Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-01-14 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 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. Monday, January 14, 2019 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1.Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Annual Report Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:25-7:30 PM 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the December 17, 2018 and January 7, 2019 Council Meetings 2 January 14, 2019 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. Consent Calendar 7:30-7:35 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Receive the Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project End-pilot Report and Direction to Adopt the Current Configuration as a Permanent Feature 4.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C15157537 With CIGNA for Long Term Disability (LTD), Life Insurance, and Accidental Death Policies for an Additional Three-year Term for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $5,373,662 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:35-7:35 PM 5.PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of a Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 22, 2019) 7:35-9:00 PM 6.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Site, as Well as Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100 Percent Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four-story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments Into Required Rear and Street Side Yards, and a Waiver From Retail Preservation Requirements. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) 9:00-10:15 PM 7.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3743 Redwood Circle [17PLN-00272]: Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval of a new Two-story, Single Family Home. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential) (Continued From October 29, 2018) MEMO 3 January 14, 2019 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. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) 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. 4 January 14, 2019 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. Additional Information Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council January 14, 2019 January 22, 2019 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9889) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 1/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto TMA Annual Report Title: Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Annual Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council receive the 2018 Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Annual Report. Executive Summary The City Council approved an agreement with the Palo Alto TMA and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) in June 2016 to provide $100,000 in funding for TMA programs to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) commute trips to and from downtown Palo Alto. Under a subsequent amendment, the City provided an additional $100,000 to support the TMA’s work in 2017. The City Council adopted a FY18 budget that included $480,000 for the Palo Alto TMA to continue to support its efforts to reduce SOV commute trips using a variety of strategies. An amended and restated agreement signed in 2017 incorporated this approved funding, extended the agreement’s term, and set forth the parties’ obligations over the remaining years. This 2017 funding agreement delegated authority to the City Manager to amend the agreement to add funding if the Council chose to budget additional funds for future fiscal years and to remove the SVCF as a party once the TMA received IRS section 501(c)(3) nonprofit status and no longer required SCVF to act as the TMA’s fiscal agent. In December 2018, the agreement was amended to incorporate additional funds allocated for FY19 and to reflect the fact that the SVCF no longer serves as the financial agent for the TMA now that the TMA is a non-profit. In the past year, the TMA has used City funds to purchase transit passes for low-income workers, supporting their use of transit, and other programs such as carpooling and ride-share City of Palo Alto Page 2 aimed at increasing downtown commuters’ use of alternative modes of transportation. The TMA has increased participation by downtown workers and estimates that during the final quarter of 2018, over 330 daily commuters shifted away from driving to work downtown. In addition, preliminary survey data point to a reduction in SOV commutes and increases in transit usage to downtown. The City’s funding in FY19 will allow the TMA to grow these programs and others at the same time that the organization seeks to mature and increase its visibility and results. In the fall of 2018, private employers funded the TMA in the amount of $100,000 to expand its programs to the California Avenue Business District. Background Following direction from the City Council in 2013, staff worked to develop transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving as part of a multi-faceted effort to address traffic and parking concerns in the downtown area and the city at-large. The development of a TMA for Palo Alto was seen as a key component of this approach, which the City funded via a $499,880 contract with consultants Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (CMR #4766 August 11, 2014). After the TMA was formed in January 2016, this contract continued to fund sub-consultant Wendy Silvani, who served as the TMA’s part time executive director. In June 2016, Council authorized the City Manager to formalize the provision of additional City funding for TMA programs by executing a funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), and the Palo Alto TMA. Because the TMA was not yet an approved Section 501(c)(3) organization (its application was pending with the Internal Revenue Service), the TMA operated as a program of SVCF. SVCF held and administered a fund restricted to specific charitable purposes and had legal discretion and control over the restricted account. When the TMA received its formal 501(c)(3) status, SVCF ceased to be the organization’s program sponsor and to act as the TMA’s fiscal agent. The City has provided funding for SOV commute trip reduction pilot projects since the TMA was formed. The City provided $100,000 in initial funding in FY16 under the original tri-party funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association. In February 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to amend the funding agreement to provide an additional $100,000 in funding from the City in FY2017 and in FY2018, for a total additional amount of $200,000 over the two years (see City Manager Report 7704 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55797). At its June 27, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved an increase to the downtown garage and lot parking permit fees to add revenue to the University Avenue Parking Fund and support SOV commute trip reduction activities of the TMA with dedicated funding of $480,000 for FY2018. With this funding, the TMA estimated that they could shift up to 750 people to non- SOV modes, thereby achieving a 14% reduction in SOV commute trips (below the baseline of City of Palo Alto Page 3 5,500 identified in the benchmark survey) by the end of calendar year 2018. An amended and restated agreement signed in 2017 incorporated this approved funding, extended the agreement’s term, and set forth the parties’ obligations over the remaining years. This 2017 funding agreement delegated authority to the City Manager to amend the agreement if the Council chose to budget additional funds for FY19. (See City Manager Report 8122 at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=61213.) On June 18, 2018, the Council approved $480,000 in funding from the University Avenue Parking Fund for the TMA for FY2019. Under the authority delegated to the City Manager, the funding agreement between the City, the TMA, and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SCVF) was amended in December 2018 to incorporate the additional funds allocated for FY19 and to reflect the fact that the SVCF no longer serves as the financial agent for the TMA now that the TMA is a non-profit. The TMA hired permanent part-time staff in April 2018. This executive director resigned due to family illness in July, and the TMA was able to hire a new executive director immediately to provide continuity of leadership. Discussion The funding agreement requires the TMA to report annually to the Council, including reporting on an annual commuter survey. Attachment A presents the TMA 2018 Annual Report. Preliminary data from the 2018 Downtown Commute Survey is included in the TMA Annual Report and is one of two ways that the TMA has been measuring its effectiveness. The preliminary survey data point to a reduction in downtown SOV commutes (49% in 2018 vs. 57% in 2015) and increases in transit usage (27% in 2018 vs. 18% in 2015) over baseline 2015 levels. In addition to this statistically valid survey, the TMA tracks the transit passes it distributes and commuter participation in a variety of other programs. The TMA has increased participation by downtown workers and estimates that during the final quarter of 2018, over 330 daily commuters shifted away from driving to work downtown. In the fall of 2018, private employers funded the TMA in the amount of $100,000 to expand its programs to the California Avenue Business District. A representative of the TMA will provide an oral summary/presentation. Policy Implications: The TMA is consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. Policy T-1.1 Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy T-1.2 Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives. Program T1.2.1 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives and impacts. Work with the PAUSD and with other public and private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this program. Program T1.2.4 Evaluate the performance of pilot programs implemented by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and pursue expansion from Downtown to California Avenue and other areas of the city when appropriate. Program T1.2.6 Pursue full participation of Palo Alto employers in the TMA. Policy T-1.13 Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services. Policy T-2.2 As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, seek ongoing funding and engage employers to operate and expand TMAs to address transportation and parking issues as appropriate in the City’s employment districts. Program T2.2.1 Work in partnership with the Palo Alto TMA and Stanford University to aggregate data and realize measurable reductions in single-occupant vehicle commuting to and from Downtown and in the Stanford Research Park. Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools. Program T7.1.1 Expand transportation opportunities for transit-dependent riders by supporting discounts for taxi fares, rideshare services and transit, by coordinating transit systems to be shared by multiple senior housing developments, by maintaining a database of volunteer drivers and other transit options. Resource Impact (as needed): A total of $480,000 has been budgeted for FY19. The revenue source is the University Avenue Parking fund. TMA funding for FY2020 will be considered in the annual budget process subject City of Palo Alto Page 5 to Council approval. Timeline: The funding agreement lasts through FY2020. Environmental Review (If Applicable): The requested action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant impact on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments: Attachment A: Updated PATMA 2018 Annual Report (PDF) Cover Memo January 7, 2018 To: Palo Alto City Council From: Palo Alto TMA, 355 Alma Street Subject: Packet contents for Jan 14 PATMA report to Council Dear Council, Our packet is arranged in three parts: I. PATMA Bilingual flyer highlighting our three programs ●This flyer is used in our door-to-door outreach to downtown businesses. II. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report. Table of Contents: 1. Context ●Where PATMA fits within local/regional traffic efforts 2. PATMA’s Three Programs ●Transit passes, after-hours Lyft, Scoop/Waze carpooling 3. PATMA CY 2018 Results ●Number of commuters shifted away from SOV, Cost efficacy 4. About PATMA ●TMA Founding History, Mission statement, Board members. 2018 highlights/financials 5. Transit Pass Program ●Commuter profile, Commuter testimonials, Potential for a Caltrain discount 6. Scoop, Waze Carpool, Lyft 7. New Directions for 2019 ●California Ave pilot, Bike pilot ideas like e-bike loan-to-own 8. Annual Downtown Commute Survey Effort was made to condense the above sections, moving details into appendices. III. TDM / suburban commuting backgrounder: ●Covers concepts including: Difficulty in reducing SOV, lack of scale for Scoop, bus cost-efficacy, “cat’s cradle” of Silicon Valley commute vectors, ineffective suburban TOD, Stanford campus TDM efficacy, private motorcoach service, state mode shift policy, regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction policy, Bay Area commuter benefits mandate, trip caps, and Bay Area TMAs. ●Excerpted from a white paper entitled, Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, pages 5-18, by Steve Raney, cities21.org/wp.pdf, October 13, 2016. We look forward to presenting on January 14, Rob George, Board Chair and Steve Raney, Executive Director Palo Alto TMA 355 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: (650) 324-3127, www.paloaltotma.org For Downtown Palo AltoEmployees Commute Options For Downtown Palo Alto Employees: Reclaim your commute. www.paloaltotma.org (650) 324-3127 connect@paloaltotma.org Free Transit Passes Apply for a free Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans or Dumbarton Express monthly pass, worth up to $1,800 per year. For information, visit: paloaltotma.org/transit Lyft for Short Trips Get up to $10 discount to ride Lyft to/from East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. Restrictions apply, for information, visit: paloaltotma.org/first-mile Carpool Rewards Earn money driving or get discounted rides with Scoop or Waze. Up to $1,200 benefit per year. For information, visit: paloaltotma.org/carpool For Downtown Palo AltoEmployees Opciones de viaje para los empleados del centro de Palo Alto: Reclame su viaje. www.paloaltotma.org (650) 324-3127 connect@paloaltotma.org Pases de Tránsito Gratuitos Solicite un pase mensual gratuito para el Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans o Dumbarton Express, con un valor de hasta USD$ 1.800 por año. Para mayor información visite: paloaltotma.org/transit Lyft Para Viajes Cortos Obtenga un descuento de hasta USD$ 10 para un viaje en Lyft desde/hasta East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Menlo Park y Mountain View. Se aplican restricciones, para mayor información visite: paloaltotma.org/first-mile Recompensa por Viajes Compartidos Gane dinero conduciendo u obtenga viajes con descuento con Scoop o Waze. Hasta USD$ 1.200 de beneficio por año. Para mayor información visite: paloaltotma.org/carpool Calendar Year 2018 Annual Report Jan 7, 2019 version Executive Summary This report is targeted at: ●Stakeholders who want verification that money is well-spent ●New Board members, staff, and stakeholders interested in the TMA’s workings ●TDM and mobility professionals interested in collaboration and sharing best practices ●Public and private grant funding organizations. Sections 1-8 explain programs, results, history, mission, 2018 highlights/financials, future direction and commute mode share. Appendices A-E provide additional detail. It is difficult to "solve" traffic. Regions and cities take an incremental approach to improve mobility and reduce congestion. PATMA is but one weapon in Palo Alto’s traffic-fighting arsenal. Downtown Palo Alto technology employers have about 30% Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) commute share. This is lowest in the entire US, for employers that provide free parking at work and 1 are not located in a metropolitan center central business district. In contrast, service worker commute mode share was initially measured at about 70%, providing PATMA’s largest immediate opportunity for trip reduction. Within the “TDM Social Equity” subdiscipline, PATMA is undertaking three unique activities that are changing lives. Compared to typical US TDM program efficacy, PATMA is cost-effective and impactful, but TDM is gradual and labor-intensive. We have helped to reduce the number of workers parking on city streets. PATMA trip reduction is lower-cost than accommodating new downtown SOV commuters. PATMA’s growing transit subsidy program is labor intensive and prone to error. Improvements to our software backend help alleviate some of the problems with the dated Clipper Card system. Scoop and Waze Carpool are successful compared to 15 past failures for similar services, but both still have a long way to go to achieve a non-subsidized business model. We are proud that we secured more than $140,000 in new funding in 2018. In 2019, PATMA will focus on 1) expanding current programs, 2) implementing new pilots such as e-bikes and shuttle services and expansion to California Avenue and 3) increasing revenue while decreasing costs. Preliminary results of the annual downtown commute survey are encouraging. The survey has a robust methodology, but such surveys face challenges such as self-selection bias and seasonal variation. 1 Figure E.7 (from the 2018 Commute Survey) shows Tech employer SOV at 28%. Tech employers with advanced TDM programs are expected to have lower SOV than smaller tech employers. Unique conditions bring about 30% SOV: tech workers living in SF with faster-than-SOV train commute, nation’s #3 worst traffic congestion, highest ridership Caltrain middle-of-line baby bullet station, jobs within 5 blocks of a middle-of-line Caltrain station. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 1 of 33 Section 1: Context This section positions PATMA within regional and local traffic reduction approaches. Where PATMA fits within local/regional traffic efforts: It is difficult to "solve" traffic. Regions and cities take an incremental approach to improve mobility and reduce congestion. PATMA is but one weapon in Palo Alto’s traffic-fighting arsenal. Worldwide, there have been a small number of bold approaches to address traffic. For example, in 2003, London enacted a “cordon charge,” a daily fee that is now approaching $15 for crossing a ring (or cordon) around Central London. Most US regions, including the Bay Area, take an incremental 2 approach to traffic. One exception is Los Angeles with their comprehensive “100 Hours Stuck in Traffic Per Year” program. State Bill AB 3059 is LA’s 2019 enabling state bill that, if enacted, allows a 3 subsequent two-thirds local vote of Angelinos to enact a cordon charge, called a “de-congestion fee,” around downtown LA. LA’s bold approach will be difficult to enact because two-thirds of US voters 4 have never voted to significantly raise driving prices. The Bay Area follows the rest of the less-ambitious US. MTC’s former Executive Director Steve Heminger states there is no big, bold fix for Bay Area traffic and the Bay Area takes an incremental approach. 5 Los Angeles has the second worst US traffic; the Bay Area has the third worst. Within the Bay Area, 6 cities pursue an incremental approach focused on best practices. Without incremental policies, regional employment and population growth would overwhelm transportation systems. In US history, no local transportation sales tax (funding transportation projects and operations) has significantly reduced traffic, yet such sales taxes play an instrumental role in the incremental approach to keep traffic from getting worse. City of Palo Alto (COPA) pursues best practices for rail grade separation, traffic signals, street design, transportation demand management, parking infrastructure, Residential Parking Permit Program, shuttles, promotion of biking, development review (Stanford General Use Permit, etc), Safe Routes to School, and sub-regional collaboration including the Managers’ Mobility Partnership. PATMA is one tool in COPA’s extensive traffic arsenal. The Weekly’s Gennady Sheyner asked, “Traffic has been Palo Alto Council’s top priority for years. Is it realistic to ‘solve’ a problem of such complexity?” City Manager Ed Shikada replied, “You can make it better. You can deal with traffic hot spots. You can manage traffic, but you can never completely solve it.” 7 Section 2: PATMA’s Three Programs This section explains PATMA’s three programs. 2 London Congestion Charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge 3 100 Hours LA: https://100hoursla.com/ 4 AB 3059 Bill Text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB3059 5 Joint Venture Silicon Valley: State of The Valley Conference, February 2018: https://youtu.be/iPtNThLctdQ 6 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, page 18, 7 Weekly's 10/26/18 interview of City Manager Shikada on traffic. See also 10/22/18 Palo Alto town hall meeting on traffic. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 2 of 33 Three programs: transit passes, after-hours Lyft, Scoop/Waze carpooling PATMA is a non-profit with about $500,000 per year in revenue and matching expenses. PATMA’s goal is to reduce commute trips by 30%. In downtown Palo Alto, large tech employers have about 30% Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) commute mode share . For US employers offering free 8 parking, this is the nation’s lowest, with Google (at 50% SOV) being the next lowest. 9 In contrast to tech workers, downtown Palo Alto service worker SOV commute mode share was initially measured at about 70%, providing PATMA’s largest immediate opportunity for trip reduction. Though the TMA does not have a social equity mission, pragmatism has led there. A “TDM Social Equity” subdiscipline has recently arisen (see the gray box below for examples). Within the subdiscipline, PATMA is undertaking three activities that appear to be unique: ●Buying and managing monthly transit passes for more than 240 low-income commuters who work in downtown ●Providing “after hours” Lyft subsidy for low-income commuters before 6 AM and after 8 PM ●Undertaking door-to-door, in-person outreach to 300 downtown Palo Alto businesses. PATMA also provides downtown Palo Alto commuters with subsidized Scoop and Waze Carpool rides, without income restriction. The TMA’s pragmatic approach is to design programs that help the most people with the lowest expense in the shortest amount of time. Other US examples of equity-increasing TDM programs: 10 ●In dense urban centers where bike share is prominent, multiple programs offer subsidized membership to low-income travelers. Better Bike Share Partnership is a leading organization. ●The Chicago Individualized Marketing Go Programs, including Go Pilsen, focus on bringing residential TDM to five Chicago neighborhoods that are low-income and highly ethnically diverse. Locally-hired project Ambassadors persuade residents to increase walking, biking, and public transit. ●Los Angeles’ People for Mobility Justice organization is a Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) collective that corrects past discrimination in how public transportation benefits and burdens are allocated, maintained, and developed. Those who have had the least should be given the most. The organization educates different audiences, creating a safe learning environment to build consciousness around mobility justice. ●In Austin, Texas, the public housing authority offers a program called Smart Work, Learn, Play, which connects underserved communities with opportunities to increase their use of public transportation. The program recruits “mobility ambassadors” to meet residents where they are, provide one-on-one training on utilizing various tools to access transportation options and work together to advocate for transportation change with City officials. ●King County Metro’s ORCA LIFT fare card provides low-income public transit subsidy based on household income. The four-person household maximum income is $48K, one-person is $24K. ●UC Berkeley’s Parking & Transportation Department administers the Educational Opportunity Program to provide low-income, first-generation students with better opportunities to take advantage of TDM programs such as scooters and bike share. Being proactive to deliver new mobility services is one step to ensure equitable access to transit is provided and is more than just a "checkbox item." ●San Jose’s Sacred Heart Community Service organization sponsors Bus Riders United for Transportation Revitalization, a committee of bus riders organizing for transportation justice, influencing transit agency policy and priorities for improved transit service and increased affordability. ●Oregon Health and Science University provides subsidized Lyft rides, without income qualification (but benefiting multiple low-income commuters), for people commuting between 7 pm and 5:30 am, up to $15 per trip. “We launched this program just last spring and it has been very popular so far, offering a new option to many of our off-peak commuters.” ●Research by Portland Metro is defining “How to better design TDM programs that serve communities of color.” ●Pleasanton’s Hacienda Business Park provides free Wheels local bus EcoPass to all workers and residents within the service area, without income qualification. “A large portion of the users of our transit pass program are 8 From Figure E.7 (from the 2018 Commute Survey). Tech employers with advanced TDM programs are expected to have lower SOV than smaller tech employers. 9 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Appendix F, Free-Parked Commute Trip Reduction Leaders, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. 10 Thanks to the national transp-tdm listserv for listing other equity-increasing programs. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 3 of 33 service workers and employees with more limited means. The way that the local bus routes are structured, there are strong connections between the more affordable housing in the region (mostly found in Livermore) and the larger employment centers such as Hacienda. We think that this has provided a key piece of affordability for people who work in service industry jobs within Hacienda.” ●Contra Costa Centre Transit Village subsidizes a portion of transit passes for low-income workers but does not fund 100% of those passes. PATMA undertakes door-to-door, in-person outreach to 300 downtown Palo Alto businesses, some with only a handful of workers. This can be characterized as “retail TDM.” TDM scales more easily in the service of large employers, whereas our outreach efforts are relatively labor-intensive. We purchase and manage the distribution of monthly transit passes for more than 240 low-income commuters who work in downtown Palo Alto. These are service workers at restaurants, hotels, Starbucks, CVS, Verizon Store, etc. We increased our annual household income limit from $50,000 to $70,000 to reflect the high regional cost of living (Santa Clara County defines households earning less than $84,000 as low-income). Our average cost of transit passes for Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, and 11 AC Transit (Dumbarton Express) is about $133 per commuter per month. We work first with store managers who disseminate program information to their workers. Once a worker applies for our program, we work directly with them to provide a Clipper transit fare card and then electronically add transit passes to their card every month. We provide an after-hours Lyft subsidy for low-income commuters who commute before 6 AM and after 8 PM, times when transit options are limited. Some restaurant workers leave work after 11 PM. We fund up to 15 trips per month per commuter, with a subsidy of up to $10 per trip. We serve trips to/from nearby cities that connect to downtown jobs. Section 3: PATMA CY 2018 Results This section explains PATMA’s mode shift achieved and cost-efficacy. Additional details are provided in Appendix A. 3A. Mode shift achieved - number of commuters shifted away from Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) This summary table uses data from Tables 5.1, C.1, C.4, and C.5: 11 Joint Venture Silicon Valley report: Poverty in the Bay Area, March 2015. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 4 of 33 Table 3.1. (pink cell provides an estimate. We are still awaiting some December numbers) Nominal mode shift for low-income Transit / Lyft commuters is 11.7%. (Calculation is (227.0+7.3) / 2,000.) Nominal mode shift for Scoop & Waze Carpool carpoolers, assuming office and technology workers are the prime users, is 3.3%. (Calculation is (55.8+43.0) / 3,000.) 12 Aggregate total for 2018 VMT reduced, societal benefit of $0.21 per VMT reduced and GHG reduced 13 are provided in the following table. Calculations are provided in Appendix A, Table A.1. PATMA Result CY 2018 Estimated VMT reduced 1,217,280 Societal benefit $256,846 Tons GHG reduced 500 Table 3.2. 3B. Cost efficacy - compared to other TDM programs For comparison to PATMA programs, a sampling of non-PATMA program cost-efficacy is provided below. Cost-efficacy is measured by an employer’s cost per year of reducing a single SOV commute. This can also be thought of as the cost of freeing a parking space. Caltrain’s Go Pass program charges $285/year for each employee, whether or not they use Caltrain, meaning that cost-efficacy is higher for employers with high Caltrain mode share. In addition to TDM programs, Row #8 provides an estimated annual cost of a new structured parking space to accommodate an SOV commute to downtown. Some of the costs for TDM programs will change during 2019. Row # For comparison: TDM Program efficacy Annual cost of non-SOV commute 1 Gates Foundation TDM: $12 SOV fee yields 32% SOV -$432 2 "Stanford-like" TDM: $3 SOV fee yields 50% SOV $0 3 Self-motivated bike or carpool $0 4 Go Pass for downtown TechCo at 35% Caltrain mode $814 5 Go Pass for Stanford campus @ 17% mode share $1,676 6 Go Pass for an employer with 10% mode share $2,850 7 Private express bus service from SF, 25 riders $3,508 8 New structured parking space (SOV commute) $3,908 9 Employer housing stipend to live close to work $10,000 Table 3.3. Explanations and calculations for each row are provided in Appendix A, Gray Box A.2. 12 Wendy Silvani provided an estimate that there are 2,000 downtown PA service workers and 3,000 office/technology workers. Updated Business Registry numbers may allow us to refine this number. 13 FHWA’s Allen Greenberg provides an estimated $0.211 benefit for each VMT reduced, broken out as A) $0.101 for broad societal benefit from the reduction of: congestion, crashes, criteria air pollutants, noise and GHG, and B) $0.11 individual driver benefit from reduced gas and auto insurance costs. From “Designing pay-per-mile auto insurance regulatory incentives,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment, Volume 14D, 2009, pages 437-445. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 5 of 33 Compared to typical US TDM program efficacy, PATMA is cost-effective. Data for Table 3.4 drew from Tables C.1, C.4 and C.5. PATMA Program Efficacy Annual cost of non-SOV commute Waze Carpool $1,255 Transit Pass Subsidy - pass outlay $1,572 Transit pass subsidy including staff time: $2,072 Lyft Program $2,028 Scoop Program $2,635 Table 3.4. Transit pass program costs, metrics and calculations are covered in Section 5 and Appendix B. Compared to other TDM programs, the transit pass subsidy is uniquely labor-intensive, so both “pass outlay” and “subsidy including staff time” costs are provided. Lyft, Waze Carpool, and Scoop costs, metrics and calculations are covered in Section 6 and Appendix C. Agreements between PATMA and our vendors will vary over time. Currently, our agreement with Waze Carpool is more advantageous than our Scoop agreement. Section 4: About PATMA This section provides PATMA’s history, mission, Board members, 2018 highlights and 2018 financials. 4A. TMA Founding History Former Mayor Nancy Shepherd along with current Mayor Liz Kniss, former Mayor Greg Scharff and former Councilmember Gail Price led an effort to create the TMA as an independent nonprofit. Mayor Shepherd led trips to visit other TMAs in the region and although no longer on the Council, it was her leadership that lay the groundwork for what we know as PATMA today. Says Shepherd, “We were prospecting many options to divert overflow parking and traffic as alternatives to garages--as they would take years to build.” 14 Says Shepherd, “It was very informative to interview staff and experience the Contra Costa TMA which was started in the late 1980s when BART was expanding. Palo Alto can do this too, it's not as easy since CCTMA was planned during the period of office building development, which was designed intentionally without enough parking spaces by 30%. Development funds were collected to initiate the TMA and subsidize BART commuters. Shuttles, taxi vouchers, carpools, and zip cars augment mobility and emergency needs. We rode around on the shuttle, had lunch, then returned via BART to the peninsula.” 14 New Non-Profit to Manage Downtown’s Traffic Problems, PA Weekly, August 2014. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 6 of 33 The Council’s original 2013 vision was to create a city-wide TMA. The original 2013 colleague’s memo states: “Recommendation: Direct staff to develop a comprehensive Transit Demand Management (TDM) plan for the California Ave and University Ave Downtown Districts and the Stanford Research Park with the goal of reducing solo car trips by at least 30% …” A 2014 Staff Report expanded on the Colleague’s Memo: The plan also asked for staff to consider hiring a third-party consultant to develop the TMA, as well as to deliberate on funding mechanisms for the TMA and potential organizational structures. The TMA, as a third-party entity working closely with City staff, would be considered an umbrella organization for many current and future transportation programs. The TMA could manage, market and brand these programs, develop data and metrics on transit use within the community and identify potential services and programs that could serve various Downtown constituents. The TMA would work closely with City staff’s parking management efforts to provide coordinated efforts that could complement one another.” Starting with our first TDM program in May 2016, we were one of the first adopters of a Scoop carpool subsidy program. This program applies to commuters of all income levels. Our transit subsidy program commenced in August 2016. City of Palo Alto funding for the transit program was conditioned on providing the funding to low-income commuters because higher-income commuters are less in need of subsidy. This “fiscal pragmatism” led the TMA towards social equity. 4B. PATMA Mission The Palo Alto TMA reduces SOV trips, traffic congestion and demand for parking by delivering targeted transportation solutions to the Downtown area’s diverse range of employers, employees, visitors and residents. The TMA also serves as an active voice in local and regional transportation issues. While the primary focus of the TMA is the Downtown population whose travel choices have the highest impacts, its programs and services may extend beyond these constituents. By encouraging and enabling more non-drive alone trips, the TMA contributes to the overall quality of life both in Downtown and throughout Palo Alto; it supports the city’s economic vitality and helps achieve the city’s environmental goals. 4C. Board members with their employers: Rob George, Chair, Treasurer Lemonade Michelle Flaherty, Secretary City of Palo Alto Bob McGrew, Vice Chair Palantir, OpenAI Lucy Tice Google Jonah Houston IDEO 4D. 2018 PATMA Highlights: Several highlights occurred in 2018: ●Since July, PATMA more than doubled transit pass program participation to 240 monthly transit pass activations in December. We improved our marketing materials. We went PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 7 of 33 door-to-door for outreach to 300 downtown businesses. We created a commuter-centered monthly workflow to increase customer success and improve measurement. For backend software, we authored Kantu browser automation scripts and Google Apps Scripts to automate portions of the workflow. To assist with transit pass program expansion, Executive Director hours were temporarily increased from 20 to 40 per week. In addition, Altrans temporarily brought in Justine Burt for additional hours of bilingual outreach and assistance in helping commuters succeed in using their passes. ●We took PATMA to an even higher level of TDM professionalism by refining previously-confusing metrics for Waze, Scoop, and Lyft, distinguishing actual mode shift from program participation. ●PATMA transitioned from fiscally-sponsored (by Silicon Valley Community Foundation) into a full 501c3 nonprofit. We secured a business checking account and wrestled our bank into supporting PATMA’s $33,000 end-of-month transit pass purchases. We established financial controls. We addressed two cash crunches, remedying a payables/billing problem to put the TMA on stronger cash flow footing. ●We secured new funding including: a) $100,000 in new private-sector seed funding from Palantir and Facebook for a California Avenue pilot and b) $40,000 in Federal Transit Administration Mobility on Demand Sandbox grant funding. ●To address our TMA program expansion and program cost-efficacy goals, we developed and refined two bike pilot concepts. ●Valiantly, but unsuccessfully, we petitioned Caltrain for cost reduction, based on a strong social equity argument. ●Improving from previous home zip code-level data, we modified the annual commute survey to collect residential city block-level data, providing improved spatial data for analysis of potential new transit or microtransit routes. We transitioned PATMA management from Silvani Consulting to Altrans TMA Inc, lowering hourly cost by 33%. Contracted for only 20 hours per week, Wendy Silvani did an impressive job helping to found the TMA, defining our strategic plan and initiating our three programs in a labor-effective manner. In July, we brought in Altrans’ Steve Raney (a Crescent Park resident) as new Executive Director. Raney brings TDM thought-leadership to PATMA: ●To address commute traffic, Raney authored a grant proposal for the Federal Transit Administration’s Mobility on Demand Sandbox program, entitled Fair Value Commuting. As result, City of Palo Alto was awarded $1.085M as prime contractor for the commute reduction project. ●Raney won Fast Company magazine’s 2017 World Changing Ideas Award for “A Solution to Bay Area’s Traffic Woes.” ●Raney formed and led the “3 Revolutions Book Club” project team to design double capacity freeways. The concept is one of 12 finalists in MTC’s Horizon 2050 Transformative Projects competition. 15 ●Raney led the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “Transforming Office Parks into Transit Villages” Study. 4E. 2018 financials 2018 expenses increased each quarter in line with efforts to increase the transit pass program. Overall 2018 expenses outstripped revenues. We maintained a favorable end-of-year cash position of about $100,000 in the bank account. 