25 want us to consider that more carefully. 26 27 I am in support of Commissioner Lippert's suggestion of theater TDR. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Holman. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: I have just a couple of things. The parking lots, I think they are all 32 public parking lots but the question is could we go ahead and extend for instance the GF overlay 33 on them even though they are probably zoned PF. Could we have a PF FG? The reason is 34 because I guess I have been around long enough that people come up with very clever ways to 35 get around requirements. I think if we had a GF overlay the intention would be very, very clear 36 as to what the purpose is should they ever be rezoned. So if Staff could come back with 37 something about that. 38 39 I am not sure of the best way to preserve the theaters is TDRs but I think other communities do 40 look at ways to preserve their theaters. So I am also interested in that and thank Commissioner 41 Lippert for bringing that up. 42 43 Then in the near distant future we are also going to be looking at basements, which would 44 include the Downtown area in basements. Do you want us to keep those issues separate or 45 combine? Keep them separate? We are talking about ground floor here. So keep the issues 46 separate I would presume. 47 48 Mr. Williams: I would think so, yes. 49 Page 27 1 Commissioner Holman: Okay. That's it. Thank you. 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to take a stab instead of doing everything by straw poll I 4 am going to take a stab at summarizing where I think the Commissioners are on various items. If 5 I get it wrong then tell me I get it wrong. I think we can get the bulk of this out because there 6 seems to be quite a bit of consensus. 7 8 So here is what I heard. On items one through three the unanimous consensus of the 9 Commission was that all three of those items should be investigated and potentially part of an 10 ordinance that comes back. On item four what I heard was with the exception of Commissioner 11 Lippert who is not in favor of differentiating the others were. I also heard that the Commission 12 would like Staff to look at whether there should be other categories of businesses to limit 13 including banks, and that seemed to be unanimous across the Commission. Then the other thing 14 that I heard was that there should be an examination of theater preservation efforts, whether that 15 is TDR or otherwise. I hadn't comnlented on that and I would be in favor of it. The only other 16 Commissioner I think who had not commented on it would be Commissioner Fineberg who is 17 indicating to me she would also be supportive. Did I get that part right so far, Commissioners? 18 Commissioner Holman. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: I anl not sure if the comment was specifically intended to be banks or 21 fmancial institutions, because there is a difference. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Financial institutions, right, good point. I think the consensus was other 24 categories including but not limited to financial institutions. So that being said what I heard 25 beyond that were a host of other ideas, which I saw Staff diligently taking notes on. if there are 26 any other suggestions that Commissioners made that they would like us to straw poll on I am 27 happy to do that or if there is any other issues that Staff would like us to straw poll on I am 28 happy to do that. Otherwise, you could simply take the comments that have been made on board 29 as things to look at. Commissioners, any need to straw poll on specific items? Commissioner 30 Keller. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: I think it might be worthwhile straw polling on the idea of mandatory 33 ground floor versus a threshold trigger. 34 35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Don't want to run afoul of any procedures here but I assume that we 36 do this simply by a show of hands and then I read that into the record. 37 38 Mr. Larkin: I think that is fine as long as you are recognizing that you are not committing 39 yourselves to anything. Staffwill come back with a recommendation and Commissioners are 40 free to change their minds because it is a straw poll and not a vote. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So I guess the Commissioners who would favor essentially a 43 prohibition on anything other than ground floor retail. 44 45 Mr. Larkin: It is really in favor of exploring the concept because there still needs to be outreach. 46 47 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thanks for that clarification. So by a show of hands those that would support 48 basically a prohibition on anything other than ground floor retail. 49 Page 28 1 Mr. Williams: So elinlinating the threshold. 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Better said, eliminating the threshold. Commissioner Lippert. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: Just a clarification on that. That would also include personal services as 6 well, correct? 7 8 Mr. Williams: Personal services are allowed like retail is allowed so that would be allowed still. 9 So this is essentially prohibiting the threshold for office. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: I think the way to think about it is essentially eliminating the exception 14 process independent of vacancy rate. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: This is just that we would be in favor of exploring this process. 19 20 Vice-Chair Tuma: They are going to explore it either way. I think the direction was they are 21 going to explore the various different options but whether there is more of a preference towards 22 essentially eliminating the threshold. So those who would be in favor of that conceptually raise 23 their hands. That is Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Holman -that would be four 24 Commissioners in favor of that and one opposed. 25 26 Is there anything else that we should straw poll on before we close this item? Commissioner 27 Holman. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Just a clarification. Tonight's Chair did a nice job of encapsulating 30 those things that there were numerous comments on. Some of us make other comments about 31 other things that people didn't comment on. Will Staff come back with responses and 32 investigation of those additional comments, like for instance local independent business 33 incentive or promotion? 34 35 Mr. Williams: We will definitely look at all of those. I am not saying we will have any -some 36 of them I think are ones that probably are outside the scope of being able to do something 37 quickly on and we will let you know that. Others we will probably be able to handle. So we will 38 look at all of them and let you know why we did or did not address them. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Appreciate that thank you. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller, one last comment before we go on? 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Two other issues. I am assuming we don't need a straw poll for the 45 issue of whether there should be findings for item two that Staff raised. You will just consider 46 that and that is not the kind of thing we need to go into. 47 Page 29 1 I am wondering whether we need to straw poll or not the issue of the potential for amortization 2 out from uses that are not retail essentially on University Avenue or whether that is something 3 that we shouldn't weigh in on at this point. 4 5 Mr. Larkin: That is outside the scope of what we are doing tonight. So that requires separate 6 notice so you should not be straw polling on that. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 9 10 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay. With that we will close item three and move onto item four. Page 30 Planning & Transportation Commission September 23,2009 Item 1: Questions from Commissioner Keller: ATTACHMENT I 1. Instead of deleting 18.18.060(1)(1), could a CUP be used to temporarily allow non- retail uses, so as not to lose long-standing retail outside the (GF) district? (There is successful retail on Emerson between Hamilton and Forest that wouldn't be protected otherwise. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may be an option, but the ClTP process provides a lack of certainty to the potential lessee, which could be problematic, and CUPs are not tied to a specific time period. They may require review, but do not expire, so they could not be used to temporarily allow office. There are many examples in the periphery of downtown that show that successful retail will remain even when not required to do so. Staff is recommending for those locations where retail is an important part of the City's vision for downtown that the GF zone be extended. lfthe Commission feels that the block of Emerson between Hamilton and Forest should be included then that could be discussed. Planning & Transportation Con1IDission September 23,2009 Item 1: Questions from Commissioner Martinez: 1. The Downtown vacancy rate has been stated to be 10 -15%. That approaches 1 in 7 properties. Are those vacancy rates including all rentals downtown, including offices and non-retail and space above the groundfloor? The formal calculation of vacancy rate for 2009 has not yet been calculated, but staff estimates it to be at approximately 10% for the total ground floor area ( square footage) within the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District, regardless of current or past use. Space above the ground floor is not included. 2. I am trying to understand the magnitude of the problem. How many non-conforming ground floor offices exist in the Downtown area under consideration? How much has that number increased in the last year? The Use Exception allowed when the vacancy rate rises above 5% has not yet been used within the downtown GF Combining District, so there has been no increase in the last year. The calculation is prepared by the City in the fall of each year and though it is estimated to be above 5% at this time, no Use Exception may be requested until the official count has been completed and reported to City Council. Additionally, a Use Exception would only be allowed at that time if there is a space that has been vacant and available for at least 6 months. The problem is that, if the vacancy rate kicks in, staff will receive requests for conversions to office, and it may be very difficult to then require reversion to retail when the economy improves. Staff has received at least two inquiries regarding potential conversions. 3. Is there any distinction among Planning's definition offinancial services'? For example, are Chase and Wells Fargo, Fidelity, and American Express and E*TRADE all lumped into this category? No, there is not a particular distinction in the definition, which states that 'financial services' means a use providing financial services to individuals, firms, or other entities. The term "financial service" includes banks, savings and loan institutions, loan and lending institutions, credit unions and similar services. Within the GF COITlbining District this use would only be allowed with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The Use Permit process allows staff to distinguish between each type of financial service relative to its appropriateness as a pedestrian-oriented use. 4. Planning's meetings with Downtown business and property owners unfortunately weren't well attended. Are there any documents that provide more insight into how businesses and property owners are being affected by the unprecedented vacancies and ground floor offices? The outreach meetings held by staffwere publicized with notice cards sent to all property owners for properties within the CD-C and (GF) districts and to all business owners whose contact information was taken from the most recent membership of the downtown business improvement district. Staff also attended meetings of the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Business Improvement District to discuss these issues. These two meetings had approximately 12 and 6 attendees, respectively, some of whom were not in attendance at the outreach meetings at City Hall. Attendees of these City Hall meetings included some representatives from the Downtown Business Improvement District, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as large and small property owners, and multiple local business owners. The following people signed in to one or more of these City Hall meetings: RoxyRapp John McNellis Sherry Bij an Bruce Barry Cornelia Pendleton Don Douglas Chop Keenan Anne Senti-Willis Ron Nunan Sam Arsan Ed Hoffacken Annie Nunan Jon Goldman Faith Bell Jim Nunan Jim Thoits Leilani Merrill Rick Barry Fred Thoits Joyce Yamagina Phyllis Munsey Jim Baer Jeff Selzer Abraham Khalil Attached you will find a copy of the handout provided at these meetings which included a list of questions asked of these attendees in order to receive feedback and input into the development of the ordinance revisions proposed by staff. 5. There are acceptable GF uses that are quasi-offices, such as travel agents. Is there a rule of thumb that it's retail if it's open to the public, and it's offices if has little or no foot traffic? The definitions (PAMC 18.04.030) of retail services (definition (125)) and offices (definitions (6), (61), (95), and (116)) provide guidance to staff on this issue, and include many examples that show the intent of the use categories. For instance, "Retail service" means a use engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use. The definition then goes on to list the types of items that might be sold and a few specific types of retail stores. When an unusual use is presented that is not specifically included in one or the other definition staff will discuss which use category it most closely resembles and where it might best meet the intent of the zoning district. In these cases the amount of foot traffic would likely be an element considered. In addition there are other uses beyond retail which are allowed, including "personal service" which means a use providing services of a personal convenience nature, and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto. This definition also includes a list of example uses, including beauty salons, copying services, film processing, art and music studios. Downtown Retail Vitality and Protection August 25, 2009 Purpose Statement: To Enhance and Protect Downtown Retail Vitality Through Modified Ground Floor Retail Regulations. Problem Statement: Existing regulations may allow conversion of ground floor retail space in the downtown core with vacancies in excess of 5%, possibly to the detriment of the vitality of retail throughout the downtown. Also, preserving seemingly marginal retail sites on the perimeter of downtown may detract from the retail core and/or result in long tenn vacancies. Potential Changes: 1. Should the vacancy rate required for use exception request to allow ground floor office in Ground Floor (GF) combining district be increased (from its current 5%), or should the use exception process be removed completely? 2. Should the restrictions in the Commercial Downtown Community (CD-C) district outside of the GF zone be revised to allow office space where retail currently exists? 3. Should the GF district boundaries be revised? If so, what areas should be added to the GF district, and which should be removed? 4. Are there certain uses that should be limited in quantity in the downtown core? Restaurants and financial institutions are two that have been discussed. If so, what limits might be set?