15 Double Capacity Single Occupancy Toll (SOT) Freeway of the future, http://bit.ly/2b8ZPRW. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 8 of 33 Table 4.1. (pink cell is the best estimate pending final 2018 bookkeeping) Section 5: Transit Pass Program This section provides information about our transit pass program: ●How we count monthly passes and track turnover ●Profile of participating commuters by employer type ●Commuter testimonials about the life-changing impact of the program ●The pursuit of cost reduction. Additional details are provided in Appendix B. Starting in July, we made a concerted effort to increase program uptake, using door-to-door outreach and a new bilingual flyer. Concerned about our expense level, we reduced outreach in November and December, but momentum and word-of-mouth continued to generate a significant number of new applications for monthly passes. Below is an Aug-Dec monthly tally of passes that were “activated,” meaning physically tagged at a Clipper Card reader at a train station or bus. Each month, a number of new applications for transit passes are processed. Each month we have “turnover,” where transit passes are not activated. Unused transit passes are refunded to the TMA. Some downtown businesses have 200% annual turnover (16% each month) of employees, but our transit pass program turnover is lower. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 9 of 33 Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Passes Activated 117 149 214 227 240 New applications 36 49 74 33 40 Turnover 17 9 20 27 Percent turnover 11.4% 4.2% 8.8% 11.3% Table 5.1 Extrapolating November savings for VMT and GHG for 227 transit pass participants yields: ●1.4M VMT saved per year ●574 tons CO2 reduced per year. Calculations are provided in Appendix B, Table B3. Of the approximately 300 downtown businesses, 66 participate in our transit pass program. Details are provided in Appendix B, Table B4. PATMA’s transit subsidy program is labor intensive and prone to both human and technology errors. Each month, about 15% of our Caltrain commuters “tag on but don’t tag off,” resulting in negative balances that can result in $75 citations. PATMA intervenes on behalf of commuters to remedy negative balances and has also successfully appealed Caltrain citations. 5A. Commuter profile For one restaurant: ●Ten staff bike to work from East Palo Alto or Redwood City. ●70% of staff use Spanish as their primary language. ●Because of the high cost of living, ten staff were priced all the way out of state. ●Tech companies are paying $20/hour for dishwashers, a rate that restaurants have difficulty competing with. For one healthcare employer: ●There was an evening mugging of a staffer right across the street from the facility. ●Five years ago, the majority of staff lived in East Palo Alto, but since have been priced out to San Jose and the East Bay. ●Many staffers hold two jobs. Many have days with long hours. ●Some workers buy reduced price half-year on-street permits, but complain that permits are only available in parking zones with long walks in the cold of winter at night. SOV-commuting employees at coffee shops, cellular stores and drug stores often move their cars every two hours, frequently collecting multiple parking tickets per month. Throughout the day, the walk back from moving cars between colored zones gets longer and longer. While these employees qualify for reduced-price $50 per half-year parking permits, there isn’t much uptake. Barriers include: ●Unwillingness to envision six months at the same job ●Difficulty in completing the permit application process, especially for ESL employees ●Lack of availability of permits in convenient, nearby parking zones. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 10 of 33 One frustrated bartender collected four parking tickets in a month and contemplated quitting. He knows he needs to move his car within 20 minutes but then he gets slammed with customers for about 45 minutes. When the customer rush lets up he goes to move his car only to find a ticket. 5B. Commuter testimonials Our transit pass program is changing the lives of low-income commuters and supporting a vibrant downtown by making it easier to recruit staff: Person & Employer Testimonial Quote K, Palo Alto Bicycles "Our hardest thing is hiring people. Alleviating an employee's cost of traveling to work by $150/month is like getting a $1/hour raise." R, Il Fornaio "Being able to offer potential employees the TMA transit pass gives us a leg up to hire new employees. For some people, it's a deciding point about whether they will work here or not." Manager at Keen “Without this program, I wouldn’t be able to work here. This is instrumental in helping people have a job out here.” Manager at MacArthur Park “I love when my employees take the train because then they’re on time for their shifts. When they drive they’re often late because they’re stuck in traffic.” M, Sheraton "I'm thinking of going back to school with the money I save from the TMA's transit pass." I, Sheraton "I'm going to go back to school since I’m now saving enough money on my commute." M, Sheraton "Taking the VTA bus then Caltrain gets me here faster than driving from San Jose. With the bus and train, I get here in 40 minutes. Driving can take one hour and 45 minutes." L, The Westin "The train is much faster than driving." H, Community Pharmacy "This allows me to save more money for pharmacy school next year. The Caltrain from Sunnyvale is faster and more relaxing. In the morning it's express to downtown Palo Alto. This pass is like Christmas." S, Community Pharmacy I live in Hayward and used to spend $90/month on Dumbarton Bridge tolls. Now I'm much less stressed. It's so relaxing on the bus. I'm very happy and very grateful for this transit pass." another Community Pharmacy employee "I feel bad for people who drive and are stuck in traffic. The train is so much faster." R, The Taproom "The Caltrain from San Jose is much faster than driving and I get to relax on the way to work." K, Il Fornaio "I get off late at night and the Caltrain whizzes you home. Having another $80/month makes a big difference, like the City is looking out for you. It's also convenient that I only have to tag on and off one trip and then not the rest of the month. That way if I'm running late for the train I can just jump on. That extra minute makes a difference between catching the train or missing it." Table 5.2. Commuter/employer testimonials collected by Justine Burt on 11/15/18 and 11/29/18 PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 11 of 33 Figure 5.3. Selected responses from October pass renewal emails and text messages 5C. The potential for a Caltrain discount PATMA met with Caltrain on November 7 to explore the potential for a discount, but the effort was unsuccessful. Starting around June 2019, Caltrain will offer low-income discounts for individual Caltrain trips, but not for monthly passes. Unfortunately, on a monthly basis, discounted individual trips are more expensive than monthly passes, consequently Caltrain’s program will not benefit PATMA finances. Details are provided in Appendix B, Section B3. Section 6: Scoop, Waze Carpool, Lyft This section explains our app-based TDM for Scoop, Waze Carpool, and after-hours Lyft. Additional details are provided in Appendix C. 6A. App-based carpooling: Waze Carpooling and Scoop PATMA offers subsidized rides for downtown commuters using two competing app-based carpooling services, Waze Carpool and Scoop. With Scoop, commuters schedule their next morning commute the night before. With Waze Carpool, commuters schedule their morning commute in real time. Scoop’s service is described in their marketing material: “With the Scoop carpooling app, you can carpool with co-workers to make better use of your time, improve your well-being, and feel refreshed when you arrive at work! How Scoop makes carpooling work for you: ●Schedule with ease: Separate AM and PM trips to fit your work schedule. Ride or drive to meet PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 12 of 33 your daily needs. Carpoolers split the cost of the commute so everyone saves. ●Backed by trusted connections: Scoop brings together co-workers and neighbors who are going the same way. Vehicle history checks on every Driver. ●Smart routes so you never waste time: Scoop’s algorithm identifies the most efficient door-to-door trip based on the fastest route, nearby carpoolers, carpool lanes, and more. When you carpool with co-workers, you’ll meet new people and make the most of your valuable time. And, for a limited time, we’re making carpooling even more enjoyable (thanks to PATMA subsidy), with special pricing when you ride or drive! Check the app to view your pricing.” Scoop’s primary users are “tech-savvy millennials” with some additional 30- and 40-something usage. The top motivations for using Scoop are meeting people and saving time on the commute. Scoop’s sweet spot is 20-mile carpools, but there are also a few 70-mile carpools. Before Waze Carpool and Scoop, app-based carpooling concepts including Avego, Goose Networks, Carticipate, Piggyback, and NuRide struggled, often matching only a handful of commuters. Given the sparsity of potential matches available, Scoop’s achievements are remarkable. Scoop has matched more commuters than the rest of the industry combined and has succeeded in raising $36M in venture capital. However, Scoop's vision for widespread adoption of unsubsidized rider-funded carpools has yet to materialize. Based on similar programs, if PATMA were to end Scoop subsidies, participation would immediately drop by 80%. Barring future enactment of behavior-changing congestion pricing policies, subsidies are necessary for successful carpool program enactment. Rider-funded carpooling offers the promise of reducing cost per SOV commute reduced to $0/year In a larger implementation of Scoop at Stanford Research Park (SRP), traditional carpooling holds about 11% commute mode share, but about 80% of these carpools are “fampools” with members of the same household commuting together. Such fampools often have higher utility than SOV. For SRP, the non-fampool traditional carpools account for roughly 2.5% commute mode share. Within SRP, Scoop’s commute mode share (additional to traditional carpooling) is approximately 1.6%, freeing 327 parking spaces. Scoop and Waze Carpool subsidies are provided to all Scoop/Waze customers with trips originating or ending in the downtown area. 6B. Lyft program description We provide an after-hours Lyft subsidy for low-income commuters who commute before 6 AM and after 8 PM, times when transit options are limited. Some restaurant workers leave work after 11 PM. We fund up to 15 trips per month per commuter, with a subsidy of up to $10 per trip. We serve trips to/from nearby cities that connect to downtown jobs. Section 7: New Directions for 2019 This section explains new directions for 2019 encompassing expansion to California Avenue, strategic planning, new pilot concepts, revenue enhancement and cost reduction. 7A. California Avenue Expansion PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 13 of 33 Based on the TMA’s success downtown, we were able to persuade two companies to contribute $100,000 seed funding for a California Avenue pilot, probing how the TMA can serve the area between Page Mill and downtown. Part of the pilot work scope will consider how to secure permanent funding. Details are provided in Appendix D. 7B. Strategic Planning PATMA will update our strategic plan during Feb-Mar 2019. Items to be considered include: Expand use of our three existing programs with continued vigilance about cost-efficacy. Provide TDM services to medium and large-sized employers, potentially on a fee-for-service arrangement. Can we help mid-sized technology and light office employers, City staff, school district, Town and Country, Sutter PAMF, and other employers with customized commute services? Design and analyze potential new trip reduction programs under the rubric “help the most people with the lowest expense in the shortest amount of time.” Pursue an “e-bike loan-to-own” pilot. Two major tech companies have undertaken e-bike pilots targeting 5- to 10-mile commutes, where e-biking is time-competitive with driving. Proposed is an e-bike pilot for low-income workers commuting similar distances. The initial concept: ●Loan workers e-bikes for 300 one-way commutes, after which the commuter gets to keep the bike. ●Choose an inexpensive, reliable e-bike with good price performance. ●Use GPS/location tracking software to validate that bike commutes have occurred. ●Provide high-touch customer support featuring safe residential bike storage ●PATMA promotes the pilot, recruits commuters and tracks performance in a dashboard, but does not operate/insure the pilot. ●Preferably commence the pilot during nice weather (Spring) ●Leverage the launch of East Palo Alto 101 bike bridge by IKEA and the Peninsula Bikeway. ●Government grant funding may help the project scale. ●E-bike prices will continue to drop, improving cost-efficacy over time. Consider a “Bike Love” pilot a la Seattle Children’s Hospital. The Hospital promotes healthy commuting for staff, to the point of buying bikes for staff. The initial concept: ●Red carpet concierge service for low-income bikers. Generate commuter feedback, “wow, this program really made year-round bike commuting easy for me.” ●Pay-in option for tech employers to provide to each biking employee ●Use a trackable GPS bike lock. ●Aspire for a relatively low annual cost per SOV commute eliminated ●Tuneup once or twice per year. ●Provide free or discounted gear, especially for foul weather and night visibility ●Negotiate “shower-only” gym memberships with local gyms. ○Provide free or discounted showers as part of the program. Additionally, allow bikers outside of the program can also obtain the shower memberships. ●Trick out bikes with fenders, baskets, lights, and anything that makes the commute better ●Help provide secure residential bike storage ●Work with a local bike shop PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 14 of 33 ●If you get a flat, take Uber SUV into work (with the bike in the back). Program fixes your flat before your commute home. A “guaranteed decent commute” program. ●Foster competition between employers over the number of biking days per employee Consider other pilot ideas such as ●Vanshare / Vanpool program based on GIS analysis showing demand ●New, targeted bus and/or microtransit service, including after-hours five-city circulator, based on GIS analysis showing demand ●“Arterial corridor sweep” combining Waze, Chariot, and e-scooters ●E-scooter loan-to-own: pocket-sized first/last mile Leverage Dumbarton Corridor improvements. As a followup to SamTrans’ 2016-17 Dumbarton Corridor Study, MTC, transit agencies and localities on both sides of the bridge are progressing 16 planning. There is some discussion of relatively short-term improvements including transit queue jump lanes, bus on the shoulder, transit signal priority and new transit pickup points/routes in the East Bay. MTC has greenlit traffic signal synchronization on 14 lights between downtown and the Dumbarton Bridge. Funding agreements and MOUs will need to be developed for some of the short-term 17 improvements. Leverage Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan Local Shuttle Service Enhancements. 18 Leverage other transportation improvements. Leverage any employer moves towards eliminating free workplace parking to increase non-SOV demand. 75% of Silicon Valley TDM professionals believe “one employer will eliminate free workplace parking in the next 24 months.” Such a move could lead to a tipping point away from free parking. A 19 first-mover employer could implement a $15 per day “transportation allowance” where no employee is made worse off: ●Provide each employee with $15 per day for commuting ●Charge SOV commuters $15 per day (no net cost to employees) ●Provide $15/day for biking and walking commutes ●Provide $15/day subsidy for Waze Carpool and/or Scoop ●Charge $15/day for access to a private express bus service (no net cost to employees). Such an allowance helps to educate employees that SOV parking isn’t free and better reflects the reality of the daily cost of a structured parking space. Explore enhancements and alternatives to the Annual Downtown Commute Survey. Pursue improved survey accuracy, potentially adding some 100% front-door commute intercept surveys. Increase revenue: ●Pursue county, regional, and philanthropic grants ●Increase revenue from employers Reduce costs: ●Hire a lower-cost general skillset person at 20 hours per week for transit pass program work. ●Reduce Executive Director hours 16 SamTrans’ Dumbarton Corridor Study landing page. 17 University Ave Traffic Signals to be Synchronized, Aug 2018, Weekly. 18 Aug 2017 City of Palo Alto staff report on Palo Alto Transit Vision Plan 19 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Section 4E, The end of free workplace parking is inevitable, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 15 of 33 ●We have negotiated a 2019 33% discount from Scoop and will pursue other discounts. Increase collaboration with City staff on comarketing and grant writing. Update our website and increase social media presence. Section 8: Annual Downtown Commute Survey This section explains our commute survey. Addition details are provided in Appendix E. The Downtown Palo Alto Commuter Survey has been conducted annually since 2015 and employed the same methodology each year, using the same survey vendor, EMC Research. Surveys are conducted with employees at businesses located within Downtown Palo Alto. This survey follows an excellent methodology but tackles a challenging estimation problem. In attempting to reach so many employers, the commute survey may be unique to the TDM space. The detailed report on the 2018 survey will be provided in late January 2019. As of the date of this annual report, EMC has provided a shorter report. The top line result for overall downtown commute mode share (for all types of workers combined) is provided in Figure 8.1. A partial set of detailed breakdowns is provided in Appendix E. According to the 2018 survey, downtown SOV trips have decreased while transit trips have increased. Technology workers continue to report the lowest SOV rates, while light office workers report the highest. Figure 8.1. Overall SOV commute mode is down to 49% in 2018 Because of methodological realities, statements such as “SOV mode share has dropped each year,” may be problematic as the survey’s margin of error is greater than the annual change. Appendix A: Results - Details This appendix provides further details related to Section 3. Table 3.2 is based on the following table. Within Table A.1, the transit VMT calculation is modeled on PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 16 of 33 Table B.3. Table A.1. For Table 3.3, row by row calculations are as follows: Row by row calculation notes for Table 3.3: 1.At the Gates Foundation in Seattle with 32% SOV mode share, a commuter pays $12/day when they commute via SOV and collects $3/day for avoiding SOV commuting. 32% of commuters pay $12, 68% collect $3, for a 20 net gain of $1.80/day/commuter. Multiply the daily net gain by 240 commute days for $432/year/commuter gain that accrues to the employer. 2.Per US commute price elasticity of demand, a hypothetical $3/day SOV commute fee and $3/day non-SOV incentive payment yields 50% SOV, for a net daily cost of $0 per commute. This program is similar to Stanford 21 Campus TDM (where an A Lot parking permit costs about $3.60 per day). 3.Where commuters are self-motivated to individually commute via SOV alternatives, the employer cost is $0. 4.Large downtown Palo Alto tech employers have many 20-something employees living in SF and traveling to the most popular midpoint Baby Bullet station, resulting in an estimated 35% Caltrain commute mode share (Figure E.7 has 41% 2018 transit mode share and we assume 85% of transit users use Caltrain). Starting January 2019 (per http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/tickettypes/GO_Pass.html), the annual cost of an annual Caltrain Go Pass increased from $237.50 to $285 per employee (whether the employee uses Caltrain or not). The annual cost for Caltrain-using-employee is $285 / 35% Caltrain mode share = $814. . 5.Stanford campus Caltrain commute mode share is 17%, for an annual cost per Caltrain-using-employee of $285 / 17% = $1,676. 22 6.For a hypothetical employer with 10% Caltrain commute mode share that provides Go Pass, the annual cost per Caltrain-using-employee is $285 / 10% = $2,850. 7.Using a $100/hour all-in bus cost (including diesel, maintenance and unionized driver). 1/3 of AM buses take a single SF to Mtn View trip with 2 pickups and 2 drop offs in high traffic (90 min). 2/3 of AM buses: SF to Mtn View (90 min), deadhead back (60), SF to Mtn View (90), for a weighted average trip time of 109.9 min and average cost per trip of $183. Average occupancy: 25 out of 50 seats for a $7.33 cost per passenger per trip. Multiply by 240 commute days with 2 trips/day = $3,516/yr. (Cost is lower for higher occupancy.) Google sheet with calcs. 8.The capital cost for a parking space in a new downtown Palo Alto parking structure is about $60,000. A 30-year, 3.8% mortgage has an annual payment of $3,408 (using Google Mortgage Calculator). Add $500/year in operations and maintenance. Attachment C of the Cal Ave Garage staff report (Cost of Issuance) uses a 3.8% True Interest Cost. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67089. See also Appendix A of this document, where 3.8354% was provided as an estimate for all tax-exempt bonds. 9.As part of the competitive marketplace of attracting and retaining talented employees, some technology companies offer a housing subsidy for employees to live close to work. Some provide $10,000 subsidy per year, others provide different amounts. Some require employees to live within 10 miles of work, others require employees to live within a shorter distance. Some commit employees to commute by non-SOV, others do not. To implement the commute programs above, organizational costs for TMAs or employer programs are NOT included. Gray Box A.2. 20 The not-so-secret trick to cutting solo car commutes: Charge for parking by the day 21 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Appendix H, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. 22 Stanford Bike Access Study, Oct 2017. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 17 of 33 Appendix B: Transit Pass Program - Details This appendix provides further details related to Section 4. Between our four transit providers, 82% of revenue goes to SamTrans (Caltrain or SamTrans bus). A mid-November snapshot of our monthly transit pass outlay shows the percent of transit pass expenditure that goes to each transit provider: Nov Transit Passes Number % $ Caltrain 153 65% $24,273 SamTrans 41 17% $2,690 VTA 35 15% $2,800 Transbay DBX 8 3% $1,296 237 $31,059 Table B.1. Our monthly pass prices will see two increases in 2019: Monthly Pass Product 2018 Monthly Cost 2019 Monthly Cost AC Transit Transbay/Dumbarton $162.00 $198.00 Caltrain 2 Zone pass (includes VTA & SamTrans bus) $163.50 Caltrain Zone 3-3 (Menlo Park-Sunnyvale, no bus) $96.00 SamTrans local service $65.60 VTA standard service $80.00 $90.00 Table B.2. Going back to 2017, PATMA has assumed that ●Caltrain and AC Transit commuters use those modes for 100% of commutes ●VTA and SamTrans commuters use those modes 75% of the time. Our transit subsidy application form at www.paloaltotma.org/transit sets eligibility requirements to ensure mode shift from SOV. We use the following language to inform applicants: REMEMBER! To be eligible: -You must work in Downtown Palo Alto. -Your salary must be less than $70,000 per year. -You must currently drive to work alone. -You must commit to commuting by transit 3 days per week. Caltrain ridership cannot be confirmed because monthly pass users only tag their Clipper card on their first ride of the month, hence the commuter data that PATMA can access on clippercard.com only shows that single trip. ●To address this shortcoming, PATMA has brainstormed about putting new applicants through a one-month trial to validate high transit usage as follows: In the first month, rather than PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 18 of 33 providing a monthly pass, provide cash value on the Clipper card, requiring these commuters to tag for each ride. A pattern of first-month ridership can be proven that would then provide high confidence of high ridership for monthly pass use from month two onward. It is technically challenging, though possible, to confirm ridership for each bus trip because each clipper card tag at the start of each trip can be seen for each of our commuters. Clippercard.com is a legacy website and does not provide APIs. It is technically possible to use “browser automation with PDF scraping” to collect and analyze this ridership data. To date, no Clipper card-using organization has accomplished this feat. Extrapolated annual transit program Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and GHG savings calculations for 227 November participants moving forwards in time are as follows: Operator Percent People Calculation VMT Lbs CO2 Tons CO2 Caltrain 65% 148 people * 2 trips/day * 240 days * 18 mi/trip 1,274,832 1,155,097 523.9 Samtrans 17% 39 people * 2 trips/day * 180 days/yr * 4.3 mi/trip 29,869 27,063 12.3 VTA 15% 34 people * 2 trips/day * 180 days/yr * 4.3 mi/trip 26,355 23,879 10.8 AC Transit 3% 7 people * 2 trips/day * 240 days * 20 mi/trip 65,376 59,236 26.9 100% 227 1,396,431 1,265,275 573.9 Table B.3. B2. Employers participating in our transit pass program Below is a table revealing the 66 downtown employers that participate in our program, sorted by the number of monthly passes for each employer. Employer # passes Employer # passes Sheraton 29 Edge Hair Salon 2 Apple 17 Footwear 2 DTS Team 16 Garden Court Hotel 2 Westin 16 Gong Cha USA 2 Coupa Cafe 14 La Strada 2 Community Pharm Walgreens 10 Pizzeria Delfina 2 Crepevine 8 Rejuvenation 2 Webster House 6 Title Nine 2 Gobble 5 Vizavoo 2 Lytton Gardens 5 Warby Parker 2 Patagonia 5 Watercourse Way 2 WFM 5 ATT Spring Mobile 1 Yayoi 5 Bell's Book 1 Channing House 4 Buca di Beppo 1 Hassett Ace HW 4 Cafe 220 1 PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 19 of 33 Il Fornaio 4 Connie Ho MD 1 Oren's Hummus Shop 4 First United Methodist Church 1 Palo Alto Bicycles 4 Fraiche Yogurt 1 Walgreens 4 Heinichen's Garage 1 Avenidas 3 Keen 1 Clement Hotel 3 Lily fashion company 1 Lemonade 3 Mac Smoke Shop 1 Local Union 271 3 Mills the Florist 1 MacArthur Park 3 Onigilly 1 Old Pro 3 Pace Gallery 1 PAMF - MIDA Industries 3 Chamber of Commerce 1 Patxi's Pizza 3 Peninsula Creamery 1 Reposado 3 Pizza my heart 1 Rose & Crown 3 Sam’s barber shop 1 Bistro Maxine 2 Shoe Palace 1 Cardinal Hotel 2 Sweetgreen 1 Creamery 2 Tacolicious 1 Dan Gordons 2 The Taproom 1 Table B.4. The list of participating employers is ever-changing. This snapshot was taken in mid-November B3. The potential for a Caltrain discount PATMA met with Caltrain on November 7 to explore the potential for a discount, but the effort was unsuccessful. Starting around June 2019, Caltrain will offer low-income discounts for individual Caltrain trips, but not for monthly passes. Unfortunately, on a monthly basis, discounted individual trips are more expensive than monthly passes, so Caltrain’s program will not benefit PATMA finances. At the May 23, 2018, MTC meeting, the Commission approved a revised program framework for a Regional Means-Based Fare Program. The program will provide a discount of 20 percent to eligible low-income adults on transit rides for four 23 large Bay Area transit operators — BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit and SFMTA — during a pilot period. ●Eligibility for participation is anticipated to be established at 200% of the federal poverty level for adults. The region will create a regional method to validate eligibility. ●The discount program would be implemented through Clipper using a standardized discount on single trips called the “Clipper Coupon.” The Clipper Coupon will allow an eligible Clipper card holder to get a discount on any single trip taken on a participating transit operator. With this approach, only single trips paid with e-cash will receive the Means-Based Discount; discounts on passes will not be supported. However, existing transit operator pass programs like Muni Lifeline may continue in parallel to the Means Based Discount Program on Clipper at the operators’ discretion (and own funding). At the December 6, 2018, Caltrain Board meeting, the Caltrain Fare Policy was adopted. Under the Equity category, the Fare Policy contains the following goal: “Advocate for and participate in State and regional programs that make it more affordable for low-income customers to use transit.” Caltrain has concluded that the Go Pass program results in a lower effective cost to well-paid technology workers than to low-income workers. As a result (and also to enhance revenue), Caltrain increased Go Pass annual cost per employee from $237.50 to $285 as of January 2019. 23 MTC’s Means-Based Fare Program: https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/other-plans/means-based-fare-study PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 20 of 33 B4. Human and technical challenges The Clipper Card system began in 1993 as Translink, the leading edge of transit fare payment. Rebranding from Translink to “Clipper” occurred in 2010. In many ways, this legacy system still 24 works well, but, unfortunately for PATMA’s application, reliability is a problem. A combination of old and newer hardware is used, with varying degrees of reliability. There is two-way communication between the back office Clipper master database and Clipper Readers at train stations and on buses. Train station Clipper hardware is wired to the internet, so is relatively reliable. Buses park near WiFi hubs to allow data exchange with the back office. Some buses do not park at the hub for a sufficient amount of time and drive off with only a portion of the necessary data. At about 2 AM (on more than 90% of days but skipped on a random set of days), a master list of transit passes, cash value to add and blocked cards is transmitted from the back office to Clipper Readers and hubs. When a commuter tags their Clipper card to a Clipper Reader, pending transit passes and cash value is physically encoded onto their Clipper card’s chip. 99% of Clipper card tags are transmitted to the back office database, logged for Clipper cards identified by serial number. One percent of tags are “lost” and are sent to a separate “recovered sales transactions” database that is synched to the main database within 21 days. Train station tags are often visible within four hours, bus tags are collected and transmitted when buses reach a hub. From left to right: Clipper card, add-value machine (available at Palo Alto and Diridon Caltrain stations), train station Clipper Reader, bus Clipper Reader Clippercard.com provides a legacy consumer web portal to manage a few cards for family members under a single login. Users can check transactions, check cash value, add cash value (with a 24 to 48-hour lag before the value is available) and add monthly passes. PATMA manages more than 240 clipper cards out of a single login, something clippercard.com was not designed for. For PATMA, many transactions have a 90-second latency. There are two views into commuter tagging, “My Accounts” and “Transaction History.” Transaction History data can lag actual Caltrain tags by only four hours, whereas My Accounts can lag by 48 hours. My Accounts provides greater utility but less accuracy. When PATMA interacts with distraught commuters, Clippercard.com’s lag interferes with prompt problem resolution. The design of the Clippercard.com back office database is straightforward, but an application 24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_card PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 21 of 33 programming interface is not provided. MTC is a captive customer of Cubic Transportation Systems, making simple modifications costly. Because of the lack of application programming interface, PATMA uses “browser automation” to facilitate interacting with Clippercard.com. Running browser automation scripts with Clippercard.com is about 95% reliable, requiring frequent script re-starts. The Nashville Clipper Customer Service call center is staffed by friendly, helpful people that PATMA finds itself in frequent communication with. There are more than 700 “business rules” in the Clipper system with inconsistencies between Bay Area transit operators. One Level 2 support manager explained that it takes six months to develop a somewhat accurate mental model of the operation of the Clipper hardware/software system. PATMA often runs into edge cases that can challenge Level 1 support personnel. PATMA’s transit program remedies human and technology errors. Each month, about 15% of our Caltrain commuters “tag on but don’t tag off,” resulting in negative balances that can result in $75 citations. Whereas BART has fare gates that ensure commuters tag their Clipper card on a Clipper Reader each time they enter/exit a BART station, Caltrain has ungated platforms. Busy commuters just “space out” about tagging off and there isn’t an obvious remedy. Appendix C: Scoop, Waze Carpool, Lyft - Details Further to Section 5, for each of Scoop, Waze Carpool and Lyft, metrics and SOV reduction are provided, with calculations. C1. Scoop 2018 costs and metrics The following table provides PATMA Scoop program costs and metrics for 2018: SCOOP Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Scoop expense $21,396 $23,788 $35,169 $33,222 1-way person trips (drivers & riders) 6,698 6,790 8,275 7,817 PATMA cost per trip $3.19 $3.50 $4.25 $4.25 working days/Q 62 64 63 62 # pkng space freed: trips / wkng days / 2.5 43.2 42.4 52.5 50.4 Quarterly cost / sp freed $495 $561 $669 $659 Annual cost / sp freed $1,981 $2,242 $2,678 $2,635 Rider miles saved: trips / 2 * 15.5 mi 51,910 52,623 64,131 60,582 Lbs GHG: VMT * 0.906 47,030 47,676 58,103 54,887 Active users / mo 172 179 207 194 New employees registrd 152 192 231 197 Total registered users 1,384 1,534 1,668 1,885 Table C.1. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 22 of 33 The table above benefits from some definitions and explanations: ●A Scoop “trip” is a one-way trip for one person, either a driver or a rider. This means that a daily roundtrip two-person carpool equals 4 person trips. ●“Active users:” Scoop’s “unique matched users” metric is the number of active users who matched with Scoop to either drive or ride in one or more trips per month. ●Scoop’s “cars out of the parking lot” metric can also be characterized as “# of parking spaces freed.” ○Scoop carpoolers may find themselves carpooling with the same people over and over, resulting in some carpools converting to traditional carpools from more expensive Scoop carpools. Such “graduation” is very helpful for SOV reduction and is NOT accounted for. ○Vendor metrics may overstate some dimensions of efficacy. For example, some Scoop use may cannibalize another non-SOV mode or may subsidize a commuter who was already using Scoop. ●Most of the Scoop PATMA program “registered users” are inactive. ●GHG calculations assume 15.5-mile one-way trips, a consistent number that arises from Scoop’s monthly data. Table C.1’s “cars out of the parking lot” calculation is ●Number of one-way person trips in the month ●Divided by the number of non-holiday weekdays (IE the working days) ●Divided by 2.5. The 2.5 divisor is relatively consistent from monthly Scoop data. The large majority of Scoop carpools have one rider and one driver, although a new feature creates three-person carpools. About 25% of Scoop customers have two one-way commute trips per day with a two- or three-passenger carpool. About 75% of customers have one Scoop trip per day with a two- or three-passenger carpool. These customers take a different non-SOV mode for their other commute trip of the day. Scoop counts the carpool riders per day in these two scenarios to calculate the number of parking spaces freed. For reporting each month, Scoop precisely calculates parking spaces freed whereas PATMA uses the 2.5 divisor and also applies the 2.5 divisor to Waze Carpool, for apples to apples comparison between the two competing services. Scoop’s detail report on average daily trips trends over 30 months: PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 23 of 33 Figure C.2. Scoop trips: Downtown Palo Alto Average Trips/Day PATMA’s Scoop cost increased over CY 2018. Scoop renegotiated its contract in June, raising rates to $4.25 per trip. This new contract ran June-Dec 2018 and featured a flat $2 per ride cost to carpool riders. For 2019, we negotiated a 33% discount to $3.00 per trip. For 2019, rather than providing a fixed rider or driver incentive per trip, Scoop varies driver/rider incentives to build the business. For example, all things being equal a first-time driver in an area with few drivers gets a higher incentive. Explains Scoop, “Without having the flexibility to vary incentives to fit supply and demand, the incentives create an imbalance.” Palo Alto’s Stanford Research Park TDM efforts have resulted in about 60,000 Scoop trips per month, qualifying for a lower rate than $4.25 per trip, but higher than PATMA’s 2019 rate. As far as Scoop users of the downtown subsidy, Scoop provided some high-level information in December of 2018: “Of the top 19 downtown Scoop destinations, 4 of them were large companies in downtown. The other top destinations are made up of smaller downtown businesses, the Caltrain stop, and co-working spaces. While we can only share this data at a high level, it looks like there is a mix of employees from larger companies as well as lower-income employees using Scoop to commute to and from Palo Alto.” The fee-per-trip is inclusive of all Scoop program management including but not limited to rider/driver balance, route health, marketing, reporting, Guaranteed Ride Home, customer support, etc. Scoop explained that approximately 95% of PATMA’s 2018 subsidy was distributed to commuters. C2. Waze Carpool 2018 costs and metrics PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 24 of 33 Financial agreements between PATMA and our vendors will vary over time. Our current Waze Carpool agreement is advantageous because our monthly expenditure is capped at $4,500. The following table provides PATMA Waze Carpool program costs and metrics for 2018: WAZE Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Waze expense $4,353 $9,182 $13,500 $13,500 1-way person trips (drivers & riders) 1,678 2,772 5,150 7,098 PATMA cost per trip $2.59 $3.31 $2.62 $1.90 working days/Q 62 64 63 62 # pkng space freed: trips / wkng days / 2.5 10.8 17.3 32.7 43.0 Quarterly cost / sp freed $402 $530 $413 $314 Annual cost / sp freed $1,608 $2,120 $1,651 $1,255 Rider miles saved: trips / 2 * 14.6 mi avg trip dist 12,249 20,236 37,595 51,815 Lbs GHG: VMT * 0.906 11,098 18,333 34,061 46,945 Active users / mo 43 71 137 165 Table C.3. (pink cell is an estimate. We are still awaiting final December numbers) C3. Lyft 2018 costs and metrics The following table provides PATMA Lyft program costs and metrics for 2018: LYFT Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Lyft expense $2,824 $3,194 $3,710 $5,299 1-way person trips (drivers & riders) 338 375 461 663 PATMA cost per trip $8.35 $8.52 $8.05 $7.99 working days/Q 62 64 63 62 # pkng space freed: trips / wkng days 5.5 5.9 7.3 10.7 Quarterly cost / sp freed $518 $545 $507 $495 Annual cost / sp freed $2,072 $2,180 $2,028 $1,982 Rider miles saved: trips * 3.2 mi avg trip dist 1,082 1,200 1,475 2,122 Lbs GHG: VMT * 0.906 980 1,087 1,337 1,923 Active users / mo 11.0 11.0 15.0 20.0 trips/user/mo 10.2 11.4 10.2 11.1 Table C.4.(pink cell is an estimate. We are still awaiting final December numbers) PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 25 of 33 For the calculation of parking spaces freed in the table above, we assume each after-hours Lyft trip is accompanied by a non-SOV, non-Lyft commute trip within normal working hours. Appendix D: Cal Avenue Pilot Market research has revealed interest in expanding the transit pass program beyond downtown. Whereas downtown features a very popular Caltrain station, the pilot will explore transit pass demand to work sites with fewer transit options. The pilot will also research how to develop permanent funding beyond the $100,000 seed funding provided. The pilot funding commitment letter is provided below: PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 26 of 33 Appendix E: Downtown Survey - Details This appendix provides details for Section 8 on preliminary results, methodology, the survey instrument and methodological challenges. E.1. Survey instrument The survey is a 20-question survey that can be taken on the web or filled out and sent back by mail. Excerpted from the full survey instrument, portions of two example questions follow: 25 Figure E.1. Sample survey questions For Question 1 regarding commute mode, modes are defined as follows: 25 EMC Research survey instrument. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 27 of 33 Category Description Drove alone Drove alone, Motorcycle/Moped Transit Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA, AC Transit, Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, Palo Alto Shuttles, Company-sponsored bus Walk/Bike Walked, Rode a bicycle Rideshare Carpooled (1 or more family/friends), Carpooled (through service like Scoop or Waze or an employer match system), Lyft Line/Uber Pool/ride-hail service with others, Lyft/Uber/ride-hail service alone, Vanpooled Other Worked remotely, Other Table E.2. Annual survey commute mode definitions E2. Methodology description For the past four years, a random sample of downtown worksites (bounded by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue) was pulled by worksite size, including small, medium and large businesses, using the same vendor, EMC Research, and methodology each year. These sampled worksites were then contacted directly to identify and recruit an onsite survey coordinator who distributed the surveys to all employees at their respective worksite. Some coordinators receive a small amount of compensation for their time and effort. During recruitment, every effort was made to recruit a representative sample of businesses based on their worksite size and type by examining various sources, including Palo Alto business registry, PATMA Customer Relationship Management list, and a business list from an outside vendor. The first three annual surveys were conducted in May, the 2018 survey was conducted October 8 through December 10, 2018. After recruitment, the onsite coordinator was sent the survey either via email or mail per their request. EMC then monitored the survey responses and conducted reminder phone calls and emails as needed. Since not all coordinators follow through with distributing the survey, EMC undertook targeted recruitment to attempt to collect responses from areas necessary to compile a robust sample. The survey is offered in paper and web formats, and is provided in Spanish (upon request) as well as English. This multimodal approach to collecting survey responses allows more businesses to participate, whether they have access to email or not. EMC believes that for commute surveys, the combination of the worksite subtype outreach methodology and the survey sampling is unique. In addition, commuter surveys using multiple modes of communication are rare. E3. Methodology Challenges Web/mail commute surveys have a self-selection bias. Commuters who are proud of taking SOV alternatives are much more likely to respond than SOV commuters. “100% sample front door intercept” commute surveys avoid selection bias. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 28 of 33 Figure E.2. Mountain View City Hall - AM commute intercept. All staff members entering City Hall were surveyed. 26 For City of Mountain View staff, a web commute survey resulted in 75% SOV whereas a front door intercept yielded a more-accurate 86% SOV. The national LEED standard for Alternative Commuting Transportation assumes that the majority of non-respondents commute via SOV. 27 The annual surveys from previous years were conducted in May, where non-SOV is higher compared to surveying in October through December, as was the 2018 annual survey. Active transportation mode use is depressed in November compared to May. For example, bike commuting shrank from 8% in 2015 to 3% in 2018. Some respondents reported that their commute mode changed away from biking because of the air quality alert caused by the Camp Fire (November 2018). Results will vary based on the particular employers that participate in the survey each year within the different downtown employment subtypes. The survey cannot sample from a overall uniform population nor a uniform population within each subtype, because commute behavior varies depending on the employer. Stated using statistical terminology, the sample is not a standard normal distribution where the margin of error can be easily calculated. Within the technology subtype, some employers have more robust TDM programs than others, yielding different SOV rates. EMC explains that more than 80% of technology subtype responses come from employers with 250 or more employees - those generally with more robust TDM programs. Within the service subtype, work hours and parking policies are highly influential on resultant mode results. Nine-to-five service jobs have lower SOV than jobs at bars closing at 11 PM when transit options are limited. The response by particular employers within subtypes varies from year to year, causing variation. The overall SOV result varies partly based on the proportionate number of responses for each of the four worksite subtypes, each of which has a different SOV mode share. The subtype proportions vary 26 Building Entrance Intercept Surveys, http://bit.ly/1KWhHUK 27 Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, Appendix N, www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 29 of 33 from year to year. For example, the 2018 technology subtype comprises 34% of responses whereas the subtype encompasses only 28% of responses in 2017. The number of responses varies from year to year. The 2018 survey generated a smaller number of responses, 496, compared to previous years (892 in 2017, 829 in 2016, 1,173 in 2015). EMC indicates, “While this is a smaller number of responses compared to previous years, this year’s N size is perfectly reasonable for a study like this. 2018 results are still a representative sample of downtown employees that we are confident accurately reflects the attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of those who work in downtown Palo Alto. In previous years we enjoyed better response rates and had more data, but 2018 is still a good amount of data for our purposes. One reason that likely explains the reduction in responses is the timing of this survey compared to previous years. In previous years, this survey was conducted in the Spring, but this year the survey was sent out in the Fall. We were likely competing with other emails/mail pieces from political campaigns and were dealing with vacations during the holidays.” As far as explaining why mode has changed over four years, a number of theories can help explain the results, including: ●The TMA plays a positive role in these changes with the highest impact on service workers ●Changes in employer TDM policies are influential. ●Year-to-year changes in demographics and housing location may have changed within subtypes, impacting commute mode. For example, as apartment prices have increased in East Palo Alto, some service workers have moved to San Jose or the East Bay. ●Downtown parking policy plays a role. ●In future years, improved transportation infrastructure may play a role. E4. Preliminary 2018 commute survey results A detailed report covering all of the survey questions will be provided in late January 2019. On January 4, 2019, a shorter report with some results was provided by the vendor. A series of tables and graphs follow, beginning with overall commute mode share in Table E.3. Commute mode 2015 2016 2017 2018 SOV 57% 56% 53% 49% Transit 18% 18% 20% 27% Bike/walk 15% 15% 12% 9% Carpool/rideshare 5% 6% 8% 9% Other (work remote, etc) 5% 5% 7% 6% Table E.3: The overall commute mode data from Figure 8.1 presented in tabular form. For purposes of the survey, downtown worksites are split into four types and are defined in Table E.4. Category % of Sample Description Government 13% Work for the City of Palo Alto Technology 34% Work in a tech-related industry Service 28% Work in restaurants, retail, lodging, salons, etc. Light Office 25% Work for a law firm, insurance, realtor, eye care, dentist, etc. Table E.4. Worksite subtype category definitions, with 2018 sample distribution within subtypes PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 30 of 33 A mode breakdown by worksite type for 2018 followed by 2017 is provided in Figures E.5 and E.6. Figure E.5: 2018 mode share by worksite type Figure E.6: For comparison, 2017 mode share by worksite type. Note how the distribution of subtype responses varies by year. 2018 technology is 34% of responses, with only 28% in 2017. Four years of technology worker commute mode share are provided in Figure E.7. Figure E.7. Technology worker mode share. SOV has remained consistent since 2016, transit has increased significantly since 2017. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 31 of 33 Four years of service worker mode share are provided in Figure E.8. Figure E.8. Service worker mode share. SOV rates have declined significantly, down 24 points from the 2016 peak, while transit and rideshare have increased. Four years of government worker mode share are provided in Figure E.9. Figure E.9. Government workers mode share. SOV trips have declined each year. Four years of light office worker mode share are provided in Figure E.10. Figure E.10. Light office mode share. SOV and transit trips have remained consistent since 2017. PATMA CY2018 Annual Report Page 32 of 33 TDM / suburban commuting backgrounder Covers concepts including: ●difficulty in reducing SOV ●lack of scale for Scoop ●bus cost-efficacy ●“cat’s cradle” of Silicon Valley commute vectors ●ineffective suburban TOD ●Stanford campus TDM efficacy ●private motorcoach service ●state mode shift policy ●regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction policy ●Bay Area commuter benefits mandate ●trip caps ●Bay Area TMAs. Excerpted from a white paper entitled, Reduce Bay Area Commuting by 25%, pages 5-18, by Steve Raney, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, October 13, 2016. Full white paper can be found at: www.cities21.org/wp.pdf. Chapter 1: Difficulties in Reducing SOV Commuting The vast majority of US regions and cities are car-loving, with high single occupant vehicle (SOV) commute mode share. 76.6% of Americans drive alone to work and 9.7% carpool, for a total of 86.3% of workers commuting by private auto. For example, of the 367 US Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), only eight have 12 SOV commute share less than 68%: Metropolitan Statistical Area SOV Commute Mode Share New York-Newark-Jersey City 50.2 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward 59.2 Corvallis, OR 61.6 Urban Honolulu 63.3 Washington DC-Arlington-Alexandria 66.1 Boulder, CO 66.8 Boston-Cambridge-Newton 67.8 Ithaca, NY 67.8 Source 13 Even within the eight less car-loving MSAs above, many portions of those areas are car loving. Within the San Francisco MSA, San Francisco’s downtown has only 9% SOV commute mode split, leaving the majority of the rest of that MSA with high, car-loving mode share. Another indication of a car-loving area is free parking. In 1997, UCLA’s Don Shoup estimated that 95% of US commuters receive free workplace parking. 14 Whereas San Francisco has high green commuting and low SOV commute mode share, the entire Bay Area has high “suburban” SOV commute mode share: 75% SOV. The majority of commuters making rational decisions find that driving alone is their best option. The majority of the Bay Area can be considered as “car-loving” or “auto-centered” suburbia. In the history of US car-loving suburbs, there are few examples of switching folks away from driving alone and few examples of significantly reducing traffic. As far as can be determined, there is no US example of adopting technologies and/or policies that have resulted in reducing SOV commuting from 75% to 70% over ten years. In contrast, many European and Asian countries provide examples where the price of driving is much higher ($8 per gallon gas), and per capita VMT is 33% less than US. As far as the extent of American car-loving locations, 95% of US commuters receive free workplace parking. 15 It is difficult to launch new, successful mobility services in auto-centric locations. The chances for success of these systems will be greatly enhanced if demand for “not SOV” can be increased. Long-range California state policy (explained in Chapter 4) increases demand, so is enabling. The creativity within the smartphone mobility ecosystem is very encouraging. The availability of big transport datasets is enabling, allowing for pre-launch analysis of whether critical mass can be achieved. The lower demand for auto ownership by Millennials is enabling. 12Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends, Brief 10: Commute Mode Choice. For AAHSTO. October 2013. http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Documents/CA10-4.pdf 13 Winters, P. Mode Split by MSA grouped by State. For Center for Urban Transportation Research, 9/18/15. Source data: 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates - Table S0802: Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics. http://www.bestworkplaces.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACS_14_1YR_S0801_with_ann-Mode-Split-by-MSA-grouped-by-State.pdf 14 Shoup, D. and Breinholt, M.J. Employer-Paid Parking: A Nationwide Survey of Employers’ Parking Subsidy Policies. In The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation: Contributions to Theory, Method and Measurement. Editors David L. Greene, Donald W. Jones, and Mark A. Delucchi. Berlin: Springer Press. 1997. 15 Shoup, D. and Breinholt, M.J. Employer-Paid Parking: A Nationwide Survey of Employers’ Parking Subsidy Policies. In The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation: Contributions to Theory, Method and Measurement. Editors David L. Greene, Donald W. Jones, and Mark A. Delucchi. Berlin: Springer Press. 1997. JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 5 of 194. Chapter 2: The Car-Loving Bay Area There are a series of influencing factors that combine to create a very auto-centered result. 2A. Regional auto-centricity In transit-loving Helsinki, it is easy to commute without a car. In Silicon Valley, commuting without a car is many times more difficult: Sources 16 As SPUR’s analysis concluded, 75% of Bay Area jobs are located close to freeway exits - on top of various other auto-centered challenges, our sprawling human settlement pattern thwarts transit. 17 2B. Lack of scale for mobility services Alternatives to driving alone have a hard time succeeding in suburbia. In Silicon Valley, only 1 out of 1,000 trips is provided by Lyft/Uber. There is limited scale for that great new “on-demand, smartphone-dispatched, cross-city 18 shuttle” that suburbanites repeatedly dream up for their neighbors to ride. Alas, we cannot even point to a single successful suburban US system of this sort. There is the dynamic rideshare “Needle in the Haystack” ridematching problem. There are many “peer-to-peer on-demand ridesharing” apps: Carma, Carzac, HOVee, NuRide, Ride.com, RideAmigos’s ridematching, Scoop, TwoGo, Slice Rides, Waze Carpool, Lyft Carpool, Uber Commute, Duet, Split, and MüV. On the surface, the concept of filling empty seats in cars seems to have large potential to increase efficiency. Unfortunately, the probability of developing critical mass in car-loving areas (70%+ SOV commute mode share) is very challenging – the set of possible matches is distributed in a sparse manner. This challenge can be called the Needle in the Haystack Problem. Even making multiple optimistic assumptions, the match probability is small. Appendix A provides calculations for commutes to downtown Palo Alto, with 10,000 downtown workers. For a zipcode with 31,550 residents, of which 500 are downtown Palo Alto workers, there are fewer than eight people to match in each 20-minute peak hour commute interval. An additional ridesharing complexity is the “Day 1 Challenge.” Even if a quantified analysis using travel demand data shows that critical mass may be obtained, there is still a “launch day” problem. Systems need to achieve system-wide critical mass on the first day of operation (Day 1), because a participant will only put up with two failed ridematching attempts before they abandon a software system. 16 Finland car registration fees and other sources provided by Hartti Suomela, Finpro Silicon Valley 17 From SPUR’s Ratna Amin. 18 Calculations spreadsheet - a “messy” back of the napkin spreadsheet: http://bit.ly/1HPDH6g JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 6 of 194. 2C. Cost effectiveness The hourly operating cost of a 50-passenger public transit bus is in the range of $135. For private transit with lower labor cost, that cost drops to about $80. Public transit requires taxpayer subsidy, whereas private transit has to generate far higher farebox revenue in order to make a profit. New commuter motorcoaches cost $500,000. Currently the economics are very difficult for both suburban public and private bus transit. As far as GHG, standard 50-passenger buses get 6 mpg (8 mpg per hybrid). A Nissan Leaf carpool filled with four people gets about 480 miles per passenger per gallon (equivalent). That is pretty hard to beat, except via bike. Within the field of suburban transportation the following are exceptionally cost-effective (from a taxpayer standpoint): carpooling/ridesharing, biking, walking, telework, filling empty seats in existing public transit, private sector mobility services, parking price increases and driving price increases. Public transit expansion projects are sometimes cost-effective but sometimes not. While the potential for carpooling is large, average US commuting occupancy per vehicle has disappointingly dropped from 1.3 in 1977 to 1.13 currently. Per capita transit utilization is 31% lower from 1980 to current. Even with a 38% population increase, overall transit ridership was lower in 2011 compared to 1980 (trends analysis by Transdef): 19 MTC provides another look at this trend, though by MTC’s analysis the drop is not as large. Annual Bay Area per capita public transit trips dropped from 79 to 70 in 23 years, from 1991 to 2014 (graphic by MTC): 20 19 Bay Area Basics. By Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund. http://transdef.org/Bay_Area/Bay_Area.html 20 From MTC presentation PPT by Ken Kirkey at Joint Venture’s Mobility Ecosystem Convening #3, Sept. 24, 2015. JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 7 of 194. As Don Shoup (author, High Cost of Free Parking) would say, “parking is never free.” Freely provided employer surface parking provides an SOV commuter with a parking space valued at $8 per day, paid for by the employer. Bike commuters do not receive an $8/day subsidy, but SOV commuters do. This creates an unfair incentive that encourages SOV commuting. Employer-provided structured parking represents a larger $20/day SOV subsidy. 21 Improvements to suburban US bus transit service/frequency are not guaranteed to succeed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a higher-quality replacement for conventional line haul bus transit. BRT features may include: faster trip time, higher frequency, higher comfort, WiFi, longer hours, etc. In the urban US experience, Cleveland’s 6.8-mile, $200 million HealthLine BRT route is considered a success. 22 Since its opening in 2008, ridership has grown more than 50% and the route's travel time has been reduced from 45 minutes to 32. The HealthLine catalyzed more than $3.3B worth of real estate development. The project exploited existing urban density in an area with paid parking. This urban success example does not directly correspond to succeeding in a car-loving suburban area with free parking. There are no recognized US suburban BRT success stories. The San Pablo Rapid (East Bay Area) system is not considered a success. Stops are 1/2 mile apart along the 14-mile route, with a 12-minute frequency, and the capital cost of the system was $3.2M in 2003. The route does not attract choice riders. In the FTA’s evaluation, bus ridership rose a small amount, but this was accounted for by an increase in service frequency and operating hours. Operational cost-effectiveness (ignoring capital cost expenditure) decreased. “The result of a large service quantity increase in comparison to a relatively modest ridership increase meant that average passengers per revenue hour on the corridor reduced from 63.4 passengers per revenue hour in May 2003 to 49.1 passengers per revenue hour in October 2004.” 23 The 30% Commuting Time Penalty Rule Given a choice between a 20-minute SOV commute or a 26-minute (30% slower) non-SOV commute, a high percentage chose the alternative. Thus, alternatives have to be relatively competitive, but DO NOT have to be equally speedy as SOV. Santa Clara County Valley Transit Authority's Senior Transportation Planner Chris Augenstein validates this 30 percent time dis-advantage, "In our forecasting model, if the door to door transit time is within 30 percent of driving alone, then our model forecasts high transit mode share. This share drops off rapidly once you get past 30 percent." 21 Parking subsidy calculations: http://www.cities21.org/parking_subsidy.htm 22 “A Look at BRT: Cleveland's HealthLine,” June 2013: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-a-look-at-brt-clevelands-healthline/page/ 23 “The San Pablo Rapid BRT Project Evaluation,” June 2006. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/San_Pablo_Rapid_Evaluation_Final_Report_June_2006_2.pdf JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 8 of 194. 2D. Seasonal Reduction in Bike Commutes See Appendix B for details. State and regional policy calls for reduced SOV and expanded biking. At the state level: a) “California Transportation Plan 2040, Scenario 3” calls for doubling biking, b) “Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020” calls for tripling of biking. At the regional level, the 2017 update to Plan Bay Area 2040 calls for doubling biking. For Silicon Valley, the current 3.8% bike commute mode share needs to reach 7.6% or better. Bike commuting provides a compelling user experience in nice weather during Daylight Savings Time, but what happens in the winter when it’s cold, rainy, and dark? How much of a seasonal drop off is there? How does this vary by region? Below are results from 10 US cities. The commute “Bike mode split” is given for spring months, followed by the percent of “Winter drop off” for winter months (Dec.-Feb.) from the “Bike mode split.” For example, Missoula has 6.2% springtime bike mode split. A 75% winter drop off results in 1.55% winter commute mode split: US location Bike mode split Winter drop off Los Angeles 1.0% ~5% San Francisco 3.4% ~20% Boston 2.1% 40% Portland 6.1% 43% Seattle 3.4% 44% Austin 1.4% 61% Boulder, CO 10.5% 62% New York City 1.2% 70% Missoula, MT 6.2% 75% Chicago 1.4% 80% There is a need to characterize and reduce the spike in SOV commuting (caused by the drop in biking) in winter. Other non-SOV modes must replace lost biking during the winter. For public policymaking efforts towards large commute mode shift, there needs to be a focus on shaving off the winter spike, as savings in commuter parking spaces can only be monetized based on the single day with the highest parking utilization (and based on the highest utilization day taken over a number of years). Enterprise Commute Trip Reduction software will generate daily commute mode reporting, to the point where winter spikes can be seen. Large winter storms that temporarily increase SOV will create the largest challenge. In Umeå, in northern Sweden, the share of bike commuting is high, but has a significant drop off: summer 35%, winter 22%. However, transit picks up the majority of winter cyclists - most of the mode shift is between green modes, with only a 3% (nominal) overall winter SOV increase. SOV increases from 18% in summer to 21% in winter. This is an example of a relatively small winter SOV spike. (See detail in the Umeå detail section below.) Likewise at the University of Oulu (Finland), bike commute mode is 71% in spring, dropping by 22% (nominal) to 49% in winter, but other virtuous modes pick up 17% (nominal) resulting in a modest 5% (nominal) winter SOV spike. 2E. Silicon Valley’s “Cat’s Cradle” Commute Pattern The Silicon Valley "cat’s cradle" or "string art fun" commuting pattern increases the difficulty of providing effective SOV alternatives. The commute vector map below shows how the messy suburban human settlement pattern is JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 9 of 194. well served by driving alone. Likewise, it is very difficult to create a transit system that effectively serves this pattern. “Silicon Valley” is defined as both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. For commutes that are “contained” in Silicon Valley (where both home and work are in the area) there are 788,000 morning commutes. A commute vector is a directional line beginning at home and ending at work. Pink/purple commute vectors have 60-1,200 commute trips. Pink circles represent employment centers. Smaller commute vectors of 40-59 trips are represented in orange. There are 1,102 pink vectors and 1,404 orange vectors. Please see Appendix C: “Conflicted Commute Vector Map – Methodology” for details. Silicon Valley “Cat’s Cradle” Commute Pattern. QGIS analysis by Steve Raney 24 2E. Ineffective Silicon Valley TOD San Francisco TOD (transit-oriented development) provides offices and residential within ½ mile of a BART or Caltrain station, resulting in high transit ridership. SF TOD brings up the numbers for all Bay Area TOD. MTC's analysis shows very high (42%) transit commute mode share for Bay Area residents simultaneously living and working within ½ mile of Caltrain and BART. Unfortunately, the majority of this high share is caused by San Francisco's challenging SOV experience (high traffic congestion, high parking costs, and parking scarcity). For car-loving Silicon Valley, there is a much lower (7%) transit commute mode share for those simultaneously living and working within ½ mile of Silicon Valley Caltrain/BART. Please see Appendix D: “Work/Live near Silicon Valley Caltrain” for details. 24 Image can be found on the web at: http://bit.ly/1HBgrGB JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 10 of 194. Chapter 3: Rare Exceptions to Auto-Centricity 3A. Stanford charges for parking (permits are equivalent to $4 per day) Stanford University has reduced SOV commuting dramatically. Stanford charges SOV commuters for parking permits (equivalent to about $4/day SOV fee for the best parking spots) and rebates the resulting revenue for 25 non-SOV modes including Caltrain commuter rail (via Caltrain GoPass), VTA transit (via EcoPass), bike, and carpool. Stanford fills gaps with Marguerite shuttle bus, electric bikes/scooters, and ride.com on-demand 26 rideshare. Marguerite is one of the US’s higher ridership local shuttle bus systems. Stanford is active in electric 27 bike/scooter and autonomous microtransit research for future gap-filling. Stanford’s program reduced SOV 28 commuting from 75% to 50%, eliminating the need for $107M in new parking structures. In the best practice of 29 30 Fair Value Commuting, fees and rebates are applied on a daily basis to motivate daily travel behavior decisions. 3B. Jobs for tech worker Millennials on top of high-quality transit Where jobs for knowledge workers can be located very near Caltrain stations there is significant behavior change. Downtown Palo Alto-based Palantir does not charge for parking like Stanford, yet achieves about 38% SOV mode share. SRI International (by Menlo Park Caltrain) achieves 59% SOV. 3C. $6,000 per worker per year “expensive but effective” employer commute programs Throughout the entire US, there are a handful of “effective and expensive” trip reduction programs that provide free workplace parking (and are not located next to Caltrain): Google Mountain View at 52% SOV, Genentech South SF at 58%, Facebook Menlo Park at 59%, and Microsoft Redmond at 62% SOV. These programs often have a Human Resources cost justification because employees work productively during their green commutes on WiFi-enabled buses. The cost of these programs is out of reach of the vast majority of US employers. Please see Appendix F: “Free-Parked CTR Leaders” for details. Noteworthy expensive-but-effective tactics: Tactic Estimated cost per employee commute shifted per year 90% of Google SF residents take the Google Bus $6,000 Genentech pays $4 to carpool drivers for each rider $6,280 (b/c of “grandfathering”) Genentech pays $12 for each bike commute day $2,880 Palantir: $500/mo to live w/i 1 mi of work (walk dist) $6,000 Palantir: $300/mo to live w/i 3 mi of work (bike dist) $3,600 Of the three exceptions above, the #3A Stanford approach is the one with the potential to scale region-wide. 25 “A” parking is $81/month, while the less convenient “C” is $30/month. 26 Funding from Stanford General Use Permit assessments for development projects augments the SOV fee revenue some. 27 High ridership US local shuttle bus systems: http://www.cities21.org/tdm2.htm#Shuttle (somewhat dated) 28 Stanford Linear Accelerator pilot: http://smartamerica.org/teams/autonomous-robotics-for-installation-and-base-operations-aribo/ 29 We assume Stanford was at roughly 75% SOV in 1990. Stanford was at 72% in 2002. Mode split is reported as: 41.9% SOV, 23.6% Caltrain commuter rail, 13.9% bike, 8.4% carpool, 7.5% bus, 3.1% walk - per“TDM at Stanford University,” Slide #19, August 2013, by Brodie Hamilton. http://bit.ly/1RCmSS2 30 $107M per “TDM at Stanford University,” Slide #24, August 2013. http://bit.ly/1RCmSS2. As of 2016, Stanford has gone away from calculating parking savings. Stanford has fewer parking spaces in 2016 than it had in 2001. JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 11 of 194. Chapter 4: State, Region, and Local Mode Shift Policy California state, regional, and local public policy is building towards large commute mode shift. The 2009 “Moving Cooler” Report (by ULI, APTA, EDF, FHWA, FTA, NRDC, and EPA) has been influential in 31 32 climate-focused transport planning. The “big conclusion” is that to hit aggressive GHG reduction targets, VMT must be reduced by increasing price. Transport energy efficiency increases are not sufficient. There is a direct line between Moving Cooler and CTP2040 (California Transportation Plan 2040). Within Moving Cooler, a variety of VMT reduction remedies are explored, providing a path to reduce US VMT by 28%. 4A. State Mode Shift and VMT Reduction Policy AB 32 (Pavley and Nunez, 2006) was the landmark legislation that spurred follow-on transport GHG reduction efforts. AB 32 set goals: a) reduce 2020 emissions to 1990 levels, b) reduce 2050 emissions to 20% of 1990. SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008) aligned transportation, housing, and land-use plans towards climate protection. It requires metropolitan planning organization (MPO) Regional Transportation Plans to adopt Sustainable Communities Strategies to reduce VMT to lower automobile and light-duty truck GHG emissions. The state’s 2008 press release stated, “Spending less time on the road is the single most powerful way for California to reduce its carbon footprint.” SB 375 acknowledges that MPOs have an important role to play in reducing GHG. SB 375 set the following targets for the Bay Area: 7% per-capita GHG reduction by 2020 and 15% GHG reduction by 2035. 4A1. CTP2040 Scenario 3 At the state level, CTP2040 Scenario 3 (California Transportation Plan 2040 , Scenario 3) provides bold 33 leadership: ●2040 transport GHG = 20% of 1990 emissions. ●Accelerate transport electrification. ●Reduce per capita VMT (vehicle miles traveled) by 17% ●Convert HOV2 to HOV3+ – convert two-person carpool (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes to three-person ●Double transit and biking. ●“Road capacity-enhancing strategies were rejected due to concerns these would ultimately increase VMT.” When functioning efficiently, an HOV3 lane will carry the same number of people as three general-purpose lanes. California is the only state with a transportation plan that will meet Kyoto 2040 GHG targets. Alternative 3 is pro-climate, pro-health (active transport), pro-sharing, pro-collaboration, pro-efficiency, and pro-green jobs. Pro-petrol groups tend to frame such efforts as “anti-car.” The pro-petrol groups backed Proposition 23 (in 2010, to suspend AB 32) and opposed portions of this year’s SB350 to cut petrol use by 50% by 2030: 31 Moving Cooler Executive Summary: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/MovingCoolerExecSummaryULI.pdf 32 ULI: Urban Land Institute. APTA: American Public Transit Association. EDF: Environmental Defense Fund. NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council. 33 California Transportation Plan 2040 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/californiatransportationplan2040/ JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 12 of 194. At Joint Venture’s Sept 2015 Mobility Ecosystem Convening, Kate White, Deputy Secretary, California State Transportation Agency, explained, “In the state’s long-term GHG modeling, pricing is the game changer. The GHG benefit is actually understated because a virtuous land use cycle is created. We are suffering from lack of pricing. We need to encourage pilots.” Michael Cunningham, Senior Vice President of Public Policy for the Bay Area Council, added, “People will pay for relief from the agony of Bay Area driving.” 4A2. Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 “Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020” has even more aggressive short-term goals: ●Reduce state VMT/GHG by 15% ●Triple biking ●Double transit and walking Caltrans has a modernization mission for a “safe, sustainable, integrated, efficient, and performance-driven system.” 34 There was even a California Environmental Protection Agency proposal to cut petroleum use in half by 2030. 35 4A3. SB743 CEQA Reform Preferencing VMT over LOS SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013) creates a new paradigm favoring VMT reduction over Level of Service (LOS). Under 36 the previous California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), LOS has been applied in ways that discourage alternatives to driving and VMT reduction. “LOS can lead to ad hoc roadway expansions.” Counterproductively, LOS “focuses on driver delay, not environmental impact.” Expensive road widenings induce demand and “result in adverse environmental, public health, and fiscal impacts.” 4B. Regional Mode Shift and VMT Reduction Policy The Bay Area region now has the US’s second-worst traffic congestion, after Los Angeles. The “pain” of traffic has gotten to the point where “business as usual” combined with expected 2M population growth will not cut it. At the regional level, MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) will complete a regional Plan Bay Area 2040 Update in 2017. MTC cannot meet GHG reduction targets (see bullets below) without bold action: ●7% per capita GHG reduction by 2020 (does NOT include switch to electric vehicles) ●15% per capita by 2035 (not including EV adoption) ●Nearly double transit and biking by 2040 Quantified MTC analysis has shown that some of the largest GHG reduction potential is from mode shift (in the short term, even more so than vehicle electrification). MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger is enthusiastic 34 Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 http://www.dot.ca.gov/perf/library/pdf/Caltrans_Strategic_Mgmt_Plan_033015.pdf 35 “Cutting Petroleum Use in Half by 2030,” by California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resource Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/petroleum_reductions.pdf 36 CalIfornia Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “Developing Alternatives to Level of Service, Discussion of CEQA Guidelines Changes,” https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 13 of 194. about exploring bold, game-changing action on parking. Pricing private parking will be one part of the discussion. MTC’s Regional Parking Pricing Project has undertaken a number of analytical and project funding actions. Important Plan Bay Area topics: ●Pricing Strategies/Climate Policy Initiatives ●Performance Target 1: reduce per capita transport GHG by 15% ●Performance Target 9: increase non-auto mode share by 10% (double it) ●Improve Bay Area transportation funding Summary table of adopted state and regional policy: Per capita VMT reduction Transit goal Bike goal California Transportation Plan 2040 17% Double Double Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2020 15% Double Triple SB 375 2030 Bay Area Target 15% Plan Bay Area 2040 15% Double Double Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program 37 SB 1339 (2012, Yee), the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, is a successful pilot program that is up for reauthorization in 2016 as SB 1128 (Glazer). Firms with 50 or more employees are required to provide one of four different commuter benefits options: pre-tax, employer subsidy, employer transit, or alternative benefit. (See figure below.) 82% of employers select the lowest-cost “Option 1.” Enterprise Commute Trip Reduction (ECTR) software comprehends employer commuter benefits program requirements while providing a next-generation platform to shift mode. Hence, increased adoption of employer commuter benefits programs helps to accelerate our solution. As of December 2015, 3,910 firms had registered for the program. Out of the Bay Area’s 2.3M commuters, 1.3M are covered by a commuter benefits program, with SB 1339 responsible for 55%. An estimated 44,000 commuters (with the usual caveats about survey self-selection bias that overstates commute mode shift) have shifted mode away from SOV, for 1.8% Bay Area commute mode shift. Four commute benefit options for employers with 50 or more employees 4C. Silicon Valley and University Trip Caps 37 “Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program: Report to the California Legislature, Updated Feb. 2, 2016.” http://www.cities21.org/dpwg/CommuterBenefitsReportToLegislature.pdf JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 14 of 194. At the city level, four cities have implemented “Trip Caps” on new office development and two cities have set aggressive TDM targets. Within the last two years, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino implemented Trip Caps. San Mateo has a trip cap that will soon be implemented. A “trip cap” restricts the number of commute trips into an employment site or into an employment area. For example, “Between 7AM and 9AM, Employer X may have no more than 2,600 vehicle trips. Hourly trip measurement must be provided to The City, using sensors at driveway entrances. For each trip above the cap, Employer X shall pay a penalty of $50 per day per trip. After noncompliance over 6 months, the fee increases to $100 per day per trip.” Mountain View’s North Bayshore Trip Cap requires between 30% to 45% SOV, depending on the density of employment within buildings. One employer faces penalties of $100K for each 1% over the cap. Councilmember Kasperzak stated that “failure also requires the imposition of congestion pricing.” 38 Sunnyvale ‘s Central & Wolfe Trip Cap is similar to Mountain View’s Cap, requiring about 50% SOV (35% reduction from ~76%). 39 Menlo Park’s East of 101 (Facebook, etc.) Trip Cap requires about ~56% SOV (25% reduction), with a $50 penalty/trip/day. 40 For Cupertino’s Apple Campus II, the trip cap reduces current 72% SOV down to 66%. 41 The San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan lays trip cap groundwork for new office entitlement to be enacted in a separate city council action: 42 ●Establishment of a corridor-wide trip reduction goal ●Required TMA membership ●A 30% commute trip reduction requirement for office within 1/4 mile of Caltrain (30% reduction from 80% SOV baseline is 56% SOV commute mode share) ●A 20% reduction for office within 1/2 mile of Caltrain (20% reduction equates to 64% SOV commute mode share) It is expected that the council will address noncompliance in a manner similar to other Bay Area trip caps: a) initially require additional TDM measures be adopted, b) upon repeated noncompliance, penalize the occupant/owner for each trip above the cap. Trip generation is taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual for suburban locations with ample parking, with an SOV commute mode share that is HIGHER than the US average from ACS 2009 (76.1% SOV, 10% carpool). Trip Caps create a need for ongoing, accurate commute mode reporting and driveway car counting. Recent trip caps have not yet standardized on a preferred methodology. To address this issue, Appendix N provides a high-accuracy “one day snapshot” methodology. ECTR software is well-positioned to create daily commute mode dashboards to enable employers to view trends towards or away from trip cap penalties. In a 100%-mature FVC implementation, automated, 98%-accurate commute mode detection will provide data for ECTR commute dashboards (described in Chapter 6). In Irvine, there is an active market “trading trips” between parcels within the greater Irvine Spectrum Center Trip Cap area. Examples of University Trip Caps: Stanford, UW, UCLA 38 Mountain View 2015 North Bayshore Area trip cap: http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15164 39 Sunnyvale Central & Wolfe TDM Plan: http://bit.ly/1NSV0Vd 40 Menlo Park 2013 Facebook west campus trip cap: pgs 40-46: http://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/2342 41 In “Response to Comments Document: Apple Campus II EIR,” page 49. “Mitigation Measure TRANS-9b would require Apple to achieve a 34 percent alternative mode participation rate, as verified with peak trip counts at the buildout capacity of 14,200 employees.” If the peak is hit, additional TDM measures are triggered. From: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Apple-Campus2-FEIR/Apple-Campus-2-Project-RTC.pdf 42 San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan, Chapter 7G, Transportation Demand Management. http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1812 JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 15 of 194. The pioneering Bay Area trip cap was the 1989 Stanford General Use Permit #1. The “GUP” allowed Stanford to grow by 2M square feet, with “no net new peak hour commute trips,” plus a hard cap on total campus parking spaces. Noncompliance triggered intersection improvements. Stanford’s commute program included parking charges, Marguerite shuttle bus, carpool incentives, vanpool services, bike services, and promotional activities. Stanford charged for parking permits at least as far back as 1975. In 2000, GUP #1 was replaced with GUP #2, 43 allowing a further expansion of 5M square feet with no net new peak hour commute trips. Of note are two other University trip caps outside of the Bay Area: For the University of Washington (UW) Seattle campus, the City of Seattle and UW agreed in 1983 to a trip cap on peak period vehicle trips and 24-hour volume. The 2003 Campus Master Plan set the trip cap at 1990 levels, with 44 noncompliance triggering additional trip reduction measures that applied until the cap is met. As of 2014, UW is about 20% below the cap. From 1989 to 2014: a) Campus population grew, b) SOV mode share shrunk from 32% 45 to 17.9%, c) Transit mode share grew from 21% to 42%, d) Carpool/vanpool mode share shrunk from 10% to 6%. In 2012, SOV commute mode for faculty, staff, and students was 45%, 34%, and 9%, respectively. 2014 campus mode split: 17.9% drive alone, 40.3% public transit, 6.5% carpool/vanpool, 6.9% bike, 26.7% walk. An annual UCLA Cordon Count satisfies the requirements of the UCLA Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and a 15-year Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Agreement (TMMA) that the University signed with the City of Los Angeles in 1991. The TMMA established a campus-wide trip cap for average daily vehicle trips as well as AM and 46 PM peak thresholds. At the time, the TMMA was viewed as a model for cooperative city-employer agreements, creating a balanced approach that linked the University’s ability to construct new buildings on campus to maintaining an average daily vehicular trip cap under 139,500. An extensive Campus Automated Traffic Monitoring System was put in place to comply with the agreement, featuring sensors embedded at each of the multiple entrances to campus to automatically count vehicle trips. For each of the 15 years of the TMMA agreement, UCLA successfully remained below the agreed-upon daily trip cap. Although the TMMA agreement with the City of Los Angeles expired in 2006, UCLA still abides by the cap. Between 1990 and 2007, the employee drive-alone rate was reduced from 69% to 55%. The 2007 combined student/employee drive-alone rate was only 35%. 47 The Annual Cordon Count, held during the busiest time of the year for vehicular traffic, is a week-long count of all vehicles entering and exiting the UCLA Main Campus and the UCLA Southwest Campus, including the Kinross Building, Rehab Center, and Weyburn Terrace graduate student apartments. A total of 22 vehicular access points are counted on the UCLA Main Campus and UCLA Southwest Campus, through “loop detectors” embedded within the pavement and pneumatic hoses. Vehicular traffic at the off-campus UCLA owned/occupied Wilshire Center high-rise building is counted using an agreed-upon method with the City of Los Angeles. 4E. The end of free workplace parking is inevitable In the years 2002-2016, forward progress towards cashout, transportation allowance, and eliminating free 48 parking went almost nowhere. Most of Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s (VTPI) exhaustive set of examples date from before 2002. 49 43 From correspondence with Jeff Watchel, Senior Assistant to the President. “We have had parking charges as long as I have worked here, so that is 31 years. Also, we charged for parking when I was a student and that began in 1975.” 44 University of Washington Master Plan: Seattle Campus: Approved Compiled Plan, Jan. 2003. https://pm.uw.edu/sites/default/files/master-plan/2003_CMP/uw-2003-campus-master-plan.pdf 45 University of Washington Master Plan: Seattle Campus: 2014 Annual Report https://pm.uw.edu/sites/default/files/master-plan/Annual_Reports/UW-Annual-Report-2014.pdf 46 Thanks to Charles Carter, Sr. Communications Analyst, UCLA Transportation. 47 PPT: “Long-Range Planning for a Green Transportation Program: The UCLA Experience, July 2008: http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ContentPages/13010712.pdf 48 Parking cash out is a program that allows employees to opt out of having a parking space and instead receive compensation. The employer who leases (or owns) a space pays the employee not to park. 49 Litman, Todd. Commuter Financial Incentives: Parking Cash Out, Travel Allowance, Transit and Rideshare Benefits. For VTPI. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 16 of 194. In those past 15 years, in a car-loving US area (where “car-loving” is defined as 70% or greater SOV commute mode share), no employer converted from free employee parking to an explicit daily parking charge. This would 50 have entailed imposing a parking charge on employees that are used to free parking. Panasonic’s 2013 move from free-parked New Jersey suburbs to $10/day Newark reduced SOV from 88% to 36%. This virtuous move does 51 not qualify as a conversion because Newark is not a car-loving location. As previously mentioned, Silicon Valley is plagued by the nation’s second-worst traffic. On May 24, 2016, at Palo Alto City Hall, Joint Venture convened 62 members of the commuting / mobility ecosystem representing cities (Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Redwood City, Fremont, San Mateo County), agencies (BAAQMD, C/CAG, 52 SamTrans, commute.org, Finland’s innovation accelerator), vendors/innovators (Mercedes, GM, Ford, Luum, Xerox, vRide, Bike Leap, Scoop, Moovit, SPLT, Carma, Genze, EcoReco, BiCi), employers/developers (Intuit, Stanford, Microsoft, SAP, VMware, Moffett Park TMA, Irvine Company), consultants (AECOM, Nelson Nygaard) and NGOs (SPUR, Transform, Friends of Caltrain, Transdef, Menlo Spark). A survey of these experts reveals that the pressure has built up to the point that free workplace parking may finally be about to come to an end: This new finding that 75% of local experts believe “one employer will eliminate free workplace parking in the next 24 months” may serve to further accelerate this transition. i.e., if one employer will change, then more employers will consider whether to change. A tipping point away from free workplace parking could occur. As far as eliminating free workplace parking, one mobility system expert opines, “We’re getting closer, but there’s still too much parking available in many of our office parks. Densification and mixed-use district development, such as planned in North Bayshore (Mountain View) and around Facebook in Menlo Park will help the change along. And we may need several of the large employers to implement paid parking at the same time so that there is no concern about employees leaving one place to go to another. Start at a low fee and link it with ECTR software so that employees can understand what’s going on and what their options are.” Cupertino Councilmember Rod Sinks states, “Transportation is the number 1 or 2 issue in almost every Silicon Valley city. I have been helping to convene a unique coalition of Councilmembers and City Managers from 11 cities to work on our most pressing transportation issues. I will convene this executive group in a workshop to identify political obstacles to enacting ‘four cities at once city-wide trip caps’” (a City Council ordinance to implement Fair Value Commuting and hence, to eliminate free workplace parking). In 2012, Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Ann Flemer stated, "There is no question that the provision of free parking is a huge incentive for people to drive to work. A 2000 survey of Bay Area commuters found that while 50 A query to CUTR’s transp-tdm listserv practitioners produced zero examples of a conversion. 51 Jaffe, Eric. How Panasonic Turned Car Commuters Into Transit Riders: It moved downtown and charged employees market rates for parking, among other things. For CityLab. Oct 27, 2015. http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/10/how-panasonic-turned-car-commuters-into-transit-riders/412417/ 52 C/CAG: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 17 of 194. 77% of commuters drove alone when free parking was available, only 39% drove alone when they had to pay to park. Additionally, among commuters with free parking, only 4.8% commuted by transit. By contrast, among commuters without free parking, 42% commute by transit." Transportation for America’s James Corless: "Eliminating free workplace parking is the Holy Grail of trip reduction." (91% of Americans receive free workplace parking.) 4F. Local TDM and TMAs Local TDM (transportation demand management) and TMAs (transportation management associations). Palo Alto adopted an aggressive goal of reducing SOV by 30% in 36 months. The newly formed Palo Alto TMA “is tasked with the challenge of reducing Palo Alto’s SOV traffic by 30 percent over a three-year period, by developing, managing and marketing transportation programs." 53 San Jose’s Envision 2040 General Plan prioritizes environmental leadership, increased transit use, and reduced local/regional traffic congestion. Envision 2040’s TR-11 2040 VMT Reduction Goal calls for 40% reduction measured from 2009. Towards this VMT reduction, San Jose will: ●take a leadership role in working with the County, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans, VTA and other municipalities to establish congestion pricing for automobile travel through and within Santa Clara County. (TR 11.2) ●support a regional parking policy that levels the playing field and incentivizes local reforms. Undertake this in coordination with other regional climate/ smart growth strategies such as the Sustainable Communities Strategy. (TR 11.4) To further reduce driving, the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) is accelerating. There are now 17 Bay Area TMA-like efforts: Bishop’s Ranch TMA Emeryville TMA Mission Bay TMA San Mateo Rail Corridor TMA Contra Costa Centre Transit Village TMA Hacienda (Pleasanton) TMA Moffett Business Park TMA TMA of San Francisco Downtown Palo Alto TMA Mountain View TMA Berkeley Gateway TMA Presidio Trust TMA San Jose Altrans TMA Sunnyvale Peery Park TMA Stanford Research Park – TMA-equivalent effort Marin County SMART – adopted TMA plan Alameda Point – adopted plan for TMA SECTION II: ECTR AND THE MOBILITY ECOSYSTEM Chapter 5: Mobility Ecosystem 53 http://www.ourpaloalto.org/tma JVSV Reduce Commuting 25% Page 18 of 194. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 14, 2019 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the December 17, 2018 and January 7, 2019 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 12-17-18 DRAFT Action Minutes 4:30 PM (DOCX) • Attachment B: 12-17-18 DRAFT Action Minutes 6:00 PM (DOCX) • Attachment C: 01-07-19 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Special Meeting December 17, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 4:42 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 5:15 P.M., Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss; Kou arrived at 5:00 P.M., Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Expressing Appreciation and Honoring City Manager James R. Keene on his Retirement. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the December 3 and December 10, 2018 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the December 3 and December 10, 2018 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Council Member Holman registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 18 MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou, third by Council Member DuBois to pull Agenda Item Number 3 “Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan Second Edition” to a date uncertain and Agenda Item Number 19 “…Approve the $4 Million in General Fund Savings…” to the next City Council Meeting. Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 17 and 18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/17/18 Council Member Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 13, 15 18, 20 Council Member DuBois registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 15. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-18 as amended by Staff, and 20. 3. Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan Second Edition. 4. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number S16159017 With SZS Consulting Group in the Amount of $85,880 for the Americans With Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan Update Project (Capital Improvement Project PF-93009). 5. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C18168154 With SWA Services to Provide Janitorial Services in the Police Department for the Amount of $377,150 over the Contract's Five-year Term, Including $335,025 for Basic Services and $42,125 for Additional Services, for a Total Five-year Contract to Provide Citywide Janitorial Services Not-to- Exceed Amount of $11,029,765. 6. Resolution 9807 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated Municipal Election Held on November 6, 2018.” 7. QUASI-JUDICIAL: 2515-2585 El Camino Real [18PLN-00187]: Request Approval of a Final Map for a 0.96 Acre Site at 2515 and 2585 El Camino Real [18PLN-00187] for Condominium Purposes for 13 Residential Units and up to 13 Retail Commercial Units With Access and Utility Easements. Environmental Assessment: Previously Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for the Associated Development Application (15PLN-00170), Zoning District: CN and CC(2). 8. Resolution 9808 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy.” 9. Approval of an Amendment to Contract Number C14151181 With SAP America to Extend the Term for Two-years for Maintenance and Support of the ERP System in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $495,168. 10. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C17156080 With Lexington Planning to Extend the Term for One-year for $32,000 to Provide Long-range Planning Support. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/17/18 11. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C18170335 With Concordia, LLC for Professional Services for Cubberley Community Center Master Plan and Visioning to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount by $43,720 and to Include Greendell School and 525 San Antonio Road Sites to the Scope of Services; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment Number 1 to the Mutual Cooperation and Cost Share Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District Related to Cubberley Community Center Master Plan Consultants to add the Additional Scope and Costs to the Agreement for up to $21,860; and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund. 12. Resolution 9809 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Violations of Chapter 4.42 (Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.” 13. Authorization for the City Manager to Extend the Existing Pilot Program to Allow the use of Autonomous Robots, Also Known as Personal Delivery Devices (PDDs). 14. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S16163031 With Triple HS Inc., dba H.T. Harvey & Associates, to Increase the Contract by $31,150 to Extend the Term Through December 31, 2021 and add Additional Services, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $54,029 for the San Francisquito Creek Pump Station Riparian Mitigation Monitoring. 15. Authorization for the City Manager to Enter Into a Comprehensive Agreement With the Peninsula Joint Powers Board on the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. 16. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018. 17. Finance Committee Recommends Council Approve an Audio Visual Project for Legislative Meeting Management and Improved Community Engagement. 18. Ordinance 5456 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16, Chapters 16.58 (Development Impact Fees), 16.59 (Citywide Transportation Impact Fees), and 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) to add Development Impact Fee Exemptions for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and Certain Accessory DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/17/18 Dwelling Units Established by Garage Conversion (FIRST READING: December 3, 2018 PASSED: 6-3 Holman, Kou, Tanaka No).” 19. Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Approve the $4 Million in General Fund Savings and Approve Corresponding Budget Amendments in Various Funds and the Table of Organization. 20. Approval of the Appointment of Council Member Fine as the Alternate to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Group 2 Cities Working Group. MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-12, 14, 16: 9-0 MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13: 8-1 Kou no MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 15: 7-2 DuBois, Kou no MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17: 8-1 Tanaka no MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 18: 6-3 Holman, Kou, Tanaka no MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20: 8-1 Kou no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:31 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Regular Meeting December 17, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:39 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Study Session 1. Study Session With Santa Clara County Supervisor Simitian. NO ACTION TAKEN Action Items 1A. (Former Agenda Item Number 19) Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Approve the $4 Million in General Fund Savings and Approve Corresponding Budget Amendments in Various Funds and the Table of Organization (Continued From December 17, 2018 4:30 P.M. meeting). MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded Vice Mayor Filseth to: A. Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Appropriation for various funds as identified by Staff; B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Table of Organization for the General Fund to: i. Eliminate 1.0 Performance Auditor I in the Office of the City Auditor; ii. Reduce 1.4 Building Serviceperson-Lead and reduce 0.75 Building Serviceperson positions; and C. Amend the Fiscal Year Table of Organization for Other Funds to increase by 1.4 Building Serviceperson-Lead and increase by 0.75 Building Serviceperson. MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Holman no DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/1718 2. Discussion and Direction on the Status and use of the Roth Building, Extension of Fundraising Period With the Palo Alto History Museum, and Adoption of Resolution 9810 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for County Grant Application to use the Roth Building Consistent With Park use for 20 Years.” MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Extend the deadline by six months for the Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM) to achieve the goal of raising $1.75 million as set by Council in 2017 (to allow for validation of PAHM fundraising); B. Direct Staff to revise and update the lease agreement between the Palo Alto History Museum and return to City Council in six months for approval; and C. Adopt a Resolution designating the Roth Building as a park and committing to use the Roth Building consistent with park use for a period of no less than 20 years and making other representations to apply for historic preservation grant funds from the County of Santa Clara to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part D “Transfer the $665,000 of Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve Fund.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss direct Staff to return to Council to dedicate $65,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to the Sea Scouts. AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 Fine, Kou no MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Extend the deadline by six months for the Palo Alto History (PAHM) to achieve the goal of raising $1.75 million as set by Council in 2017 (to allow for validation of PAHM fundraising); B. Direct Staff to revise and update the lease agreement between the Palo Alto History Museum and return to City Council in six months for approval; C. Adopt a Resolution designating the Roth Building as a park and committing to use the Roth Building consistent with park use for a period DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/1718 of no less than 20 years and making other representations to apply for historic preservation grant funds from the County of Santa Clara to rehabilitate the Roth Building roof; D. Transfer the $665,000 of Sea Scout Building Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) proceeds to the Roth Building Rehabilitation Reserve Fund; and E. Direct Staff to return to Council to dedicate $65,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to the Sea Scouts. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 3. Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consider the Following Actions: a) Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; b) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; c) Address the Rail Committee’s Recommendation Regarding a Deep Bore Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of California Avenue Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and d) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives. Mayor Kniss advised she would not participate in this item as she owns property within 500 feet of this project. She left the meeting at 9:32 P.M. Vice Mayor Filseth advised he would not participate in this item as his residence is within 500 feet of this project. He left the meeting at 9:32 P.M. Council took a break at 9:32 P.M. and returned at 9:42 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to continue this item to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Wolbach no, Filseth, Kniss recused Mayor Kniss and Vice Mayor Filseth returned at 10:51 P.M. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 429 University Avenue [18PLN- 00240]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Denial of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Proposed Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsman Related to a Previously Approved Mixed-Use Project. Environmental Assessment: Use of DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/1718 Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial With Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay) (Continued From December 3, 2018). Public Hearing was opened at 11:09 P.M. Public Hearing was closed at 11:31 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to modify the Director’s October 16, 2018 decision to provide for approval of all aspects of the architectural review application (18PLN00240) and approve the corresponding Record of Land Use Action included in the at-places memo dated December 17, 2018. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to require that approval be subject to the project matching what is being presented to the City Council tonight. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to use the lighter color scheme for the concrete. AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to modify the Director’s October 16, 2018 decision to provide for approval of all aspects of the architectural review application (18PLN00240), approve the corresponding Record of Land Use Action included in the at-places memo dated December 17, 2018, and use the lighter color scheme for the concrete. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no 5. Approval of Annual Amendments to the Employment Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and Council Appointed Officers. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the following contract amendments for Council Appointed Officers: A. Amendment Number Six to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Molly S. Stump; B. Amendment Number Four to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Harriet M. Richardson; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 12/1718 C. Amendment Number Four to Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Beth D. Minor. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:42 A.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 2 Regular Meeting January 7, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:25 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: The Honorable Thomas Kuhnle swore in Council Member Alison Cormack. Beth Minor, City Clerk swore in Council Members Tom DuBois and Eric Filseth. Special Orders of the Day 1. Election of the 2019 Mayor. NOMINATION: Mayor Kniss nominated Vice Mayor Filseth for Mayor for 2019. NOMINATION PASSED: 7-0 2. Election of the 2019 Vice Mayor. NOMINATION: Council Member Kniss nominated Council Member Fine for Vice Mayor for 2019. NOMINATION: Council Member Kou nominated Council Member DuBois for Vice Mayor for 2019. Council Member DuBois declined the nomination. NOMINATION PASSED: 6-1 Kou no 3. Resolution 9811 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation for Outstanding Public Service to Cory Wolbach as Council Member.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/7/19 MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to adopt a Resolution expressing appreciation for outstanding public service to Cory Wolbach as Council Member. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 4. Resolution 9812 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation for Outstanding Public Service to Karen Holman as Mayor and Council Member.” MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt a Resolution expressing appreciation for outstanding public service Karen Holman as Mayor and Council Member. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 5. Resolution 9813 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation for Outstanding Public Service to H. Gregory Scharff as Mayor and Council Member.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to adopt a Resolution expressing appreciation for outstanding public service to H. Gregory Scharff as Mayor and Council Member. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 6. Resolution 9814 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation for Outstanding Public Service to Liz Kniss as 2018 Mayor.” MOTION: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to adopt a Resolution expressing appreciation for outstanding public service to Liz Kniss as 2018 Mayor. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9272) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project End-Pilot Report Title: Receive Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project End-pilot Report and Direction to Adopt the Current Configuration as a Permanent Feature From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council receive the summary and results of a one-year pilot project on Middlefield Road between the Menlo Park city limits and Forest Avenue, and approve permanent retention of the roadway modifications that were implemented in June 2017. Executive Summary: On January 23, 2017, City Council approved implementation of a one-year traffic safety pilot for Middlefield Road with extensive monitoring of the corridor and adjacent areas. This report represents a summary of the detailed report developed by Alta Planning+Design, included as Attachment A. The approved plan included a traditional road diet that removed one travel lane in each direction between Palo Alto Avenue and Everett Avenue, added a two-way left-turn lane, and converted turn restrictions from limited time-of-day to full time at the intersections of Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue. The installation of these measures was completed in mid-June 2017. Staff documented travel patterns of the one-year pilot test for Middlefield Road North and divided the test into three evaluation periods: • Pre-pilot: Prior to construction of the temporary re-configuration (spring 2017) • Mid-pilot: The first three months after construction (fall 2017) • End-pilot: The last three months before concluding the temporary re-configuration (spring 2018) City of Palo Alto Page 2 On December 11, 2017 City Council received a mid-year report describing the results of the pre- pilot and mid-pilot data collection efforts. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the end-pilot; and based on the findings of the data collection, Staff recommends that Council adopt the roadway modifications as permanent and direct Staff to consider use of more permanent materials. Background: The Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project was initiated in July 2016, in response to resident concerns of traffic conditions along Middlefield Road from Forest Avenue to the Menlo Park city limits, and unsatisfactory results of signed turn restrictions during the peak travel periods. Residents cited traffic congestion, collisions/safety, high travel speeds, pedestrian comfort, and noise as concerns, and identified improved safety and quality of life as the primary goals of the project between Menlo Park city limits and Forest Avenue. In August 2016, Staff convened a meeting with the local resident group to identify and prioritize issues of concern along Middlefield Road. Staff worked with the neighborhood group to identify community needs and potential changes to the roadway to improve traffic safety along the project corridor. A community workshop was held in October 2016 at the Downtown Library where Staff presented five (5) concept ideas to address identified concerns with the option to mix and match various features from each concept plan. As a result of this community-driven process, Staff identified two alternative concept plans that would address most of the community concerns. The selected plans were slightly modified to limit impacts to motor vehicle level of service (LOS) and better address pedestrian safety. City Council approved the road diet concept plan on January 23, 2017 and directed Staff to implement a one-year pilot project. The pilot roadway changes were implemented in June 2017. Specifically, the two southbound lanes between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue were tapered down into one lane; the four lanes between Palo Alto Avenue and Everett Avenue were converted to two directional lanes and a two-way center turn lane with dedicated left turn lanes at Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue. In the northbound direction, one lane between Everett Avenue and Lytton Avenue was removed and the northbound approach to Lytton Avenue was converted to one through lane and one left-turn only lane. In addition, full time right-turn only restrictions were implemented through the use of temporary rubber raised medians and signage at the Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue approaches to Middlefield. Discussion: The detailed technical report included as Attachment A, describes the results of the end-pilot and provides a complete evaluation of the project. To determine if the pilot project was City of Palo Alto Page 3 successful in meeting the stated goals, a series of 20 performance measures were tracked during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. These metrics fall within the following categories: • Safety • Efficiency • Diversion • Reliability • Opinion Safety Vehicular collisions occurring along Middlefield Road are of particular concern amongst residents. Past collisions resulted in injuries and encroachment onto the sidewalk areas and private properties, creating safety and quality of life concerns for the residents that live and travel along Middlefield Road. The primary goal for this project was to reduce vehicular collisions and improve corridor safety while minimizing impacts to vehicular operations. Reported collision data was obtained from the Palo Alto Police Department for the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. The Palo Alto Police Department shared motor vehicle-, bicycle-, and pedestrian-involved reported collisions on Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue to Channing Avenue. Motorists reported three collisions during the last six months of the pilot from January 2018 through June 2018 on Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and Lytton Avenue. This is a decrease from an average of six reported collisions in the same six-month period between 2012 and 2016. The safety countermeasures are believed to have contributed to reducing the collision rate in half, during the end-pilot period. This represented a five-year low for the corridor. Near-misses are close interactions between multiple roadway users that ultimately don’t result in a collision. The number of near-misses observed between the pre- and end-pilot period decreased by 100 percent during the weekday peak periods at two intersections along the project corridor. After an initial increase during the mid-pilot period while drivers became accustomed to the new roadway configuration, the number of observed near-misses at Middlefield Road/ Hawthorne Avenue and Middlefield Road/Everett Avenue during peak morning, mid-day, and evening periods dropped to zero. Based on the project survey, the number of residents with safety concerns about the project corridor was reduced between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods. Approximately 58 percent of respondents claimed an improvement in safety conditions as a result of the pilot project. Additional time to adapt to the roadway restrictions along with enforcement would address lingering safety concerns surrounding illegal turning maneuvers. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Efficiency A secondary objective of this project was to maintain the efficient movement of vehicles. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) and intersection queue lengths were measured to evaluate this category. LOS is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Staff collected turning movement counts at two signalized intersections --f Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road at University Avenue - - and evaluated LOS for these intersections. The LOS is based on the highest peak hour during each of the AM and PM peak periods. Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue intersection At the Middlefield Road/Lytton Avenue intersection, Level of Service (LOS) remained approximately the same between the pre- and mid- pilot period, but declined from “D” to “E” during the end-pilot period for the morning peak due to a six second increase in delay per vehicle. This may be attributed to the start of the separate Upgrade Downtown project, which involved a street closure of University Avenue in the downtown area and a subsequent detour of University Avenue traffic to Lytton Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. The midday and evening peak period levels of service stayed the same at ‘E’ between pre-pilot and end-pilot periods but experienced an eight second and a 16 second increase in delay per vehicle, respectively. The delay increases may also be attributable to the detours from University Avenue. During the peak periods at this intersection, an increased potential for queues to back-up into the next intersection in the northbound direction was observed due to lane reconfiguration. This queuing was also observed to increase after the start of the Upgrade Downtown project closures of University Avenue. Overall, the potential for back-ups increased due to the reduction from two lanes to one lane in the northbound direction. In response, City Staff implemented coordinated signal timing programs during the AM and PM peak periods. Though the queues may extend between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue, the two intersections were observed to generally operate with improved conditions versus the pre-project condition without coordination. Adding signal coordination during the midday is currently being considered and would be investigated further if this project were to be approved for permanent retention. Staff will collect new traffic data upon completion of the Upgrade Downtown project. At this intersection, occasional traffic disruptions were observed when transit or shuttle related vehicles utilize the bus stop located on the northeast corner in the northbound direction of Middlefield Road. Because the bus stop is located immediately after the traffic signal and only one northbound lane exists, buses or shuttles would temporarily block the lane and result in vehicles stopping in the intersection and limiting capacity. This may be addressed with modifications to the corner however may be complicated due to existing utility equipment. Further evaluation of corner modifications could be considered as part of additional or future City of Palo Alto Page 5 improvements if this project were to be approved for permanent retention. Middlefield Road at University Avenue intersection Intersection delay increased at Middlefield Road/University Avenue intersection during the morning peak period between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods by approximately three seconds per vehicle. The midday and evening peak periods also experienced an approximately four second increase in delay per vehicle. However, the intersection continues to operate at LOS D or better during each of the peak periods, which is considered acceptable, per City standards. Like Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, this intersection operates with signal coordination during the AM and PM peak periods. At Middlefield Road and University Avenue during the morning and midday peak periods, for the 95th percentile queues were reduced with the exception of a minimal increase for the southbound direction during the midday period. During the PM peak, the northbound approach has experienced an increase in queue length, likely due to a combination of detours to Lytton Avenue due to the Upgrade Downtown project (University Avenue roadway closure) and the reconfiguration at Lytton Avenue of only one northbound through lane. Overall, estimated queue lengths have generally decreased by end- pilot period. The slight decline in the operations of the signalized intersections with Lytton Avenue and University Avenue may be due to the effects of ongoing construction along University Avenue as part of City’s Upgrade Downtown project. It is assumed that upon completion of the Upgrade Downtown project, these two intersections would operate at approximately similar or improved levels of service (due to added coordination) as compared to the pre-pilot project. Diversion Traffic diversion from Middlefield Road to parallel streets and cross streets, motor vehicle traffic volumes and vehicle classifications was measured by data collected at 12 locations within the project study area during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. It should be noted that due to turn restrictions onto Middlefield Road from Hawthorne and Everett Avenues from the local neighborhoods, some traffic is expected and intended to divert to Lytton Avenue or University Avenue to access Middlefield Road. At five parallel routes to Middlefield Road, the average number of motor vehicles calculated over a two-day period increased from 687 vehicles during pre-pilot period to 952 vehicles during end-pilot period, including a daily increase of 197 vehicles trips on Webster, 301 trips on Byron, 387 trips on Fulton, and a 441 daily trip increase on Guinda. These increases range between 20 and 100 percent, however the end-pilot project total average daily traffic (ADT) for the local and collector streets generally remain at levels consistent with the acceptable ranges City of Palo Alto Page 6 for the respective roadway classifications. Though the parallel streets experienced the increase in vehicle trips, Hawthorne Avenue experienced a decrease of approximately 1183 trips (33.3 percent reduction) and Everett Avenue between Byron and Middlefield experienced a decrease of 1,127 trips (37 percent reduction). As anticipated much of the traffic within the local streets diverted from Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue to other local streets in order to reach Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road, or University Avenue. An additional data collection effort may be considered upon completion of the Upgrade Downtown Project. The amount of heavy vehicles on the local streets generally stayed approximately the same with fluctuations of about 20 or less daily trips. Guinda Street is classified as a collector street and experienced an increase of approximately 63 heavy vehicles. Additional monitoring, enforcement, and evaluation may be considered for Guinda Street. Heavy vehicle trips on Middlefield Road, a Residential Arterial, fluctuated by segment, however remained approximately three percent of the total trips, which remains relatively normal for the respective roadway classification. Reliability Travel time reliability was compared by measuring how long it took to drive and ride transit along Middlefield Road between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods. The mean motor vehicle travel times along Middlefield Road between the pre-pilot and end- pilot increased by approximately four to 15 seconds for the Northbound and Southbound directions respectively. The overall average time for the Dumbarton Express to travel through the study area (from the Middlefield/Willow stop to the Lytton/ Cowper stop) increased slightly between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods by ten seconds. During the AM and PM peak period transit running times, the travel time increased by 47 seconds and three seconds respectively. Community Opinion Survey responses were mailed to residents living within the project study area during the pre, mid, and end periods. Support for keeping the safety measures implemented as part of the pilot project grew among survey respondents over the one-year testing period from 33 percent to 66 percent. While respondents still indicated issues that they would like to see resolved such as increased congestion (16 percent of write-in responses), many respondents indicated that the project made corridor conditions better and safer (31 percent of write-in responses). In addition to the survey responses, City Staff also received various emails regarding the project. City of Palo Alto Page 7 While some of the concerns of increased traffic on adjacent streets, much of the feedback regarding the revised configuration and operations have generally been positive. Permanent Improvements Should the Council approve permanent retention of the pilot project configuration as recommended, this approval would include direction to City Staff to investigate alternative roadway materials and to replace the current roadway furniture (temporary islands and delineators) used as part of the pilot project with more permanent products that would be more durable and effective. It is recommended that permanent materials still be removable to accommodate maintenance and other roadway work as needed. Staff would work with the neighbors and stakeholders to ensure an acceptable aesthetic appearance that maintains compliance with standard roadway requirements. Though a formal engineer’s cost estimate has not yet been established, the cost for replacement street furniture is estimated to be approximately $80,000. In addition, Staff would evaluate, develop, and test mid-day period traffic signal coordination between the intersections of Middlefield/Lytton and Middlefield/University. Summary: The goals of the one-year pilot project were to improve safety conditions without any major decreases in roadway efficiency and without a large diversion of traffic to parallel streets. The amount of time needed to drive the full corridor increased by seven seconds between the pre- pilot and end-pilot periods, and, on average, 265 motorists diverted from Middlefield Road to parallel routes each day, which is expected. This increase in travel time and subsequent diversion is, in part the result of physical turn restrictions at Hawthorne and Everett, increased delay at Lytton Avenue (nine seconds) and at University Avenue (three seconds), and the potential for an increased queuing during the peak traffic periods. However, the time needed for the Dumbarton Express to travel across the corridor improved by eight seconds, fewer heavy vehicles used the route (11 percent decrease), and more bicyclists (five percent increase) and pedestrians (13 percent increase) traveled along the Middlefield North corridor each day. Overall safety conditions improved in the study area, but some new safety concerns were created. The collision rate was reduced between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods by 56 percent, and the number of observed close calls was reduced to zero. Some motorists were observed driving around the installed traffic diverters or making illegal U-turns, which is considered a new hazardous maneuver. With enforcement and motorists acclimating to the new roadway configuration, the number of illegal maneuvers is anticipated to decrease. In general, motor vehicle speeds decreased in the study area, with an 11 percent decrease taking City of Palo Alto Page 8 place on Middlefield Road. Although, motor vehicles counts increased on parallel routes and cross streets, the average speeds remained below the posted speed limit. Survey respondents noted improved safety conditions, with 58 percent of 150 respondents indicating a belief that the project made the corridor safer. Twenty-six percent indicated that the project did not improve safety conditions and 16 percent responded as unsure. Because the pilot project is believed to have improved the overall safety conditions, and has received a majority support from survey respondents (66 percent in favor of keeping the changes, 20 percent against keeping, and 14 percent unsure), staff recommends that traffic calming measures be made a permanent safety feature along the Middlefield North corridor and that staff proceed with finding alternative roadway materials that provide more durability and aesthetic appearance. Policy Implications: Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the Middlefield North Traffic Safety project include: Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Policy T-24: Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Program T-34: Establish procedures for considering the effects of street modifications on emergency vehicle response time. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the need of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Program T-39: Maintain the current program of not adding traffic signals on Alma Street north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Churchill Avenue and on Middlefield Road north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Embarcadero Road. Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods Policy T-30: Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating certain streets as residential arterials. Program T-41: The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds. • Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road) Policy T-33: Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes. Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections Resource Impact : Permanent retention of the pilot configuration would require minmal resources; however replacement of the temporary/pilot roadway equipment is estimated to cost approximately $80,000. This would be funded from the City’s current Transportation and Parking CIP, PL- 12000. There is sufficient budget in this project, as approved in the Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Capital Budget. No additional budget is needed. Timeline: With approval of permanent retention, Staff would begin investigating alternate roadway material immediately. Replacement of the roadway furniture would be anticipated for late City of Palo Alto Page 10 spring or summer 2019. Environmental Review The pilot project qualified for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption. The Class 1 exemption covers minor alterations to existing facilities so long as they involve no or negligible expansion of use. Although the pilot project included a lane reduction on Middlefield Road, the overall roadway capacity change was minimal because two lanes were maintained at the intersections with Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. There is a slight decline in the operations of the signalized intersections with Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. However, this is due to the downstream impacts of ongoing construction along University Avenue as part of City’s ‘Upgrade Downtown’ project. It is assumed that upon completion of Upgrade Downtown project, signalized intersections would operate at approximately the same motor vehicle level of service as prior to the implementation of the pilot project. Attachments: Attachment A: Detailed Evaluation Report for Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project (PDF) MEMO City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 1 100 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 www.altaplanning.com To: Ruchika Aggarwal and Rafael Rius (City of Palo Alto) From: Hugh Louch and Kyle James (Alta Planning + Design) Date: January 3, 2019 Re: Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation – Technical Memorandum Introduction To improve traffic safety conditions on Middlefield Road in northwest Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto tested a temporary re-configuration of the roadway on Middlefield Road from the north City limit (San Francisquito Creek) to Forest Avenue. This technical memorandum documents the impacts of the one-year test for the Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation for the segment of the roadway between Palo Alto Avenue and Lytton Avenue and divides the test into three evaluation periods: Pre-pilot: Prior to construction of the temporary re-configuration (summer 2017) Mid-pilot: The first three (3) months after construction of the temporary re-configuration (fall 2017) End-pilot: The last three (3) months before concluding the temporary re-configuration (summer 2018) At the conclusion of the end-pilot period, the project will be presented to Palo Alto’s City Council for adoption as a permanent feature along Middlefield Road, for modification, or for reversal to pre-pilot conditions. To help inform the City Council’s decision, the City of Palo Alto identified a series of performance measures within five (5) categories to track over the life of the project: 1. Health & Safety o Reported collisions o Observed near-miss collisions o Hazardous maneuvers o Motor vehicle speeds o Outdoor sound levels 2. Intersection Impacts o Intersection turning movement counts o Intersection level of service o Intersection queue lengths 3. Traffic Diversion o Traffic volumes o Motor vehicle classifications 4. Travel Reliability o Motor vehicle travel times and buffer time indices o Transit running times 5. Public Opinion o Resident survey responses City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 2 Study Area From January 2014 to April 2017, nearly 100 collisions occurred on Middlefield Road between the north City limit and Forest Avenue (see Figure 1). The City of Palo Alto identified this Middlefield North corridor as a strong candidate for a road diet and implementation of traffic calming measures. As part of the City’s commitment to building better and safer streets, it began a traffic safety program, which included improved safety conditions on the Middlefield North corridor without any major decreases in roadway efficiency and without a large diversion of traffic to parallel streets (see Figure 2 for a photo of pre-pilot travel conditions on the Middlefield North corridor). Figure 1: Middlefield North Road Diet Study Area City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 3 Figure 2: Pre-pilot Conditions on Middlefield North Corridor To achieve these goals, the City of Palo Alto created a one-year pilot project which included a road diet of the Middlefield North corridor. The City converted four-lane segments on the Middlefield North corridor into two lanes with a center turn lane and added turn restrictions at select intersections. Specifically, the City tested the following changes: Two southbound lanes between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue were tapered into one lane Four lanes between Palo Alto Avenue and Everett Avenue were converted to two bi-directional lanes and a center turn lane One northbound lane between Everett Avenue and Lytton Avenue was removed Left-turn restrictions were implemented through the use of temporary rubber medians at the Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue intersections City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 4 Limitations During the end-pilot period, the City of Palo Alto began ‘Upgrade Downtown’, a utilities and street improvement project that overlapped with part of the Middlefield North Road Diet corridor. Construction from the concurrent project directly impacted multiple intersections along the study corridor (see Figure 3), and it likely had downstream impacts on travel patterns. While it was not possible to quantify the exact influence that ‘Upgrade Downtown’ had on the study corridor during the study period, it was assumed that ongoing construction resulted in a decrease in through motor vehicle traffic along the Middlefield North corridor. Figure 3: 'Upgrade Downtown' Improvement Area City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 5 Health & Safety The health and safety of roadway users within the study area is the primary concern of the City of Palo Alto for the Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation. For this evaluation category, five (5) performance measures were identified: Reported collisions – The number and rate of motor vehicle-, bicycle-, and pedestrian-involved collisions along the project corridor that were reported to, and provided by, the Palo Alto Police Department Near-miss collisions – The number of unsafe travel behaviors at two (2) intersections along the project corridor that resulted in close interactions between multiple roadway users Hazardous maneuvers – The number of illegal travel behaviors at two (2) intersections along the project corridor that did not result in close interactions between multiple roadway users Motor vehicle speeds – The average speed of motor vehicles at 12 locations along the project corridor, parallel streets, and cross streets Outdoor sound levels – The weighted average of outdoor ambient noise at two (2) locations within the project study area The rate of reported collisions was cut in half between the pre- and end-pilot periods, from 4 collisions per 100 days to 2 collisions per 100 days. While three (3) collisions were reported during the end-pilot period, this represented a five-year low compared to historic data for the corridor between 2012 and 2016. The number of near-miss collisions observed between the pre- and end-pilot period decreased by 100 percent during the weekday peak periods at two intersections along the project corridor (from 4 near-miss collisions to 0 near-miss collisions). After an initial increase in near-miss collisions observed through review of traffic camera video during the mid-pilot period and reported by residents through the mid-pilot survey, survey respondents noticed a marked improvement in overall safety conditions which was reflected in reviewed video at the two (2) intersections. The number of observed hazardous maneuvers increased from 0 during the pre-pilot period to 39 during the end- pilot period, with most hazardous maneuvers coming from motorists driving around the temporary delineator posts or performing illegal u-turns to avoid the posts. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 6 The average motor vehicle speed at the three (3) observed locations on Middlefield Road decreased from 25 mph to 23 mph during between the pre- and end-pilot periods (-10.5 percent). However, the average motor vehicle speed at the five (5) observed parallel street locations increased from 17 mph to 19 mph between the pre- and end-pilot periods (13.1 percent), and the average motor vehicle speed at the four (4) observed cross street locations increased from 17 mph to 19 mph between the pre- and end-pilot periods (8.8 percent). Adjusting for volumes on each roadway, the median motor vehicle speeds decreased from 25 mph to 24 mph between the pre- and end-pilot periods (-5.8 percent). The weighted average of outdoor sound levels increased by 4.7 percent between the pre- and end-pilot periods from 61.5 dB to 61.9 dB.1 This may be the result of random variation over a limited sample size or may represent an increase in frequency and length of loud noise events such as honking or heavy braking. 1 Note: Decibels are measured along a logarithmic scale City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 7 Reported Collisions, Observed Near-miss Collisions, and Hazardous Maneuvers Reported collision data was obtained from the Palo Alto Police Department for the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. The Palo Alto Police Department shared reported collisions on Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue (100 block) to University Avenue (400 block), as summarized in Table 1 and Figure 4 or documented in full detail in Table 28-A and Table 28-B. Because some collisions go unreported or some travel behaviors contribute to an unsafe environment, data on close interactions between multiple roadway users (near misses) and unsafe travel behaviors that did not result in close interactions (hazardous maneuvers) was observed through the replay of recorded traffic camera video. These near-miss collisions and hazardous maneuvers were observed during the assumed morning (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM), midday (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM), and evening (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods at two intersections along the study corridor: Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue and Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue. Table 2 and Figure 5 show a summary of the near-miss collisions and Table 29 contains a detailed list. Table 3 and Figure 5 show a summary of hazardous maneuvers and Table 30 contains a detailed list. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for reported collisions was defined as January 1, 2012 to December, 2016. Historic collision data during this 1,827-day period showed a range of 11 to 19 reported collisions per year along Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue. During this period, there were on average 0.04 collisions per day. Near-miss collisions and hazardous maneuvers for the pre-pilot period were observed on April 18, 2017 and April 19, 2017. There were two (2) near-miss collisions observed at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Hawthorne Avenue, both resulting from interactions between motor vehicles. Similarly, there were two (2) near-miss collisions observed at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Everett Avenue, with the first resulting from a vehicle-vehicle interaction and the second from a vehicle-pedestrian interaction. No hazardous maneuvers were observed during the pre-pilot period. Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for reported collisions was defined as July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Historic collision data on Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue during this 183- to 184-day period showed a range of six (6) to ten (10) reported collisions between 2014 and 2016. There were no reported collisions during the mid-pilot period, representing a 100.0 percent decrease from the pre-pilot period. Near-miss collisions and hazardous maneuvers for the mid-pilot period were observed on October 4, 2017 and October 5, 2017. There were two (2) near-miss collisions observed at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Hawthorne Avenue, both resulting from interactions between motor vehicles. Compared to the pre-pilot period, the intersection of Middlefield Road and Everett Avenue saw an uptick in near-miss collisions with five (5) observed during the mid-pilot period. Three (3) of the five (5) near-misses involved vehicle-vehicle interactions, one involved a vehicle-bicyclists interaction, and one involved a vehicle-pedestrian interaction. Also observed was an increase in hazardous maneuvers between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods, increasing from zero (0) observed hazardous maneuvers to 28 hazardous maneuvers. Among the 28 observed hazardous maneuvers, 15 were the result of motorists making illegal turns around delineator posts or making illegal u-turns to avoid the intersection (54 percent). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 8 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for reported collisions was defined as January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018. Historic collision data from the Palo Alto Police Department between 2012 and 2016 during this 180- to 181-day period showed a range of four (4) to nine (9) collisions. The historic rate of collisions during this period was between 0.02 collisions per day and 0.05 collisions per day. The number of reported collisions along Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue during the end-pilot period fell below the historic range, with three (3) collisions leading to four (4) injuries and no fatalities. Police reports indicated that all three of the end-pilot collisions were the result of interactions between multiple motor vehicles, with one resulting in a side swipe collision, one resulting in a head-on collision, and the third with no collision type reported. Among the three collision reports, only one included a primary collision factor: unsafe turn. The collision rate during the end-pilot period of 0.02 collisions per day matched the lowest collision rate for the same period between 2012 and 2016 (the study corridor 0.02 collisions per day in 2012 and 2013) and represented a 55.9 percent decrease from the average rate of 0.04 collisions per day. The safety countermeasures appeared to contribute to the reversal of the upward trend of collisions seen between 2012 and 2016; however, some collisions do persist along the corridor. Observation of near-miss collisions and hazardous maneuvers during the end-pilot period took place on April 17, 2018 and April 18, 2018. There were no near miss collisions observed during the end-pilot period, representing a 100 percent decrease from the pre-pilot period (4 observed near-miss events to 0 near miss events). However, observed hazardous maneuvers increased between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods (0 observed hazardous maneuvers to 39 hazardous maneuvers). The majority (74 percent) of the observed hazardous maneuvers during the end-pilot period were motorist making illegal turns around the delineator posts or making illegal u-turns to avoid the intersection. The most common hazardous maneuver was motorists avoiding delineator posts while turning left (southbound) from Everett Avenue onto Middlefield Road (43 percent). There was also an observed increase in the number of pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed electric vehicle users (Segway) displaying hazardous behavior by either crossing the street outside of the crosswalk while oncoming motor vehicle traffic was present (18 percent). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 9 Table 1: Summary of Reported Collisions Location* PRE-PILOT† MID-PILOT†† END-PILOT††† Collisions Days Observed Rate Collisions Days Observed Rate (% Change) Collisions Days Observed Rate (% Change) Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue** 69 1,827 0.04/day 0 183 0.00/day (-100.0%) 3 180 0.02/day (-55.9%) Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue 11 1,827 0.01/day 0 183 0.00/day (-100.0%) 0 180 0.00/day (-100.0%) Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue 39 1,827 0.02/day 0 183 0.00/day (-100.0%) 0 180 0.02/day (-100.0%) * Source: Palo Alto Police Department, Middlefield Road (100 block to 400 block) ** Includes intersections of Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue and Middlefield at Everett Avenue listed in the two rows below † January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 †† July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 †† January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 Table 2: Summary of Observed Near-miss Collisions PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT Location* April 18 & April 19, 2017 (% change) October 4 & October 5, 2017 (% change) April 17 & April 18, 2018 (% change) Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue 2 2 (0.0%) 0 (-100.0%) Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue 2 5 (150%) 0 (-100.0%) Total 4 7 (75.0%) 0 (-100.0%) * Observed on two weekdays from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM Table 3: Summary of Observed Hazardous Maneuvers* PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT Location** April 18 - April 19, 2017 October 4 - October 5, 2017 April 17 – April 18, 2018 Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue 0 11 8 Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue 0 17 31 Total 0 28 39 * Includes motorists making illegal turning maneuvers, bicyclists and pedestrians making risky crossing decisions, motorists failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, and motorists driving around delineator posts ** Observed on two weekdays from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM, and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 10 4 7 00 28 39 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 PRE MID END Ob s e r v e d Ev e n t s NEAR MISS HAZARD 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (July ‐ Dec) 2018 (Jan ‐ Jun) Co l l i s i o n s pe r Da y Figure 4: Rate of Reported Collisions (Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue) Figure 5: Observed Near-Miss and Hazardous Maneuver Events City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 11 Motor Vehicle Speeds Motor vehicle speeds were observed at 12 locations within the project study area (three on the Middlefield Road corridor, five on parallel routes, and four on cross streets) during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods: Middlefield Road Corridor o Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue (west) and Palo Alto Avenue (east) o Middlefield Road between Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue o Middlefield Road between Everett Avenue and Lytton Avenue Parallel Routes o Webster Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue o Byron Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue o Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue o Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue o Guinda Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue Cross Streets o Palo Alto Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street o Hawthorne Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road o Everett Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road o Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street Bi-directional speed data was collected through pneumatic tubes placed across each of the study streets over a 24- hour period on two weekdays. See Table 4 and Figure 6 for a summary of observed motor vehicle speeds at the 12 locations and see Table 31 for a detailed list. Overall, while there was an observed decrease in motor vehicle speeds along Middlefield Road between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods; however, parallel and cross streets observed an increase in motor vehicle speeds. This suggests that although the safety interventions were successful in decreasing speeds on Middlefield Road, faster through traffic may have been diverted to parallel routes and cross streets. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot traffic data collection period for motor vehicle speeds was defined as April 18, 2017 through April 19, 2017 for the 12 locations within the project study area. The average motor vehicle speed during the pre-pilot period for all 12 locations was 19 mph, and the average 85th percentile speed for all 12 locations was 25 mph. The median motor vehicle speed during the pre-pilot period at the three locations on Middlefield Road ranged between 26 mph and 28 mph, slightly above the posted speed limit of 25 mph. The 85th percentile motor vehicle speed at the three locations on Middlefield Road ranged between 32 mph and 33 mph. For the six parallel routes (Webster Street, Byron Street, Guinda Street, and two locations on Fulton Street), the median motor vehicle speeds ranged between 15 mph and 20 mph and the 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds ranged between 19 mph and 25 mph. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 12 For the remaining four cross streets (Palo Alto Avenue, Hawthorne Avenue, and two locations on Everett Avenue), the median motor vehicle speeds ranged between 17 mph and 20 mph and the 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds ranged between 22 mph and 24 mph. Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot traffic data collection period for motor vehicle speeds was defined as October 25, 2017 through October 26, 2017 for the 12 locations within the project study area. The average motor vehicle speed during the mid- pilot period for all 12 locations was 19 mph, and the average 85th percentile speed was 25 mph, showing no overall change compared to the pre-pilot period. Data was also initially collected on October 4, 2017 through October 5, 2017; however, equipment failures at three locations prompted the need to re-collect data for all 12 locations later in the month. The median motor vehicle speed during the mid-pilot period at the three locations on Middlefield Road ranged between 21 mph and 24 mph, representing a 3.7 percent to 11.5 percent decrease from the pre-pilot period. The 85th percentile motor vehicle speed during the mid-pilot period at the three locations on Middlefield Road ranged between 28 mph and 32 mph, representing a 3.0 percent and 12.5 percent decrease from the pre-pilot period. For the six parallel routes to the Middlefield Road corridor, the median motor vehicle speeds ranged between 11 mph and 20 mph, representing increases and decreases at various locations compared to the pre-pilot period. The median motor vehicle speed decreased on Webster Street (-5.0 percent) and Guinda Street (-26.7 percent), stayed the same on Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue (0.0 percent), and increased on Byron Street (5.3 percent) and Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue (17.6 percent). The 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds on the parallel routes ranged between 18 mph and 25 mph. Compared to the pre-pilot period, the 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds decreased on Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue (-5.3 percent), Webster Street (-4.0 percent), and Guinda Street (-5.3 percent), stayed the same on Byron Street (0.0 percent), and increased on Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue (8.7 percent). For the four cross streets, the median motor vehicle speed ranged between 17 mph and 18 mph. Compared to the pre-pilot period, the median motor vehicle speed decreased at Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street (-10.0 percent) and Palo Alto Avenue (-5.6 percent), and it increased at Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street (5.9 percent) and Hawthorne Avenue (5.9 percent). The 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds during the mid-pilot period on the four cross streets ranged between 22 mph and 23 mph. Compared to the pre- pilot period, the 85th percentile motor vehicle speed decreased on Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street (-4.2 percent), stayed the same at Palo Alto Avenue (0.0 percent), and increased at Everett Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road (4.5 percent) and Hawthorne Avenue (4.5 percent). Adjusting for volumes along each roadway during the mid-pilot period, the median speed at the observed locations was 24 mph, a 6.7 percent decrease from the pre-pilot volume-adjusted median speed. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 13 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot traffic data collection period for motor vehicle speeds was defined as April 18, 2017 through April 19, 2017 for the 12 locations within the project study area. The average motor vehicle speed during the end-pilot period for all 12 locations was 20 mph (3.9 percent increase over pre-pilot speeds), and the average 85th percentile speed was 26 mph (2.3 percent increase over pre-pilot speeds). The median motor vehicle speed during the end-pilot period at the three locations on Middlefield Road ranged between 23 mph and 26 mph, representing a 3.7 percent to 11.5 percent decrease from the pre-pilot period. The 85th percentile motor vehicle speed during the end-pilot period at the three locations on Middlefield Road ranged between 29 mph and 32 mph, representing a 3.0 percent and 9.4 percent decrease from the pre-pilot period. For the six parallel routes to the Middlefield Road corridor, the median motor vehicle speeds ranged between 19 mph and 21 mph, representing increases and decreases at various locations compared to the pre-pilot period. The median motor vehicle speed decreased on Webster Street (-5.0 percent) and increased on Byron Street (5.3 percent), Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and University (23.5 percent), Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue (5.0 percent), and Guinda Street (5.0 percent). The 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds on the parallel routes ranged between 23 mph and 27 mph. Compared to the pre-pilot period, the 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds decreased on Webster Street (-4.0 percent) but increased on Byron Street (4.2 percent), Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and University (13.0 percent), Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue (8.0 percent), and Guinda Street (26.3 percent). For the four cross streets, the median motor vehicle speed ranged between 18 mph and 20 mph. Compared to the pre-pilot period, the median motor vehicle speed stayed the same on Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street and increased on Palo Alto Avenue (5.6 percent), Hawthorne Avenue (5.9 percent), and on Everett Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road (5.9 percent). The 85th percentile motor vehicle speeds during the end-pilot period on the four cross streets ranged between 23 mph and 24 mph. Compared to the pre-pilot period, the 85th percentile motor vehicle speed stayed the same on Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street but increased on Palo Alto Avenue (4.5 percent), on Hawthorne Avenue (4.5 percent), and on Everett Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road (4.5 percent). Adjusting for volumes along each roadway during the end-pilot period, the median speed at the observed locations was 24 mph, a 5.8 percent decrease from the pre-pilot volume-adjusted median speed. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 14 Table 4: Summary of Observed Motor Vehicle Speed PRE-PILOT* MID-PILOT** End-PILOT*** Miles per hour Miles per hour (% change from pre-pilot) Miles per hour (% change from pre-pilot) Corridor Begin End Mean Median 85th % Mean Median 85th % Mean Median 85th % Middlefield Road Palo Alto Avenue (west) Palo Alto Avenue (east) 26 27 33 24 (-7.7%) 26 (-3.7%) 32 (-3.0%) 24† (-7.7%) 26† (-3.7%) 32† (-3.0%) Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 26 28 33 24 (-7.7%) 26 (-7.1%) 31 (-6.1%) 23 (-11.5%) 26 (-7.1%) 31 (-6.1%) Middlefield Road Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 24 26 32 21 (-12.5%) 23 (-11.5%) 28 (-12.5%) 21 (-12.5%) 23 (-11.5%) 29 (-9.4%) Webster Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 19 20 25 18 (-5.3%) 19 (-5.0%) 24 (-4.0%) 17 (-10.5%) 19 (-5.0%) 24 (-4.0%) Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 17 19 24 18 (5.9%) 20 (5.3%) 24 (0.0%) 19 (11.8%) 20 (5.3%) 25 (4.2%) Fulton Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 16 17 23 19 (18.8%) 20 (17.6%) 25 (8.7%) 19 (11.8%) 19 (5.6%) 23 (4.5%) Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 19 20 25 18 (-5.3%) 20 (0.0%) 24 (-4.0%) 20 (25.0%) 21 (23.5%) 26 (13.0%) Guinda Street**** Lytton Avenue University Avenue 13 15 19 11 (-15.4%) 11 (-26.7%) 18 (-5.3%) 20 (5.3%) 21 (5.0%) 27 (8.0%) Palo Alto Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 17 18 22 17 (0.0%) 17 (-5.6%) 22 (0.0%) 19 (46.2%) 20 (33.3%) 24 (26.3%) Hawthorne Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 16 17 22 17 (6.3%) 18 (5.9%) 23 (4.5%) 18 (12.5%) 18 (5.9%) 23 (4.5%) Everett Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 16 17 22 18 (12.5%) 18 (5.9%) 23 (4.5%) 18 (12.5%) 18 (5.9%) 23 (4.5%) Everett Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 19 20 24 17 (-10.5%) 18 (-10.0%) 23 (-4.2%) 19 (0.0%) 20 (0.0%) 24 (0.0%) Average 19 20 25 19 (-2.6%) 20 (-3.3%) 25 (-2.3%) 20 (3.9%) 21 (2.9%) 26 (2.3%) * Average of bi-directional motor vehicle traffic values from Wednesday, April 18, 2017 and Thursday, April 19, 2017 ** Average of bi-directional motor vehicle traffic values from Wednesday, October 25, 2017 and Thursday, October 26, 2017 *** Average of bi-directional motor vehicle traffic values from Wednesday, April 18, 2018 and Thursday, April 19, 2018 **** Pneumatic tubes were disconnected from 12:00 PM on October 25, 2017 to 9:45 AM on October 26, 2017 † Due to equipment failure, data recollected on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 and Thursday, April 26, 2018 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 15 Figure 6: Observed Motor Vehicle Speeds City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 16 Outdoor Sound Levels Collection of outdoor sound levels was attempted at four locations within the project study area during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods: Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue Byron Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue However, equipment malfunctions at the Middlefield Road and Fulton Street locations resulted in their exclusion from the analysis. Sound level data was collected using micro noise dosimeters which are badge-sized sound meters designed to measure a person’s exposure to loud noises over time. See Table 5 and Figure 7 for a summary of sound level data and see Table 32 for a detailed list of sound level data. A common measure for prolonged periods of sound level data is Equivalent Continuous Level (LAeq), defined as the sound which would contain the same sound energy as the time varying sound. In other words, LAeq is a type of ‘average’, where noisy events have a significant influence.2 This measurement is useful in assessing prolonged periods of continuously high sound levels, such as motor vehicle honking or sudden braking during a commute period. “Moderate” outdoor urban sound levels fall between 60 dB and 69 dB and are the rough equivalent of a conversation or dishwasher running. “Loud” outdoor urban sound levels fall between 70 dB and 79 dB and are the rough equivalent of city traffic or an alarm clock (often considered to be annoyingly loud sounds). “Very loud” outdoor urban sound levels fall between 80 dB and 89 dB and are the rough equivalent of a noisy restaurant or person screaming (possible ear damage at eight hours of exposure).3 “Super loud” outdoor sound levels fall between 90 dB and 99dB and are the rough equivalent of a motorcycle (likely to cause ear damage at eight hours of exposure). Because decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, 60 dB is half as loud as 70 dB, 80 dB is twice as loud as 70 dB, and 90 dB is four times as loud as 70 dB. Overall, after an initial decrease in outdoor sound levels during the mid-pilot period, a small increase was observed between the pre- and end-pilot periods. 2 Energy Averaging. NoiseNet.Org <http://www.noisenet.org/Noise_Terms_Leq.htm> 3 Sound levels chart. Howard Goodyear (2012). <https://howardsgoodyearblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sound-levels-chart.jpg> City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 17 Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for sound level data collection was defined as April 19, 2017 from approximately 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM for the two locations with available data. The average LAeq for the pre-pilot period was 61.5 dB. The LAeq, tracked in one-minute increments, exceeded 80 dB twice during the pre-pilot period. The first “super loud” noise event was at Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue from 11:18 AM to 11:19 AM in which the dosimeter recorded an LAeq of 90.6 dB. The second “super loud” noise event was at Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue from 11:19 AM to 11:20 AM in which the dosimeter recorded an LAeq of 90.3 dB. Honking or loud yelling in close proximity of the measurement device could trigger the two (2) “super loud” events. Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for sound level data collection was defined as October 4, 2017 from approximately 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM for the two locations with available data. The average LAeq for the mid-pilot period was 61.2 dB. Compared to the pre-pilot period’s average overall LAeq of 61.5 dB, the mid-pilot period was 0.3 decibels quieter or approximately a 3.4 percent decrease in sound levels. The LAeq, tracked in one-minute increments, exceeded 80 dB twice during the mid-pilot period. The two “very loud” noise events took place during back-to-back one-minute intervals at Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue from 11:16 AM to 11:18 AM in which the dosimeter recorded an LAeq of 80.6 dB and 86.1 dB. End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for sound level data collection was defined as Thursday, April 19, 2018 from approximately 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM for the two locations with available data. The average LAeq for the end-pilot period was 61.9 dB. Compared to the pre-pilot’s average overall LAeq of 61.5 dB, the end-pilot period was 0.4 decibels louder or an approximately a 4.7 percent increase in sound levels. One-minute increment data could not be retrieved during the end-pilot period. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 18 61.9 61.2 61.5 60.8 61.0 61.2 61.4 61.6 61.8 62.0 END MID PRE Outdoor Sound Levels (dB) Table 5: Summary of Sound Level Data PRE-PILOT* MID-PILOT** END-PILOT*** Measure Begin End LAeq LAeq Percent change from pre- pilot†† LAeq Percent change from pre- pilot†† Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue Everett Street 68.1 dB 67.0 dB -11.9% 69.3 dB 14.8% Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue University Avenue 63.5 dB 65.6 dB 27.4% **** N/A Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 54.9 dB 55.3 dB 4.7% 58.0 dB 42.9% Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue **** 53.8 dB N/A 58.3 dB N/A Overall Average (excluding Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Street and Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue) † 61.5 dB 61.2 dB -3.4% 61.9 dB 4.7% 1-minute Periods above 80 dB 2 2 **** * Pre-pilot sound level data collected on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 from approximately 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM ** Mid-pilot sound level data collected on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 from approximately 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM *** End-pilot sound level data collected on Thursday, April 19, 2018 from approximately 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM **** Data was unable to be retrieved due to a malfunctioning device † Data excluded due to equipment malfunction †† Note: Decibels are expressed along a logarithmic scale of I(dB) = 10 log10 [I/IO]; where I = sound intensity and IO = the standard threshold of hearing Figure 7: Average Outdoor Sound Levels City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 19 Intersection Impacts Secondary to health and safety but important to the quality of life of Palo Alto residents and visitors is the efficiency of the roadway network. The ability to move people through intersections efficiently can have a large influence on the overall network efficiency. For this evaluation category, three (3) performance measures were identified: Intersection turning movement counts – The number of motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians traveling through four (4) intersections along the project corridor Intersection level of service – The estimated efficiency of two (2) intersections along the project corridor on a scale where ‘A’ represents the highest level of service and ‘F’ representing the lowest Intersection queue lengths – How far the number of motor vehicles extend relative to the amount of available space in the approach to two (2) intersections along the project corridor After a review of mid-pilot data, signal timing was optimized to improve intersection efficiency during the end-pilot period. The total number of motor vehicles traveling through four (4) intersections along the project corridor during the assumed morning, midday, and evening peak periods decreased by 5.8 percent between the pre- and end-pilot periods (from 34,713 motor vehicles to 32,700 motor vehicles). By comparison, traffic volumes increased an average of 0.2 percent on California’s urban arterials between April 2017 and April 2018.4 The decrease in motor vehicle volumes on the study corridor compared to the statewide trend of increased volumes may be the result of ongoing construction noted on Page 4 of this memorandum or the pilot project diverting traffic away from the study corridor. The total number of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling through the four (4) intersections along the project corridor during the assumed morning, midday, and evening peak periods increased by 9.8 percent between the pre- and end- pilot periods (from 292 bicyclists and 454 pedestrians to 307 bicyclists and 512 pedestrians). This increase may be the result of random variation or an increase in bicyclist and pedestrian comfort along the project corridor. 4 Traffic Volume Trends: January 2016-2017. FHWA. <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm> City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 20 Between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods, the estimated motor vehicle level of service declined at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue. The morning peak period level of service declined from level of service ‘D’ to ‘E’ between the pre- and end-pilot periods due to a 6 second increase in delay per vehicle. The midday and evening peak period levels of service stayed the same at ‘E’ between pre- and end-pilot periods but experienced an 8 second and a 16 second increase in delay per vehicle, respectively. Between the pre- and end-pilot periods, the estimated motor vehicle level of service declined at the intersection of Middlefield Road and University Avenue. The morning peak period level of service declined from level of service ‘C’ to ‘D’ between the pre- and end-pilot periods due to a 3 second increase in delay per vehicle. The midday peak period level of service stayed at the same at level of service of ‘C’ between the pre- and end-pilot periods but experienced a 4 second increase in delay per vehicle. The evening peak period level of service stayed at the same level of service of ‘D’ but experienced a 4 second increase in delay per vehicle. The number of intersection turning movements at Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue that were estimated to back- up past the available storage space, possibly impacting downstream intersections, went from zero (0) turning movement in the pre-pilot period to two (2) turning movements during the worst 5 percent of morning and evening peak period traffic. During the worst 5 percent of midday peak period traffic, the number of intersection turning movements exceeding available storage capacity increased from zero (0) to three (3) between the pre-pilot and end- pilot periods. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 21 The number of intersection turning movements at Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue that were estimated to back- up past the available storage space, possibly impacting downstream intersections, went from four (4) turning movement in the pre-pilot period to zero (0) turning movements during the worst 5 percent of morning and midday peak period traffic. During the worst 5 percent of evening peak period traffic, the number of intersection turning movements exceeding available storage capacity decreased from two (2) to zero (0) between the pre-pilot and end- pilot periods. Intersection Turning Movement Counts Turning movements counts were observed at four intersections within the project study area during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods: Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue Middlefield Road at University Avenue The turning movements counts were collected through traffic cameras during the assumed morning peak period (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM), assumed midday peak (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM), and assumed evening peak period (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) over two mid-weekdays. See Table 6 and Figure 8 for a summary of observed motor vehicle turning movement counts and see Table 33 for a detailed list of motor vehicle turning movement counts. See Table 6 and Figure 9 for a summary of bicycle and pedestrian turning movement counts and see Table 33 for a detailed list of bicycle and pedestrian turning movement counts. Peak period coordination of traffic signal timing was implemented during the mid- and end-pilot periods between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue to help improve motor vehicle traffic flow; however, the ongoing construction noted on Page 4 detoured traffic to Lytton Avenue, potentially offsetting efficiency improvements. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for the turning movement count data was defined as April 18, 2017 and April 19, 2017 for the four intersections. On average over the two mid-weekdays observed, there were 34,713 motor vehicles at the four intersections during the assumed morning, midday, and evening peak periods. Over the same time periods, there were on average 292 bicyclists and 454 pedestrians observed. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 22 Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for the turning movement count data was defined as October 4, 2017 and October 5, 2017 for the four intersections. On average over the two mid-weekdays observed, there were 34,002 motor vehicles at the four intersections during the assumed morning, midday, and evening peak periods, representing a 2.0 percent decrease compared to the pre-pilot period. While there was a slight decrease in overall observed motor vehicle turning movement counts between the pre-pilot and mid-pilot periods, the trend in observed motor vehicles varied by location. Motor vehicles turning movement counts decreased at three of the four locations (Middlefield Road at Hawthorne: -5.1 percent; Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue: -3.9 percent; and Middlefield Road at University Avenue: -0.5 percent); however, counts increased slightly at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue (0.8 percent). Over the same time periods, there were on average 444 bicyclists and 519 pedestrians observed, representing a 51.9 percent and 14.2 percent increase respectively compared to the pre-pilot period. The number of bicyclists increased between the pre-pilot and mid-pilot periods for all four observed intersections (Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue: 92.2 percent; Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue: 95.1 percent; Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue: 31.8 percent; and Middlefield Road at University Avenue: 46.6 percent). The number of pedestrians increased at three of the four observed locations between the pre-pilot and mid-pilot periods (Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue (44.3 percent; Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue: 16.9 percent; and Middlefield Road at University Avenue: 13.0 percent). The one intersection where the number of pedestrians decreased between the pre-pilot and mid-pilot periods was Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue (-16.0 percent). End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for the turning movement count data was defined as April 17, 2018 and April 18, 2018 for the four intersections. On average over the two mid-weekdays observed, there were 32,700 motor vehicles at the four intersections during the assumed morning, midday, and evening peak periods, representing a 5.8 percent decrease compared to the pre-pilot period. While there was a slight decrease in overall observed motor vehicle turning movement counts between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods, the trend in observed motor vehicles varied by location. Motor vehicles turning movement counts decreased at three of the four locations (Middlefield Road at Hawthorne: -9.5 percent; Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue: -7.6 percent; and Middlefield Road at University Avenue: -17.4 percent); however, counts increased at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue (13.2 percent). Over the same time periods, there were on average 307 bicyclists and 512 pedestrians observed, representing a 5.1 percent and 12.8 percent increase respectively compared to the pre-pilot period. The number of pedestrians increased between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods for all four observed intersections (Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue: 4.2 percent; Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue: 37.4 percent; Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue: 16.9 percent; and Middlefield Road at University Avenue: 6.3 percent). The number of bicyclists increased at three of the four observed locations between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods (Middlefield Road at Hawthorne (31.4 percent; Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue: 13.4 percent; and Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue: 7.4 percent). The one intersection where the number of bicyclists decreased between the pre-pilot and end-pilot periods was Middlefield Road at University Avenue (-5.6 percent). This may have been the result of ongoing construction on University Avenue. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 23 Table 6: Summary of Observed Turning Movement Counts PRE-PILOT* MID-PILOT** END-PILOT** Volumes Volumes (% Change) Volumes (% Change) Corridor Time of Day Auto Bike Ped Auto Bike Ped Auto Bike Ped Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM 2,410 10 23 2,245 (-6.8%) 19 (100.0%) 16 (-30.4) 2,285 (-5.2%) 17 (73.7%) 23 (-2.2%) 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM 2,560 7 13 2,431 (-5.0%) 11 (57.1%) 7 (-44.0%) 2,202 (-14.0%) 6 (-14.3%) 22 (72.0%) 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM 3,315 9 24 3,188 (-3.8%) 19 (111.1%) 27 (12.5%) 3,011 (-9.2%) 11 (22.2%) 18 (-25.0%) Total Peak Periods 8,285 26 60 7,864 (-5.1%) 49 (92.2%) 50 (-16.0%) 7,498 (-9.5%) 34 (31.4%) 62 (4.2%) Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM 2,407 15 15 2,261 (-6.1%) 39 (165.5%) 23 (55.2%) 2,324 (-3.4%) 22 (48.3%) 23 (58.6%) 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM 2,285 11 16 2,249 (-1.6%) 12 (14.3%) 23 (45.2%) 2,047 (-10.4%) 10 (-9.5%) 25 (61.3%) 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM 3,043 16 28 2,925 (-3.9%) 30 (84.4%) 38 (38.2%) 2,779 (-8.7%) 16 (-3.1%) 31 (12.7%) Total Peak Periods 7,735 41 58 7,434 (-3.9%) 80 (95.1%) 83 (44.3%) 7,150 (-7.6%) 67 (13.4%) 79 (37.4%) Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM 2,650 49 34 2,675 (-2.6%) 62 (26.8%) 43 (28.4%) 3,132 (14.0%) 49 (1.0%) 44 (29.9%) 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM 2,387 17 34 2,632 (7.2%) 28 (69.7%) 43 (26.9%) 3,122 (27.2%) 24 (45.5%) 53 (56.7%) 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM 3,272 44 55 3,290 (-1.2%) 54 (23.0%) 57 (3.7%) 3,404 (2.3%) 44 (0.0%) 46 (-15.6%) Total Peak Periods 8,308 109 122 8,596 (0.8%) 143 (31.8%) 142 (16.9%) 9,658 (13.2%) 117 (7.4%) 142 (16.9%) Middlefield Road at University Avenue 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM 3,183 44 55 3,131 (-1.6%) 57 (29.5%) 75 (36.7%) 2,449 (-19.4%) 47 (6.8%) 62 (12.8%) 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM 3,486 20 72 3,503 (0.5%) 35 (79.5%) 75 (3.5%) 2,762 (-17.5%) 18 (-10.8%) 80 (10.4%) 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM 3,495 54 89 3,475 (-0.6%) 80 (48.6%) 95 (6.2%) 2,893 (-15.5%) 46 (-14.0%) 88 (-1.1%) Total Peak Periods 10,164 117 216 10,109 (-0.5%) 172 (46.6%) 244 (13.0%) 8,395 (-17.4%) 111 (-5.6%) 229 (6.3%) All Observed Intersections during Assumed Peak Periods 34,713 292 454 34,002 (-2.0%) 444 (51.9%) 519 (14.2%) 32,700 (-5.8%) 307 (5.1%) 512 (12.8%) * Average of bi-directional motor vehicle traffic from Wednesday, April 18, 2017 and Thursday, April 19, 2017 ** Average of bi-directional motor vehicle traffic from Wednesday, October 4, 2017 and Thursday, October 5, 2017 *** Average of bi-directional motor vehicle traffic from Tuesday, April 17, 2018 and Wednesday, April 18, 2018 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 24 34,713 34,002 32,700 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 PRE MID END In t e r s e c t i o n Vo l u m e s 292 444 307 454 519 512 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 PRE MID END In t e r s e c t i o n Vo l u m e s BIKE PED Figure 8: Observed Motor Vehicle Turning Movement Counts Figure 9: Observed Bicycle and Pedestrian Turning Movement Counts City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 25 Intersection Level of Service Motor vehicle level of service was analyzed at two intersections within the project study area during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods: Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue Middlefield Road at University Avenue The method used for the level of service analysis was the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 method, and the traffic analysis software used was Synchro. For the assumed morning, midday, and evening peak periods, inputted signal timing data was provided by the City of Palo Alto. Level of service is expressed along a scale of ‘A’ through ‘F’, similar to many school grading systems, with ‘A’ representing the highest level of service and ‘F’ representing the lowest level of service. See Table 7 for a summary of the motor vehicle level of service for the two intersections and see Table 34 for a detailed list of motor vehicle level of service for the two intersections. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for the motor vehicle level of service analysis was defined as April 1, 2017 to May 16, 2017. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, there was an estimated morning peak period level of service of ‘D’ with a 52 second delay per motor vehicle, an estimated midday peak period level of service of ‘E’ with a 56 second delay per motor vehicle, and an estimated evening peak period level of service of ‘E’ with a 60 second delay per motor vehicle. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and University Avenue, there was an estimated morning peak period level of service of ‘C’ with a 32 second delay per motor vehicle, an estimated midday peak period level of service of ‘C’ with a 31 second delay per motor vehicle, and an estimated evening peak period level of service of ‘D’ with a 36 second delay per motor vehicle. Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for the motor vehicle level of service analysis was defined as May 17, 2017 to October 2, 2017. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, there was an estimated morning peak period level of service ‘D’ with a 51 second delay per motor vehicle, representing no change in level of service between the pre-pilot and mid-pilot periods and a 1 second decrease in delay. During the midday peak period, there was an estimated level of service ‘D’ with a 54 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a one letter grade improvement and a 3 second decrease in delay compared to the pre-pilot period. During the evening peak period, there was an estimated level of service ‘F’ with a 92 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a one letter grade deterioration and a 32 second increase in delay compared to the pre-pilot period. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and University Avenue, there was no estimated change in motor vehicle level of service or delay between the pre-pilot and mid-pilot periods. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 26 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for the motor vehicle level of service analysis was defined as April 1, 2018 to May 16, 2018. Following review of data collection during the mid-pilot period, signal timing along the study corridor was optimized to improved intersection traffic flow for motor vehicles. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, there was an estimated morning peak period level of service ‘E’ with a 58 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a 6 second increase in delay and resulting in a one letter grade decline in level of service between the pre- and end-pilot periods. During the midday peak period, there was an estimated level of service ‘E’ with a 64 second delay per motor vehicle, representing an 8 second increase in delay but not resulting in any change in level of service between the pre- and end-pilot periods. During the evening peak period, there was an estimated level of service ‘E’ with a 74 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a 16 second increase in delay but not resulting in any change in level of service between the pre- and end-pilot periods. Note that the change in motor vehicle level of service may be influenced negatively by ongoing construction from the ‘Upgrade Downtown’ project (see the section below for more information). At the intersection of Middlefield Road and University Avenue, there was an estimated morning peak period level of service ‘D’ with a 35 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a 3 second increase in delay and resulting in a one letter grade decline in level of service between the pre- and end-pilot periods. During the midday peak period, there was an estimated level of service ‘C’ with a 35 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a 4 second increase in delay but not resulting in any change in level of service between the pre- and end-pilot periods. During the evening peak period, there was an estimated level of service ‘D’ with a 39 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a 4 second increase in delay and resulting in a one letter grade decline in level of service between the pre- and end-pilot periods. Note that the change in motor vehicle level of service may be influenced positively or negatively by ongoing construction from the ‘Upgrade Downtown’ project (see the section below for more information). Ongoing Construction Because ongoing construction for the ‘Upgrade Downtown’ project may have impacted traffic volumes along the study corridor, a secondary analysis of intersection impacts was completed for morning peak period conditions at the Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue intersection. Using pre-pilot motor vehicle volumes and the end-pilot intersection configuration, there was an estimated morning peak period level of service ‘D’ with a 53 second delay per motor vehicle, representing a 1 second increase in delay compared to pre-pilot conditions but no letter grade change in level of service. After completion of the ‘Upgrade Downtown’ project, additional motor vehicle traffic volume data may be needed to confirm if observed end-pilot changes in motor vehicle volumes at Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue were largely impacted by ongoing construction and if they would return to pre-pilot volumes. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 27 Table 7: Summary of Motor Vehicle Level of Service* PRE-PILOT L.O.S. (DELAY)** MID-PILOT L.O.S. (DELAY)** END-PILOT L.O.S. (DELAY)** Intersections AM PEAK MID PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK MID PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK MID PEAK PM PEAK Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue D (52s) E (56s) E (58s) D (51s) D (54s) F (92s) E (58s) E (64s) E (74s) Middlefield Road at University Avenue C (32s) C (31s) D (35s) C (32s) C (31s) D (36s) D (35s) C (35s) D (39s) * Analysis uses data from Table 6, the Highway Capacity Manual 200 method for determining level of service (L.O.S.) and Synchro software ** Overall approach level of service (L.O.S.) on a scale of ‘A’ through ‘F’ and delay per motor vehicle in seconds, where ‘A’ ≤10 seconds of delay per vehicle at a signalized intersection, ‘B’ = 10-19 seconds, ‘C’ = 20-34 seconds, ‘D’ = 35-54 seconds, ‘E’ =55-80 seconds, and F > 80 seconds City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 28 Intersection Queue Lengths The queue lengths of two intersections within the project study area were analyzed during the pre-, mid-, and end- pilot periods: Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue Middlefield Road at University Avenue The analysis used the traffic analysis software Synchro to estimate the 95th percentile queue length for each turning movement at the two intersections (worst 5 percent of traffic conditions). For a summary of the estimated queue lengths, see Table 8. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for the queuing analysis was defined as April 1, 2017 to May 16, 2017. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, the 95th percentile queue length did not exceed the available storage capacity during the morning, midday, or evening peak periods. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and University Avenue, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage during the morning peak period in one (1) turning movement (eastbound through/right). During the midday peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage in one (1) turning movement (eastbound through/right). During the evening peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage in two (2) turning movements (eastbound left/through and westbound left/through/right). Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for the queuing analysis was defined as May 17, 2017 to October 2, 2017. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage during the morning peak period in one (1) turning movement (northbound through/right) compared to no turning movements during the pre-pilot period. During the midday peak period, the 95th percentile queue length did not exceed the available storage, which was consistent with the pre-pilot period. During the evening peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage in two (2) turning movements (northbound through/right and eastbound through/right) compared to no turning movements during the pre-pilot period. At the intersection of Middlefield and Lytton Avenue, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage in one (1) turning movement (eastbound through/right) during morning peak period, which was consistent with the pre-pilot period. During the midday peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage in one (1) turning movement (eastbound through/right), which was consistent with the pre-pilot period. During the evening peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage in one (1) turning movement (westbound through/through/right) compared to two (2) turning movements during the pre-pilot period. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 29 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for the queuing analysis was defined as April 1, 2018 and May 16, 2018. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage capacity during the end-pilot’s morning peak period in two (2) turning movements (northbound left/through and through/right) compared to no turning movements during the pre-pilot period. During the end-pilot’s midday peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceeded the available storage capacity in three (3) turning movements (northbound left/through and through/right plus eastbound through/right) compared to no turning movements during the pre-pilot period. During end-pilot’s the evening peak period, the 95th percentile queue length exceed the available storage capacity in two (2) turning movements (northbound thru/right and eastbound through/right) compared to no turning movements during the pre-pilot period. At the intersection of Middlefield and Lytton Avenue, the 95th percentile queue length did not exceed the available storage in any turning movements during end-pilot’s morning peak period, despite exceeding the available storage capacity in one (1) turning movement (eastbound through/right) during the pre-pilot period. During the end-pilot’s midday peak period, the 95th percentile queue length did not exceed the available storage capacity compared to it exceeding the available storage capacity in one (1) turning movement (eastbound through/right) during the pre- pilot period. During the end-pilot’s evening peak period, the 95th percentile queue length did not exceed the available storage capacity compared to it exceeding the available storage capacity in two (2) turning movements (eastbound left/through and westbound left/through/right) during the pre-pilot period. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 30 Table 8: Summary of Queue Lengths (Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue)* AM Peak Hour† Mid Peak Hour† PM Peak Hour† Pre- Pilot Mid- Pilot End- Pilot Pre- Pilot Mid- Pilot End- Pilot Pre- Pilot Mid- Pilot End- Pilot Northbound Left/Thru [Left]†† 255 147 ** 215 132 ** 297 139 212 Thru/Right 237 ** ** 217 301 ** 300 ** ** Southbound Left/Thru 48 318 281 264 256 281 297 301 304 Thru/Right 146 358 319 289 258 319 264 306 268 Westbound Left/Thru/Right [Thru/Right] †† 169 146 177 36 84 93 232 116 123 Eastbound Left 140 194 212 66 194 227 303 222 217 Thru/Right 221 169 321 215 193 ** 102 ** ** † Estimated 95th percentile queue length †† First lane configuration represents pre-pilot pilot conditions; second lane configuration in brackets represents mid- and end-pilot conditions * Analysis uses data from Table 6, the Highway Capacity Manual 200 method for determining level of service (L.O.S.) and Synchro software ** Estimated queue length exceeds link capacity Table 9: Summary of Queue Lengths (Middlefield Road at University Avenue)* Travel Lane AM Peak Hour† Mid Peak Hour† PM Peak Hour† Pre- Pilot Mid- Pilot End- Pilot Pre- Pilot Mid- Pilot End- Pilot Pre- Pilot Mid- Pilot End- Pilot Northbound Left/Thru 216 164 98 223 113 169 260 406 629 Thru/Right 165 288 150 176 242 244 231 390 673 Southbound Left/Thru 291 279 176 273 281 294 308 307 312 Thru/Right 285 267 159 255 257 254 293 293 294 Eastbound Left 58 64 30 563 42 151 96 94 97 Left/Thru 26 265 121 270 255 215 ** 255 179 Thru/Right ** ** 85 ** ** 153 227 321 169 Westbound Left 81 74 2 165 76 16 227 125 18 Left/Thru/Right 231 289 13 311 283 39 ** ** 92 † Estimated 95th percentile queue length * Analysis uses data from Table 6, the Highway Capacity Manual 200 method for determining level of service (L.O.S.) and Synchro software ** Estimated queue length exceeds link capacity City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 31 Traffic Diversion Changes in the roadway configuration can spark concerns that motor vehicle traffic along a major arterial street will shift to parallel streets. To track traffic diversion from Middlefield Road to parallel streets and cross streets, two (2) performance measures were identified: Traffic volumes – The number of motor vehicles traveling through 12 locations within the project study area Motor vehicle classifications – The percent of heavy-duty vehicles traveling through 12 locations within the project study area Along the five (5) observed parallel routes to Middlefield Road, there was a 38.6 percent increase in average motor vehicle volumes between the pre- and end-pilot periods (an average net increase of 265 motor vehicles per roadway segment). At the three (3) observed locations on Middlefield Road, average traffic volumes decreased 11.2 percent (or a decrease of 2,104 motor vehicles per roadway segment), suggesting that a small number of the motor vehicles that were using Middlefield Road during the pre-pilot period may have shifted to parallel routes during the end-pilot period (up to 265 motor vehicles), but the rest may have diverted outside the study area. The percent of heavy-duty vehicles slightly decreased at the twelve locations from 3.8 percent of all traffic during the pre-pilot period to 3.4 percent of all traffic during the end pilot period (-9.5% decrease). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 32 Traffic Volumes and Motor Vehicle Classifications Motor vehicle traffic volumes and vehicle classifications were observed at 12 locations within the project study area during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods: Middlefield Road Corridor o Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue (west) and Palo Alto Avenue (east) o Middlefield Road between Hawthorne Avenue and Everett Avenue o Middlefield Road between Everett Avenue and Lytton Avenue Parallel Routes o Webster Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue o Byron Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue o Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue o Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue o Guinda Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue Cross Streets o Palo Alto Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street o Hawthorne Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road o Everett Avenue between Byron Street and Middlefield Road o Everett Avenue between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street Bi-directional data was collected through pneumatic tubes placed across each of the study streets over a 24-hour period on two weekdays. See Table 10 for a summary of observed motor vehicle speeds at the 12 locations and see Table 36 for a detailed list. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for motor vehicle traffic volumes and vehicle classifications was defined as April 18, 2017 through April 19, 2017 for the 12 locations within the project study area. There was an average daily volume of 67,739 motor vehicles during the pre-pilot period, with 1,852 vehicles classified as heavy (2.7 percent of all observed motor vehicles). At the three (3) locations observed along Middlefield Road, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 14,765 and 21,808, with heavy vehicles representing between 1.3 percent and 3.7 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Because these three (3) locations are along the same corridor, it is assumed that many of the vehicles counted passed through multiple count locations. Along the five (5) parallel routes to Middlefield Road, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 264 and 1,571, with heavy vehicles representing between 2.0 percent and 5.5 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Along the four (4) cross street locations, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 267 and 3,636, with heavy vehicles representing between 1.6 percent and 3.6 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 33 Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for motor vehicle traffic volumes and vehicle classifications was defined as October 25, 2017 through October 26, 2017 for the 12 locations within the project study area. Data was initially collected on October 4, 2017 through October 5, 2017; however, equipment failures at three (3) locations prompted the need to re-collect data for all 12 locations later in the month. There was an average daily volume of 63,152 motor vehicles during the mid-pilot period, with 1,876 vehicles classified as heavy (3.0 percent of all observed motor vehicles). Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 6.8 percent decrease in overall motor vehicle volumes and a 1.3 percent increase in heavy vehicle volumes. At the three (3) locations observed along Middlefield Road, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 16,800 and 18,175, with heavy vehicles representing between 2.7 percent and 3.5 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Because these three (3) locations are along the same corridor, it is assumed that many of the vehicles counted passed through multiple count locations. Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 5.8 percent decrease in overall motor vehicle volumes. Along the five (5) parallel routes to Middlefield Road, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 314 and 1,754, with heavy vehicles representing between 1.3 percent and 3.0 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 30.6 percent increase in overall motor vehicle. Along the four cross street locations, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 464 and 2,889, with heavy vehicles representing between 1.8 percent and 2.6 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 29.5 percent decrease in overall motor vehicle volumes. End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for motor vehicle traffic volumes and vehicle classifications was defined as April 18, 2018 through April 19, 2018 for the 12 locations within the project study area. There was an average daily volume of 60,557 motor vehicles during the end-pilot period, with 2,068 vehicles classified as heavy (3.4 percent of all observed motor vehicles). Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 10.6 percent decrease in overall motor vehicle volumes and a 19.1 percent decrease in heavy vehicle volumes. At the three (3) locations observed along Middlefield Road, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 15,855 and 17,404, with heavy vehicles representing between 3.1 percent and 3.7 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Because these three locations are along the same corridor, it is assumed that many of the vehicles counted passed through multiple count locations. Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 11.2 percent decrease in overall motor vehicle volumes. Along the five (5) parallel routes to Middlefield Road, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 347 and 2,012, with heavy vehicles representing between 2.3 percent and 4.7 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 38.6 percent increase in overall motor vehicle volumes. Along the four cross street locations, the average daily volume of motor vehicles ranged between 492 and 2,435, with heavy vehicles representing between 2.5 percent and 3.7 percent of all motor vehicle traffic. Compared to the pre-pilot period, there was a 27.0 percent decrease in overall motor vehicle volumes. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 34 Table 10: Summary of Motor Vehicle Traffic Volumes and Classifications PRE-PILOT* MID-PILOT** END-PILOT*** Volumes Volumes (% Change) Volumes (% Change) Corridor Begin End ADT† Heavy†† ADT† Heavy†† ADT† Heavy†† Middlefield Road Palo Alto Avenue (west) Palo Alto Avenue (east) 19,591 954 18,175 (-7.2%) 643 (-32.6%) 17,404 (-11.2%) 537 (-43.7%) Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 21,808 815 17,955 (-17.7%) 491 (-39.8%) 16,594 (-23.9%) 605 (-25.8%) Middlefield Road Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 14,765 499 16,800 (13.8%) 522 (4.7%) 15,855 (7.4%) 588 (18.0%) Webster Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 952 53 1,325 (39.2%) 37 (-30.5%) 1,149 (20.7%) 26 (-50.5%) Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 382 12 700 (83.2%) 21 (75.0%) 683 (78.8%) 20 (66.7%) Fulton Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 266 8 393 (47.7%) 8 (6.7%) 570 (114.3%) 18 (140.0%) Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 264 9 314 (18.9%) 9 (0.0%) 347 (31.4%) 11 (29.4%) Guinda Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 1,571 32 1,754 (11.6%) 22 (-31.3%) 2,012 (28.1%) 95 (196.9%) Palo Alto Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 267 10 464 (73.8%) 11 (15.8%) 492 (84.3%) 13 (36.8%) Hawthorne Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 3,636 89 2,889 (-20.5%) 53 (-40.7%) 2,435 (-33.0%) 66 (-25.4%) Everett Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 3,044 58 1,723 (-43.4%) 46 (-21.6%) 1,917 (-37.0%) 48 (-17.2%) Everett Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 1,193 20 660 (-44.7%) 15 (-23.1%) 1,099 (-7.9%) 41 (110.3%) † Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Average of two-day motor vehicle counts †† Includes all vehicles classified as long 2-axle vehicles, 2-axle vehicles with 6 tires, buses, and vehicles with 3+ axles; excludes non-classified vehicles * Average of values from Wednesday, April 18, 2017 through Thursday, April 19, 2017 ** Average of values from Wednesday, October 25, 2017 through Thursday, October 26, 2017 *** Average of values from Wednesday, April 18, 2018 through Thursday, April 19, 2018 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 35 Travel Reliability Another method for measuring the efficiency of a roadway network is tracking how long it takes to drive or ride transit along a given corridor. For this evaluation category, two (2) performance measures were identified: Motor vehicle travel times and buffer time indices – How long it takes to travel from one end of the project corridor to the other end and how much time you need to add to your schedule to account for fluctuations in travel times Transit running times – The average amount of time needed for the Dumbarton Express transit route to travel between two bus stops on opposite sides of the project corridor Between the pre- and end-pilot periods, the weighted average buffer time for motorists along the project corridor increased by 31.9 percent in the combined southbound and northbound directions (from 1 minute 12 seconds to 1minutes 35 seconds). The overall transit running time within the project study area decreased 3.4 percent for bi-directional travel between the pre- and end-pilot periods (from 4 minutes 4 seconds to 3 minutes 56 seconds). However, morning peak and evening peak period transit running times increased between the pre- and end-pilot periods (2.4 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 36 Motor Vehicle Travel Times & Buffer Time Indices Motor vehicle travel time reliability was observed along Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. See Table 11 for a summary of the travel time data along the Middlefield Road corridor. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for motor vehicle travel time reliability was defined as April 18, 2017 through April 25, 2017 for the Middlefield Road corridor. Bi-directional data was collected through the use of BlueMac data collection units stationed at Middlefield Road between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue and at Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. The BlueMac units identified a unique signal from a Bluetooth device, such as a Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone, and recorded what time the device passed within 250 feet of it. With two (2) units positioned along the corridor, the travel time of one device (and presumably one motor vehicle) between the two (2) stations can be tracked. To minimize the number of errors in data collection, travel times greater than 10 minutes and less than 30 seconds were excluded from the analysis as it was assumed these travel times did not represent a single consistent trip along the corridor or were the result of an equipment error. During the pre-pilot period, 2,457 trips were observed in the southbound direction and 2,169 trips were observed in the northbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 1 minute 31 seconds. The weighted buffer time for bi-directional traffic was 1 minute 12 seconds, suggesting that an individual planning to travel along the Middlefield Road corridor should add just over 1 minute to their expected travel time to account for variability in travel times between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue caused by traffic congestion, waiting at traffic signals, and other impediments to free-flow traffic. During the pre-pilot’s morning peak period, 310 trips were observed in the southbound direction and 239 trips were observed in the northbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 1 minute 34 seconds. The weighted mean buffer time for bi-directional traffic was 1 minute 7 seconds, suggesting that an individual planning to travel along the Middlefield Road corridor should add just over 1 minute to their expected travel time to account for variability in travel times between Palo Alto Avenue and University caused by traffic congestion, waiting at traffic signals, and other impediments to free-flow traffic. During the pre-pilot’s evening peak period, 292 trips were observed in the southbound direction and 278 trips were observed in the northbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 1 minute 44 seconds. The weighted mean buffer time for bi-directional traffic was 1 minute 15 seconds, suggesting that an individual planning to travel along the Middlefield Road corridor should add just over 1 minute to their expected travel time to account for variability in travel times between Palo Alto Avenue and University caused by traffic congestion, waiting at traffic signals, and other impediments to free-flow traffic. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 37 Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for motor vehicle travel time reliability was defined as October 26, 2017 for the Middlefield Road corridor. Bi-directional data was collected through manual travel time recordings conducted by a paid motorist driving on Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue. This data collection method differs from the pre-pilot period which used automated BlueMac units. An attempt to collect travel time data using the BlueMac unit during the mid-pilot period was made but because of an equipment malfunction, verifiable data was not recorded. This discrepancy in data collection methods should be considered when comparing the pre- and mid- pilot periods, as it produced a large difference in sample sizes (4,626 recorded travel times during the pre-pilot period and 14 recorded travel times during the mid-pilot period). In addition, because the manual data collection method recorded travel times between intersections during the mid-pilot period instead of near intersections, defined as within 250 feet, the travel distance may vary between the pre- and mid-pilot periods. During the mid-pilot’s morning peak period, 7 trips were observed in the southbound direction and 7 trips were observed in the northbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 2 minutes 50 seconds, representing an 80.4 percent increase compared to the pre-pilot’s morning peak period. While the mean travel time in the northbound direction remained relatively consistent between the pre- and mid-pilot’s morning peak periods (1 minute 51 seconds and 1 minute 30 seconds, respectively, for a -18.6 percent change in mean travel time), there was a 207.6 percent increase in the southbound direction (1 minute 20 seconds during the pre-pilot’s morning peak period and 4 minutes 9 seconds during the mid-pilot’s morning peak period). Similarly, the same divergence in southbound and northbound travel times between the pre- and mid-pilot’s morning peak periods was evident in the 85th percentile of observed travel times. During the mid-pilot period’s morning peak period, the 85th percentile travel time in the northbound direction was 2 minutes 10 seconds compared to 1 minute 55 seconds during the pre-pilot’s morning peak period, representing a 10.3 percent increase in mean southbound travel time. During the same time period in the southbound direction, the 85th percentile travel time during the mid-pilot period was 5 minutes 27 seconds compared to 1 minute 56 seconds during the pre-pilot period, representing a 181.8 percent increase in mean northbound travel time. The bi-directional buffer time remained relatively consistent between the pre- and mid-pilot’s morning peak periods. The weighted average of buffer times during the mid-pilot’s morning peak period was 1 minute 5 seconds compared to 1 minute 7 seconds during the pre-pilot’s morning peak period (-4.1 percent). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 38 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for motor vehicle travel time reliability was defined as April 17, 2018 through April 24, 2018 for the Middlefield Road corridor. Bi-directional data was collected through the use of BlueMac data collection units stationed at Middlefield Road between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue and at Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. The BlueMac units identified a unique signal from a Bluetooth device, such as a Bluetooth-enabled mobile phone, and record what time the device passed within 250 feet of it. With two (2) units positioned along the corridor, the travel time of one device (and presumably one motor vehicle) between the two (2) stations can be tracked. To minimize the number of errors in data collection, travel times greater than 10 minutes and less than 30 seconds were excluded from the analysis as it was assumed these travel times did not represent a single consistent trip along the corridor or were the result of an equipment error. During the end-pilot period, 1,786 trips were observed in the northbound direction and 1,927 trips were observed in the southbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 1 minute 41 seconds, an increase of 11.1 percent compared to the pre-pilot weighted mean travel time (1 minute 34 seconds). The weighted buffer time for bi-directional traffic was 1 minute 35 seconds, suggesting that an individual planning to travel along the Middlefield Road corridor should add just over 1.5 minutes to their expected travel time to account for variability in travel times between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue caused by traffic congestion, waiting at traffic signals, and other impediments to free-flow traffic. This represents a 54.8 increase in weighted buffer time compared to the pre-pilot period (1 minute 12 seconds). During the end-pilot’s morning peak period, 210 trips were observed in the northbound direction and 196 trips were observed in the southbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 1 minute 44 seconds, a 10.6 percent increase over the pre-pilot’s morning peak period weighted mean travel time. The weighted mean buffer time for bi-directional traffic during the morning peak period was 1 minute 38 seconds, suggesting that an individual planning to travel along the Middlefield Road corridor should add just over 1.5 minutes to their expected travel time to account for variability in travel times between Palo Alto Avenue and University caused by traffic congestion, waiting at traffic signals, and other impediments to free-flow traffic. This represents a 46.3 percent increase in weighted buffer time compared to the pre-pilot’s morning peak period (1 minute 7 seconds). During the end-pilot’s evening peak period, 295 trips were observed in the northbound direction and 306 trips were observed in the southbound direction. The weighted mean travel time for both directions was 1 minute 56 seconds, a 11.5 percent increase over the pre-pilot’s evening peak period weighted mean average travel time (1 minute 44 seconds). The weighted mean buffer time for bi-directional traffic was 1 minute 40 seconds, suggesting that an individual planning to travel along the Middlefield Road corridor should add over 1.5 minutes to their expected travel time to account for variability in travel times between Palo Alto Avenue and University caused by traffic congestion, waiting at traffic signals, and other impediments to free-flow traffic. This represents a 33.3 percent increase in weighted buffer time compared to the pre-pilot’s evening peak period (1 minute 15 seconds) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 39 Table 11: Summary of Motor Vehicle Travel Time Measure PRE-PILOT* MID-PILOT (% Change)** END-PILOT (% Change)*** Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Av g . W e e k l y AM P e a k Av g . W e e k l y AM P e a k Av g . W e e k l y AM P e a k Av g . W e e k l y AM P e a k Av g . W e e k l y AM P e a k Av g . W e e k l y AM P e a k Number of Trips 2,457 310 2,169 239 - 7 - 7 1,927 61 1,786 61 Mean Travel Time 01:23 01:20 01:41 01:51 - 04:09 (207.6%) - 01:30 (-18.6%) 01:38 (18.4%) 01:56 (42.9%) 01:45 (4.1%) 01:33 (-16.2%) Median Travel Time 01:10 01:12 01:31 01:45 - 03:47 (217.5%) - 01:25 (-19.0%) 01:28 (25.7%) 01:38 (37.1%) 01:40 (9.9%) 01:19 (-25.2%) 85th Percentile Travel Time 01:55 01:56 02:18 02:25 - 05:27 (181.8%) - 02:10 (-10.3%) 02:30 (30.4%) 03:23 (75.0%) 02:42 (17.4%) 02:27 (1.4%) 95th Percentile Travel Time 02:24 02:20 03:05 03:09 - 05:32 (137.4%) - 02:16 (-28.0%) 03:15 (35.4%) 03:49 (63.6%) 03:17 (6.5%) 02:57 (-6.3%) Standard Deviation 01:00 00:39 01:03 00:56 - 01:13 (21.2%) - 00:34 (-45.7%) 00:50 (-21.6%) 01:02 (56.9%) 00:49 (-17.6%) 00:47 (-29.9%) Mean Travel Time Weighted Average 01:34 - 01:41 (11.1%) * Trips were observed over 24-hour periods between Wednesday, April 18, 2017 and Tuesday, April 25, 2017 (excludes times less than 30 seconds and greater than 10 minutes) from Middlefield Road between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue to Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue; BlueMac Bluetooth devices used for data collection ** Trips were observed from 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM on October 26, 2017 along Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue; manual drive times used for data collection *** Trips were observed over 24-hour periods between Tuesday, April 17, 2018 and Monday, April 24, 2018 (excludes times less than 30 seconds and greater than 10 minutes) from Middlefield Road between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue to Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue; BlueMac Bluetooth devices used for data collection City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 40 Table 12: Summary of Motor Vehicle Travel Time Reliability Measure PRE-PILOT* MID-PILOT (% Change)** END-PILOT (% Change)*** Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound We e k l y A v g . AM P e a k We e k l y A v g . AM P e a k We e k l y A v g . AM P e a k We e k l y A v g . AM P e a k We e k l y A v g . AM P e a k We e k l y A v g . AM P e a k Buffer Index (points) 0.74 0.73 0.84 0.70 - 0.34 (-54.1%) - 0.50 (-32.4%) 0.99 (33.8%) 0.98 (34.2%) 0.88 (5.8%) 0.90 (28.6%) Buffer Time 01:01 00:59 01:24 01:18 - 01:23 (36.0%) - 00:46 (-22.0%) 01:37 (59.0%) 01:53 (91.5%) 01:32 (24.3%) 01:24 (7.7%) Buffer Index Weighted Average (points) 0.79 0.42 (-46.6%) 0.94 (19.0%) Buffer Time Weighted Average 01:12 01:05 (-4.1%) 01:35 (54.8%) * Trips were observed over 24-hour periods between Wednesday, April 18, 2017 and Tuesday, April 25, 2017 (excludes times less than 30 seconds and greater than 10 minutes) from Middlefield Road between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue to Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue; BlueMac Bluetooth devices used for data collection ** Trips were observed from 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM on October 26, 2017 along Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue; manual drive times used for data collection *** Trips were observed over 24-hour periods between Tuesday, April 17, 2018 and Monday, April 24, 2018 (excludes times less than 30 seconds and greater than 10 minutes) from Middlefield Road between Woodland Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue to Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue; BlueMac Bluetooth devices used for data collection City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 41 Transit Running Times Transit vehicle running time for the Dumbarton Express through the project study area was provided by AC Transit for the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. Running times in the eastbound direction were observed between the Lytton Avenue/Cowper Street bus stop and the Middlefield Road/Willow Road bus stop. Running times in the westbound direction were observed between the Middlefield Road/Willow Road bus stop and the Lytton Avenue/Kipling Street bus stop. See Table 13 for a summary of the transit vehicle running times. Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot period for transit vehicle running time was divided into two periods – summer and winter – to provide a more accurate comparison to mid-pilot and end-pilot data collection periods. The pre-pilot summer period was defined as May 5, 2016 through September 30, 2016. The pre-pilot winter period was defined as November 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017. The average transit vehicle running time for the pre-pilot summer period was 3 minutes 46 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 30 seconds. The average transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 17 seconds for the pre-pilot summer period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 10 seconds for the assumed evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The average eastbound transit vehicle running time for the pre-pilot summer period was 3 minutes 8 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 23 seconds. The average eastbound transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 17 seconds for the pre-pilot summer period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 10 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The average westbound transit vehicle running time for the pre-pilot summer period was 4 minutes 27 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 20 seconds. The average westbound transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 17 seconds for the pre-pilot summer period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 11 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The average transit vehicle running time for the pre-pilot winter period was 4 minutes 4 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 46 seconds. The average transit vehicle running time was 2 minutes 1 second for the pre-pilot winter period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 5 seconds for the assumed evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The average eastbound transit vehicle running time for the pre-pilot winter period was 3 minutes 24 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 33 seconds. The average eastbound transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 32 seconds for the pre-pilot winter period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 11 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 42 The average westbound transit vehicle running time for the pre-pilot winter period was 4 minutes 45 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 19 seconds. The average westbound transit vehicle running time was 2 minutes 18 seconds for the pre-pilot winter period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 26 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot period for transit vehicle running time was defined as May 17, 2016 through September 18, 2016 and roughly aligns with the pre-pilot ‘summer’ period. The average transit vehicle running time for the overall mid-pilot period was 3 minutes 29 seconds with a standard deviation of 2 minutes 15 seconds. Compared to the pre-pilot summer period, the overall mid-pilot transit vehicle running time decreased by 7.5 percent; however, the standard deviation increased by 45 seconds. The average transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 30 seconds for the mid-pilot summer period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 22 seconds for the assumed evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM), representing a 17.0 percent and a 9.4 percent increase compared to the overall pre-pilot summer period. The average eastbound transit vehicle running time for the mid-pilot was 3 minutes 29 seconds with a standard deviation of 2 minutes 15 seconds. Compared to the eastbound pre-pilot’s summer period, the eastbound mid-pilot transit vehicle running time increased by 11.5 percent, and the standard deviation increased by 52 seconds. The average eastbound transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 30 seconds for the mid-pilot period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) in the eastbound direction and 2 minutes 22 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) in the eastbound direction, representing a 16.7 percent and a 9.8 percent increase compared to the eastbound pre-pilot’s summer period, respectively. The average westbound transit vehicle running time for the mid-pilot period was 3 minutes 29 seconds with a standard deviation of 2 minute 15 seconds. Compared to the westbound pre-pilot’s summer period, the westbound mid-pilot transit vehicle running time decreased by 21.5 percent; however, the standard deviation increased by 55 seconds. The average westbound transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 30 seconds for the end-pilot summer period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 22 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM), representing a 17.3 percent and a 9.0 percent increase compared to the westbound pre-pilot’s summer period. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 43 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot period for transit vehicle running time was defined as October 2, 2017 through April 30, 2018 and roughly aligns with the pre-pilot ‘winter’ period. The average transit vehicle running time for the end-pilot period was 3 minutes 56 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minutes 38 seconds. Compared to the pre-pilot winter period, the end-pilot transit vehicle running time decreased by 3.4 percent, and the standard deviation increased by 8 seconds. The average transit vehicle running time was 2 minute 4 seconds for the end-pilot winter period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 13 seconds for the assumed evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM), representing a 2.4 percent and a 6.7 percent increase compared to the pre-pilot winter period. The average eastbound transit vehicle running time for the end-pilot was 3 minutes 14 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minutes 24 seconds. Compared to the eastbound pre-pilot’s winter period, the eastbound end-pilot transit vehicle running time decreased by 4.9 percent, and the standard deviation decreased by 29 seconds. The average eastbound transit vehicle running time was 1 minute 32 seconds for the end-pilot period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) in the eastbound direction and 2 minutes 5 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) in the eastbound direction, representing a 0.3 percent and a 4.9 percent decrease compared to the eastbound pre-pilot’s winter periods, respectively. The average westbound transit vehicle running time for the overall end-pilot period was 4 minutes 37 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 minute 38 seconds. Compared to the westbound pre-pilot’s winter period, the westbound mid-pilot transit vehicle running time decreased by 2.8 percent; however, the standard deviation increased by 15 seconds. The average westbound transit vehicle running time was 2 minute 25 seconds for the end-pilot winter period’s assumed morning peak (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 2 minutes 21 seconds for the assumed evening peak (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM), representing a 5.0 percent increase and a 3.4 percent decrease compared to the westbound pre-pilot’s winter period, respectively. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 44 Table 13: Summary of Transit Vehicle Running Time PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT Direction Running Time Summer† Winter†† Summer††† % Change Winter†††† % Change Eastbound* Overall Average 03:08 0:03:24 03:29 11.5% 03:14 -4.9% Overall Standard Deviation 01:23 0:01:53 02:15 62.9% 01:24 -25.8% AM Peak Average (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) 01:17 0:01:32 01:30 16.7% 01:32 -0.3% PM Peak Average (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) 02:10 0:02:11 02:22 9.8% 02:05 -4.9% Westbound** Overall Average 04:27 0:04:45 03:29 -21.5% 04:37 -2.8% Overall Standard Deviation 01:20 0:01:19 02:15 69.4% 01:34 18.1% AM Peak Average (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) 01:17 0:02:18 01:30 17.3% 02:25 5.0% PM Peak Average (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) 02:11 0:02:26 02:22 9.0% 02:21 -3.4% Both Directions Overall Average 03:46 0:04:04 03:29 -7.5% 03:56 -3.4% Overall Standard Deviation 01:30 0:01:46 02:15 49.3% 01:38 -7.3% AM Peak Average (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) 01:17 0:02:01 01:30 17.0% 02:04 2.4% PM Peak Average (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) 02:10 0:02:05 02:22 9.4% 02:13 6.7% † Trips were observed from May 5, 2016 to September 30, 2016 †† Trips were observed from November 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017 ††† Trips were observed from May 17, 2017 to September 18, 2017 †††† Trips were observed from October 2, 2017 to April 30, 2018 * Transit running time for Dumbarton Express from Lytton Avenue at Cowper Street bus stop to Middlefield Road at Willow Road bus stop (includes dwell time and bus re-entry time) ** Transit running time for Dumbarton Express from Middlefield Road at Willow Road bus stop to Lytton Avenue at Kipling Street bus stop (includes dwell time and bus re-entry time) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 45 Public Opinion A mail-back survey sent to residences within the project study area was the primary method for collecting feedback about public opinion. Between the pre- and end-pilot periods, the percent of respondents in favor of the project increased from 33.3 percent to 66.0 percent. Possible explanations for this increased approval of the Middlefield North Road Diet include sample survey sample sizes, an increase awareness among respondents about the project, and/or decreased safety concerns. Resident Survey Responses Public opinion of the Middlefield North Road Diet was collected through a mail-back survey sent to addresses within the study area. The survey was sent during the pre-, mid-, and end-pilot periods. The survey contained seven (7) questions about the Middlefield North Road Diet: 1. “Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey?” (see Table 14) 2. “How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?” (see Table 15) 3. Varied by pilot period (see Table 16) o Pre- and Mid-Pilot Survey: “Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor? If yes, please describe:” o End-Pilot Survey: “Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor?” 4. “When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation?” (see Table 17) 5. “Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Road?” (see Table 18) 6. Varied by pilot period (see Table 20) o Pre- and Mid-Pilot Survey: “Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Rd. to improve traffic safety?” o End-Pilot Survey: “Would you like to retain the current safety measures after the pilot period ends?” 7. Varied by pilot period o Pre- and Mid-Pilot Survey: “Additional comments:” o End-Pilot Survey: “Have you perceived an improvement in safety conditions on Middlefield Road since the start of the pilot project?” Approximately 1,000 surveys were mailed to residences near the project study area shown in Figure 10 during pilot periods (approximately 350 surveys per study period). For the pre-pilot survey instrument, see Table 39 (39 responses received). For the mid-pilot survey instrument, see Table 40 (127 responses received). For the end-pilot survey instrument, see Table 41 (150 responses received). In addition to survey responses, the City of Palo Alto collected emails that it received from residents about the Middlefield North Road Diet (see Table 38). City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 46 Figure 10: Resident Survey Distribution Area City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 47 Pre-Pilot Period The pre-pilot mail-back survey was sent out to residences within the study area with a requested return date of May 22, 2017. A total of 39 survey responses were received by mail, and the relatively small sample size of responses should be considered when comparing survey results to mid- and end-pilot periods. Of the 39 survey responses received by mail during the pre-pilot period, approximately half (51.3 percent) of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey. The remaining respondents indicated that they were not aware of the project prior to receiving the survey (43.6 percent) or were not sure if they were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey (5.1%). See Table 14 for a summary of responses to Question #1 and Table 38 for a full list of responses. Of the 39 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, approximately three-fifths (61.5 percent) of the respondents indicated that they traveled along the project corridor multiple times per day. The remaining respondents indicated that they traveled along the project corridor once per day (17.9 percent), weekly (17.9 percent), or monthly (2.6%). See Table 15 for a summary of responses to Question #2 and Table 38 for a full list of responses. Of the 39 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, over two-thirds (71.8 percent) of the respondents indicated that they had safety concerns about the project corridor. See Table 16 for a summary of responses to Question #3 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. Within the 49 categorized comments received asking respondents to describe their safety concerns, the most frequent types of concerns were: Concern about traffic congestion (18.4 percent) Concern about turning/turning movements (18.4 percent) Concern about motor vehicle speeds (14.3 percent) Concern about traffic divergence (12.2 percent) General anxiety about the dangerousness of the corridor (10.2 percent) Concern about poor bicycling conditions (8.2 percent) Concern about poor walking conditions (6.1 percent) Concern about difficulty in crossing the street (4.1 percent) Concern about stressed motorists (4.1 percent) Concern about no available shoulder on the travelway (2.0 percent) Concern about access to transit (2.0 percent) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 48 In addition to types of safety concerns, respondents also highlighted locations where they had safety concerns (see Table 37 for a full list of responses). Within the 13 location-based comments received by asking respondents to describe their safety concerns, the most frequent locations mentioned were: Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue (38.5 percent) Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue (23.1 percent) Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue (23.1 percent) Middlefield Road at Willow Road (7.7 percent) Middlefield Road between Willow Road and Lytton Avenue (7.7 percent) A cross-tabulation of Question #3 (Do you have safety concerns about the project corridor?) and Question #2 (How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?) showed that people that frequently travel along the project corridor were more likely to have safety concerns about the project corridor. Of the 37 pre-pilot survey responses, 85.7 percent of respondents that traveled the along the project corridor once per day or multiple times per day and had safety concerns about the project corridor. Comparatively, 14.3 percent of respondents that traveled along the project corridor weekly, monthly, or never had safety concerns about the project corridor. See Table 26 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. Of the 39 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, almost all (94.9 percent) of the respondents indicated that driving a motor vehicle was one of the modes that they typically use to travel along the project corridor. Among the other modes that respondents indicated they typically use to travel along the project corridor were bicycling (30.8 percent), walking (25.6 percent), and riding transit (5.1 percent). See Table 17 for a summary of responses to Question #4 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. Of the 39 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, over two-thirds (69.2 percent) of respondents indicated that they frequently travel along streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road. The remaining respondents indicated that they do not frequent streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road (28.2 percent) or were unsure if they frequent streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road (2.6 percent). See Table 18 for a summary of responses to Question #5 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #5 (Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Road?) and Question #4 (When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation?) showed that respondents regardless of mode of transportation frequently traveled along streets parallel or adjacent to Middlefield Road. Of the 61 pre-pilot survey responses, the percent of respondents that traveled along streets parallel or adjacent to Middlefield Road was higher for each mode of transportation than those that did not frequent parallel or adjacent streets (Auto: 42.6 percent frequent compared to 16.4 percent not frequent; Bike: 16.4 percent frequent compared to 3.3 percent not frequent; Walk: 11.5 percent frequent compared to 4.9 percent not frequent; and Transit: 3.3 percent frequent compared to 0.0 percent not frequent). See Table 27 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 49 Of the 39 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, over one-third (38.5 percent) of respondents indicated that they were not in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions. The remaining respondents indicated that they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions (33.3 percent) or that they were not sure if they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions (28.2 percent). See Table 20 for a summary of responses to Question #6 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #1 (Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey?) showed that respondents with a prior awareness of the project were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 20 pre-pilot survey respondents that were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey, ten (10) indicated that they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety (25.6 percent of all respondents), seven (7) indicated that they were not in favor (17.9 percent of total respondents), and three (3) indicated that they were unsure (7.7 percent of total respondents). See Table 21 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #2 (How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?) showed that respondents that travel the corridor frequently (multiple times per day or once per day) were more likely to not be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 39 pre-pilot survey respondents, nine (9) indicated that they travel the corridor once per day or multiple times per day and are in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety conditions (23.1 percent of all respondents). Comparatively, 12 respondents who travel the corridor once per day or multiple times per day were not in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet (30.8 percent of all respondents, and 10 were unsure (25.6 percent of all respondents). See Table 22 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #3 (Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor?) showed that respondents with safety concerns about the project corridor were more likely to not be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 28 pre-pilot respondents that indicated they had safety concerns about the project corridor, nine (9) indicated they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety conditions (24.3 percent of all respondents), 11 were not in favor (29.7 percent of all respondents), and 8 were unsure (21.6 percent). See Table 23 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 50 A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #4 (When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation?) of the 61 pre-pilot survey responses showed that respondents who bicycle and walk along the project corridor were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 12 respondents who indicated that bicycling was one of their typical modes of transportation along the project corridor, seven (7) were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety (18.0 percent of total responses), two (2) were not in favor (3.3 percent of total responses), and three (3) were not sure (4.9 percent of total responses). The cross-tabulated responses also showed that respondents who drive a motor vehicle along the project corridor were slightly more likely to be against a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety. Among the 37 respondents that indicated that driving was one of their typical modes of transportation along the project corridor, 11 were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety (18.0 percent of total responses), 15 were not in favor (24.6 percent of total responses), and 11 were un sure (18.0 percent). See Table 24 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #5 (Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets on Middlefield Road?) of the 39 pre-pilot survey responses showed that frequent travel along streets parallel or adjacent to Middlefield Road had little correlation with respondents’ favorability of the Middlefield North Road Diet. An equal percent of respondents who do travel the project corridor frequently were in favor of the project (23.1 percent), not in favor of the project (23.1 percent) and not sure if they were in favor of the project (23.1 percent). See Table 25 for a summary of the cross- tabulated responses. At the end of the pre-pilot survey, some respondents provided additional comments about the project. Of the 39 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, ten (10) surveys contained additional, unprompted comments on the survey instrument. Within the ten (10) additional comments received, the most frequent types of comments were: Concern about turning/turning movements (2 out of 13 categorized comments, 15.4 percent) Concern about traffic diversion (2 out of 13 categorized comments, 15.4 percent) General pessimism about the Middlefield North Road Diet (2 out of 13 categorized comments, 15.4 percent) General optimism about the Middlefield North Road Diet (2 out of 13 categorized comments, 15.4 percent) Concern about traffic diversion to parallel streets (2 out of 13 categorized comments, 15.4 percent) Desire for motor vehicle speed enforcement (1 out of 13 categorized comments, 7.7 percent) Concern about motor vehicle speeds (1 out of 13 categorized comments, 7.7 percent) Concern about poor walking conditions (1 out of 13 categorized comments, 7.7 percent) Concern about traffic congestion (1 out of 13 categorized comments, 7.7 percent) Desire for advanced warning signage at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Hawthorne (1 out of 13 categorized comments, 7.7 percent) Among the additional comments received by phone or email, none were shared during the pre-pilot period. See Table 38 for a full list of additional comments received by phone or email by date received. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 51 Mid-Pilot Period The mid-pilot mail-back survey was sent out to residences within the study area with a requested return date of November 20, 2017. A total of 126 survey responses were received by mail and one (1) survey response was received by email. Of the 127 survey responses received during the mid-pilot period, approximately four-fifths (83.5 percent) of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey. The remaining respondents indicated that they were not aware of the project prior to receiving the survey (14.2 percent) or were not sure if they were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey (2.4 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the percent of respondents who were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey increased by 38.6 percent. See Table 14 for a summary of responses to Question #1 and Table 38 for a full list of responses. Of the 127 survey responses received during the mid-pilot period, approximately half (54.3 percent) respondents indicated that they traveled along the corridor multiple times per day. The remaining respondents indicated that they traveled along the project corridor once per day (22.0 percent), weekly (18.9 percent), monthly (3.9 percent), or never (0.8 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the percent of respondents who indicated that they travel along the project corridor multiple times per day decreased by 11.7 percent, indicating that a larger proportion of respondents living further from the project study area may have responded to the mid-pilot survey. See Table 15 for a summary of responses to Question #2 and Table 38 for a full list of responses. Of the 127 survey responses received during the mid-pilot period, approximately half (52.0 percent) of respondents indicated that they had safety concerns about the project corridor, representing a 27.6 percent decrease compared to the pre-pilot period. See Table 16 for a summary of responses to Question #3 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. Within the 80 comments received asking respondents to describe their safety concerns, the most prominent types of concerns were: Concern about traffic congestion (from 19.6 percent pre-pilot to 18.1 percent mid-pilot) Concern about turning/turning movements (from 18.4 percent pre-pilot to 21.7 percent mid-pilot) General expression about how project improved safety (11.6 percent mid-pilot) Concern about motor vehicle speeds (from 14.3 percent pre-pilot to 8.7 percent mid-pilot) Concern about difficulty in crossing street (from 4.1 percent pre-pilot to 5.1 percent mid-pilot) Concern about increased air pollution (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 4.3 percent mid-pilot) Need of additional signage (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 1.4 percent mid-pilot) Concern about poor walking conditions (from 6.1 percent pre-pilot to 3.6 percent mid-pilot) Concern about poor bicycling conditions (from 8.2 percent pre-pilot to 2.9 percent mid-pilot) Concern about traffic divergence (from 12.2 percent pre-pilot to 5.1 percent mid-pilot) Concern about increased noise pollution (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 0.7 percent mid-pilot) Concern about lanes being too narrow (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 2.2 percent mid-pilot) General anxiety about the dangerousness of the corridor (10.2 percent per-pilot to 5.1 percent mid-pilot) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 52 In addition to types of safety concerns, respondents also highlighted locations where they had safety concerns (see Table 37 for a full list of responses). Within the 47 location-based comments received by asking respondents to describe their safety concerns, the most frequent locations were: Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue (from 23.1 percent pre-pilot to 34.0 percent mid-pilot) Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue (from 38.5 percent pre-pilot to 19.1 percent mid-pilot) Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue (from 23.1 percent pre-pilot to 19.1 percent mid-pilot) Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 6.4 percent mid-pilot) Middlefield Road at University Avenue (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 6.4 percent mid-pilot) Middlefield Road at Willow Road (from 7.7 percent pre-pilot to 4.3 percent mid-pilot) Webster House (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 4.3 percent mid-pilot) Middlefield Road at Palo Alto Avenue (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 4.3 percent mid-pilot) San Francisquito Creek Bridge (from 0.0 percent pre-pilot to 2.1 percent mid-pilot) A cross-tabulation of Question #3 (Do you have safety concerns about the project corridor?) and Question #2 (How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?) showed that the large pre-pilot discrepancy in the percent of people who traveled the project corridor frequently (once per day or multiple times per day) and had safety concerns compared to those without safety concerns may have been random variation due to a small sample size, as the percentages leveled out in the mid-pilot survey responses (from 85.7 percent to 46.5 percent). See Table 26 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. Of the 127 survey responses received during the mid-pilot period, almost all (92.1 percent) of the respondents indicated that driving a motor vehicle was one of the modes that they typically use to travel along the project corridor. Among the other modes that respondents indicated they typically use to travel along the project corridor were bicycling (15.0 percent), walking (34.6 percent), and riding transit (1.6 percent). The mid-pilot survey captured an increased number of pedestrians, shifting from 10 respondents in the pre-pilot survey indicating that walking was one of their typical modes of transportation along the project corridor to 44 respondents in the mid-pilot survey. See Table 17 for a summary of responses to Question #4 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. Of the 127 survey responses received during the mid-pilot period, over three-quarters (75.6 percent) of respondents indicated that they frequently travel along streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road. The remaining respondents indicated that they do not frequent streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road (21.3 percent) or were unsure if they frequent streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road (3.1 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the mid-pilot survey captured 9.2 percent more respondents who travel frequently along the parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Road. See Table 18 for a summary of responses to Question #5 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 53 A cross-tabulation of Question #5 (Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Road?) and Question #4 (When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation?) showed that the pre-pilot findings that respondents, regardless of mode of transportation, frequently traveled along streets parallel or adjacent to Middlefield Road remained consistent with mid-pilot survey responses. Of the 182 mid-pilot survey responses, the percent of respondents that traveled along streets parallel or adjacent to Middlefield Road was the same or higher for each mode of transportation than those that did not frequent parallel or adjacent streets (Auto: 49.5 percent frequent compared to 13.2 percent not frequent; Bicycle: 8.8 percent frequent compared to 1.6 percent not frequent; Walk: 20.3 percent frequent compared to 2.7 percent not frequent; and Transit: 0.5 percent frequent compared to 0.5 percent not frequent). See Table 27 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. Of the 127 survey responses received during the mid-pilot period, over half (56.7 percent) of respondents indicated that they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions. The remaining respondents indicated that they were not in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions (30.7 percent) or that they were not sure if they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions (11.8 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the percent of respondents that were in favor of the Middlefield Road North Diet increased 64.2 percent. See Table 20 for a summary of responses to Question #6 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #1 (Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey?) showed that respondents with a prior awareness of the project were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. This finding is consistent with the pre-pilot survey, with the percent of respondents both aware of the project and in favor of the Middlefield Road North Diet increasing from 25.6 percent to 50.8 percent between the pre- and mid-pilot periods. One possible explanation for this trend is that as residents become more familiar with the project, they are more likely to be in favor of it. See Table 21 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #2 (How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?) showed that respondents that travel the corridor frequently (multiple times per day or once per day) were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 126 mid-pilot survey respondents, 42.1 percent indicated that they travel the corridor once per day or multiple times per day and are in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety conditions. These results were inconsistent with pre-pilot survey responses, as only 23.1 percent of pre-pilot survey respondents traveled the project corridor frequently and were in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. See Table 22 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 54 A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #3 (Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor?) showed that respondents with safety concerns about the project corridor were more likely to not be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 65 mid-pilot respondents that indicated they had safety concerns about the project corridor, 29 indicated they were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety conditions (23.0 percent of all respondents), 27 were not in favor (21.4 percent of all respondents), and 9 were unsure (7.1 percent). This finding is consistent with pre-pilot period, suggesting that lingering safety concerns may be a primary reason why some residents are not in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. See Table 23 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?) and Question #4 (When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation?) of the 181 mid-pilot survey responses showed that respondents who bicycle and walk along the project corridor were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet compared to respondents who drove. Of the 19 respondents who indicated that bicycling was one of their typical modes of transportation along the project corridor, 15 were in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety (8.8 percent of total responses), two (2) were not in favor (1.1 percent of total responses), and one (1) was not sure (0.6 percent of total responses). This finding was consistent with the pre-pilot survey responses. See Table 24 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. At the end of the mid-pilot survey, some respondents provided additional comments about the project. Of the 95 survey responses received during the pre-pilot period, 29 surveys contained additional, unprompted comments on the survey instrument. Within the 29 additional comments received, the most frequent types of comments were: Optimism about the Middlefield North Road Diet (from 15.4 percent pre-pilot to 38.1 percent mid-pilot) Pessimism about the Middlefield North Road Diet (from 15.4 percent pre-pilot to 23.8 percent mid-pilot) Concern about traffic diversion (from 15.4 percent pre-pilot to 14.3 percent mid-pilot) Concern about turning/turning movements (from 15.4 percent pre-pilot to 14.3 percent mid-pilot) Concern about motor vehicle speeds (from 7.7 percent pre-pilot to 4.8 percent mid-pilot) Concern about traffic congestion (7.7 percent pre-pilot to 4.8 percent mid-pilot) Thirteen (13) additional comments were received by phone or email during the mid-pilot period. See Table 38 for a full list of additional comments received by phone or email. Comments included: A desire for additional broader public outreach The installed barriers are too easy to bypass, allowing motorists to drive around them The need for improved bicycling conditions along the project corridor Opposition to the 24/7 turn restrictions, especially if they are not enforced The need for improved travel conditions to make it easier to drive through the corridor during peak periods The lack of space for motorists to drive around buses when they are boarding and alighting Difficulty turning out of driveway at 133 Middlefield Road [City of Palo Alto has made minor adjustments to signing and striping to improve access to roadway] City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 55 End-Pilot Period The end-pilot mail-back survey was sent out to residences within the study area with a requested return date of May 11, 2018. A total of 151 survey responses were received by mail. Of the 151 survey responses received during the end-pilot period, 90.7 percent of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey. The remaining respondents indicated that they were not aware of the project prior to receiving the survey (6.0 percent) or were not sure if they were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey (3.3 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the percent of respondents who were aware of the project prior to receiving the survey increased by 76.8 percent. See Table 14 for a summary of responses to Question #1 and Table 38 for a full list of responses. Of the 147 respondents that answered Question #2 during the end-pilot period, 59.2 percent of respondents indicated that they traveled along the corridor multiple times per day. The remaining respondents indicated that they traveled along the project corridor once per day (23.8 percent), weekly (15.0 percent), or monthly (2.0 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the percent of respondents who indicated that they travel along the project corridor multiple times per day decreased by 3.8 percent, indicating that a larger proportion of respondents living further from the project study area may have responded to the end-pilot survey. See Table 15 for a summary of responses to Question #2 and Table 38 for a full list of responses. Of the 149 respondents that answered Question #3 during the end-pilot period, 40.3 percent of respondents indicated that they had safety concerns about the project corridor, representing a 43.9 percent decrease compared to the pre-pilot period. See Table 16 for a summary of responses to Question #3 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #3 (Do you have safety concerns about the project corridor?) and Question #2 (How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?) showed that most of the respondents in the end-pilot survey who had safety concerns about the corridor, traveled the corridor multiple times per day (33.8 percent) compared to those who did not have safety concerns about the corridor and traveled the corridor multiple times per day (20.8 percent). See Table 26 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. Of the 151 respondents that answered to Question #4 during the end-pilot period, almost all (97.3 percent) of the respondents indicated that driving a motor vehicle was one of the modes that they typically use to travel along the project corridor. Among the other modes that respondents indicated they typically use to travel along the project corridor were bicycling (16.0 percent), walking (23.3 percent), and riding transit (0.7 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot survey, the end-pilot survey captured a decreased proportion of bicyclists (-48.0 percent), pedestrians (-87.0 percent), and transit rider (-87.0 percent). See Table 17 for a summary of responses to Question #4 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 56 Of the 149 respondents that answered Question #5 during the end-pilot period, the majority of respondents (85.8 percent) indicated that they frequently travel along streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road. The remaining respondents indicated that they do not frequent streets that are adjacent or parallel to Middlefield Road (14.2 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the end-pilot survey captured 23.9 percent more respondents who travel frequently along the parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Road. See Table 18 for a summary of responses to Question #5 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. Of the 148 respondents that answered Question #6 during the end-pilot period, two-thirds (66.0 percent) of respondents indicated that they were in favor of retaining the implementated safety measures on Middlefield Road. The remaining respondents indicated that they were not in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve safety conditions (20.4 percent) or that they were not sure (13.6 percent). Compared to the pre-pilot period, the percent of respondents that were in favor of the Middlefield Road North Diet increased 98.0 percent. See Table 20 for a summary of responses to Question #6 and Table 37 for a full list of responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Would you like to retain the current safety measures after the pilot period ends?) and Question #1 (Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey?) showed that respondents with a prior awareness of the project were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. This finding is consistent with the pre-pilot survey, with the percent of respondents both aware of the project and in favor of the Middlefield Road North Diet increasing from 25.6 percent to 57.1 percent between the pre- and end-pilot periods. One possible explanation for this trend is that as residents become more familiar with the project, they are more likely to be in favor of it. See Table 21 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Would you like to retain the current safety measures after the pilot period ends?) and Question #2 (How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?) showed that respondents that travel the corridor frequently (multiple times per day or once per day) were more likely to be in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. Of the 126 end-pilot survey respondents, 50.1 percent indicated that they travel the corridor once per day or multiple times per day and are in favor or retaining the safety countermeasures. These results were inconsistent with pre-pilot survey responses, as only 23.1 percent of pre-pilot survey respondents traveled the project corridor frequently (multiple times per day or once per day) and were in favor of the Middlefield North Road Diet. See Table 22 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. A cross-tabulation of Question #6 (Would you like to retain the current safety measures after the pilot period ends?) and Question #3 (Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor?) showed a large shift in the percent of respondents that were in favor of retention and did not have safety concerns (10.8 percent during the pre-pilot period to 38.3 percent during the end-pilot period). See Table 23 for a summary of the cross-tabulated responses. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 57 At the end of the end-pilot survey, respondents were asked to describe why they would like to retain the current safety measures or not retain them. Of the 123 written responses received, most used the open-ended question as a way to provide additional feedback. A generalized coding of the responses is listed below: The project generally made the corridor safer or better (31.3 percent of write-in responses) The project generally made the corridor more congested or less convenient to use (16.3 percent of write-in responses) The project led to less adherence to traffic laws, an increase in illegal travel behaviors, or confused drivers (8.1 percent of write-in responses) The project led to more traffic being diverted from Middlefield Road (7.5 percent of write-in responses) The project led to less speeding (6.3% of write-in responses) The project led to less congestion or better traffic flow (6.3 percent of write-in responses) The project generally made the corridor less safe (4.4 percent of write-in responses) The project made the corridor better for walking (4.4 percent of write-in responses) In addition, respondents indicated specific locations as potential problem areas. A total of 40 comments indicated specific locations which can be compared to pre-pilot survey responses. The percent of respondents indicating that Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue as a potential problem area increased from 23.1 percent of all open-ended locational responses during the pre-pilot period to 27.5 percent during the end-pilot period The percent of respondents indicating that Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue as a potential problem area decreased from 38.5 percent of all open-ended locational responses during the pre-pilot period to 17.5 percent during the end-pilot period The percent of respondents indicating that Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue as a potential problem area increased from decreased from 23.1 percent of all open-ended locational responses during the pre-pilot period to 15.0 percent during the end-pilot period The percent of respondents indicating that Fulton Street north of University Avenue as a potential problem area increased from 0.0 percent of all open-ended locational responses during the pre-pilot period to 12.5 percent during the end-pilot period See Table 37 for a full list of open-ended responses. Two (2) additional comments were received by email during the end-pilot period. See Table 38 for a full list of additional comments received by phone or email. Comments included: Commenter #1 o Traffic speeds appear to have slowed down on Middlefield Road o The collision rate has appeared to decrease on Everett Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue o The crosswalk at Everett Avenue appears to have improved pedestrian safety conditions, but there are fewer gaps in motor vehicle traffic in order to cross Middlefield Road o There’s a need for enforcement of turn restrictions o Motorists continue to make illegal turning movements and cut-through traffic has shifted to parallel facilities City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 58 Commenter #2 o Ingress and egress out of Lytton Gardens has become more difficult o Reductions in cut-through traffic on Everett Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue have led to increases in cut through traffic on Lytton Avenue o The neck down at University Avenue confuses motorists and leads to sudden lane changes o Current conditions for bus boardings and alightings contribute to traffic congestion, and buses have difficulty turning from Middlefield Road to Lytton Avenue. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 59 Table 14: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #1) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT “Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey?” Responses (%, excluding no response) Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Yes 20 (51.3%) 106 (83.5%) 38.6% 136 (90.7%) 76.8% No 17 (43.6%) 18 (14.2%) -207.5% 9 (6.0%) -86.2% Not Sure 2 (5.1%) 3 (2.4%) -117.1% 5 (3.3%) -35.0% No Response 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total 39 (100.0%) 127 (100.0%) - 150 (100.0%) - Table 15: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #2) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT “How often do you typically travel along the project corridor?” Responses (%, excluding no response) Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Multiple times per day 24 (61.5%) 69 (54.3%) -11.7% 87 (59.2%) -3.8% Once per day 7 (17.9%) 28 (22.0%) 22.8% 35 (23.8%) 32.7% Weekly 7 (17.9%) 24 (18.9%) 5.3% 22 (15.0%) -16.6% Monthly 1 (2.6%) 5 (3.9%) 53.5% 3 (2.0%) -20.4% Never 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) N/A 0 (0.0%) N/A No Response 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total 39 (100.0%) 127 (100.0%) - 147 (100.0%) - Table 16: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #3) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT “Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor?”* Responses (%, excluding no response) Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Yes 28 (75.7%) 66 (52.0%) -31.3% 60 (41.4%) -45.3% No 9 (24.3%) 61 (48.0%) 97.5% 85 (58.6%) 141.2% No Response 2 0 N/A 4 N/A Total 37 (100.0%) 127 (100.0%) - 145 (100.0%) - * Question #3 contained an open-ended follow-up question: “If yes, please describe:” City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 60 Table 17: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #4) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT “When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation?” Responses* (%, excluding no response)** Responses* (%, excluding no response)** % Change Responses* (%, excluding no response)** % Change Auto 37 (94.9%) 117 (92.1%) -2.9% 146 (97.3%) 2.6% Bike 12 (30.8%) 19 (15.0%) -51.4% 24 (16.0%) -48.0% Transit 2 (5.1%) 2 (1.6%) -69.3% 1 (0.7%) -87.0% Walk 10 (25.6%) 44 (34.6%) 35.1% 35 (23.3%) -9.0% Other 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) N/A 1 (0.7%) N/A N/A 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) N/A 0 (0.0%) N/A No Response 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total Respondents/Responses 39/61 127/182 - 150/207 - * Multiple responses allowed per respondent ** Percent out of total respondents (Pre-pilot = 39 total responses; Mid-pilot = 127 total responses; End-pilot = 150 responses) Table 18: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #5) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT “Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Rd.?” Responses (%, excluding no response) Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Yes 27 (69.2%) 96 (75.6%) 9.2% 127 (85.8%) 23.9% No 11 (28.2%) 27 (21.3%) -24.6% 21(14.2%) -49.7% Not Sure 1 (2.6%) 4 (3.1%) 22.8% 0 (0.0%) -100.0% No Response 0 0 N/A 1 N/A Total 39 (100.0%) 127 (100.0%) - 148 (100.0%) - Table 19: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #5b) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT* “Have you perceived an improvement in safety conditions on Middlefield Road since the start of the pilot project?” Responses (%, excluding no response) Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Yes - - - 86 (58.1%) 74.3% No - - - 39 (26.4%) -31.5% Not Sure - - - 23 (15.5%) -44.9% No Response - - - 2 N/A Total - - - 150 (100.0%) - * Question only administered during the end-pilot period City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 61 Table 20: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Question #6) QUESTION: PRE-PILOT MID-PILOT END-PILOT* “Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety?” Responses (%, excluding no response) Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Responses (%, excluding no response) % Change Yes 13 (33.3%) 72 (57.1%) 71.4% 97 (66.0%) 98.0% No 15 (38.5%) 39 (31.0%) -19.5% 30 (20.4%) -46.9% Not Sure 11 (28.2%) 15 (11.9%) -57.8% 20 (13.6%) -51.8% No Response 0 1 N/A 1 N/A Total 39 (100.0%) 126 (100.0%) - 147 (100.0%) - * End-pilot survey question wording: “Would you like to retain the current safety measures after the pilot project period ends? Please describe why:” Table 21: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #6 and Question #1) Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) 25.6%, 50.8%, 57.1% 17.9%, 23.0%, 22.4% 7.7%, 9.5%, 10.2% 20, 105, 44 % No (Pre, Mid, End) 7.7%, 5.6%, 4.1% 17.9%, 6.3%, 2.0% 17.9%, 2.4%, 2.0% 17, 18, 4 % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.8%, 2.0% 2.6%, 1.6%, 0.0% 2.6%, 0.0%, 0.0% 2, 3, 1 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 13, 72, 31 15, 39, 12 11, 15, 6 39, 126, 49 Table 22: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #6 and Question #2) Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) How often do you typically travel along the project corridor? % Multiple times per day (Pre, Mid, End) 23.1%,31.7%,31.3% 20.5%, 17.5%, 16.7% 17.9%, 4.8%, 4.2% 24, 68, 25 % Once per day (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 10.3%, 18.8% 10.3%, 9.5%, 6.3% 7.7%, 2.4%, 0.0% 7, 28, 12 % Weekly (Pre, Mid, End) 10.3%, 11.9%, 12.5% 7.7%, 4.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 3.2%, 4.2% 7, 24, 8 % Monthly (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 2.4%, 2.1% 0.0%, 0.0%, 2.1% 2.6%, 1.6%, 2.1% 1, 5, 3 % Never (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.8%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0, 1, 0 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 13, 72, 31 15, 39, 12 11, 15, 5 39, 126, 48 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 62 Table 23: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #6 and Question #3) Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) 24.3%, 23.0%, 27.7% 29.7%, 21.4%, 14.9% 21.6%, 7.1%, 2.1% 28, 65, 21 % No (Pre, Mid, End) 10.8%, 34.1%, 38.3% 8.1%, 9.5%, 8.5% 5.4%, 4.8%, 8.5% 9, 61, 26 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 13, 72, 31 14, 39, 11 10, 15, 5 37, 126, 47 Table 24: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #6 and Question #4) Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation? Auto (Pre, Mid, End) 18.0%, 35.9%, 44.9% 24.6%, 21.5%, 17.4% 18.0%, 6.6%, 8.7% 37, 116, 49 Bike (Pre, Mid, End) 11.5%, 8.8%, 11.6% 3.3%, 1.1%, 1.4% 4.9%, 0.6%, 1.4% 12, 19, 110 Transit (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 1.1%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 3.3%, 0.0%, 0.0% 2, 2, 0 Walk (Pre, Mid, End) 9.8%, 16.0%, 8.7% 3.3%, 5.5%, 2.9% 3.3%, 2.8%, 2.9% 10, 44, 0 Other (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0, 0, 0 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 24, 112, 45 19, 51, 15 18, 18, 9 61, 181, 69 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 63 Table 25: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #6 and Question #5) Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets on Middlefield Rd.? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) 23.1%, 46.0%, 55.3% 23.1%, 21.4%, 19.1% 23.1%, 7.9%, 10.6% 27, 95, 40 % No (Pre, Mid, End) 10.3%, 10.3%, 8.5% 15.4%, 8.7%, 4.3% 2.6%, 2.4%, 2.1% 11, 27, 7 % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.8%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.8%, 0.0% 2.6%, 1.6%, 0.0% 1, 4, 0 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 13, 72, 30 15, 39, 11 11, 15, 6 39, 126, 47 Table 26: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #3 and Question #2) Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) How often do you typically travel along the project corridor? % Multiple times per day (Pre, Mid, End) 64.3%, 33.9%, 33.3% 17.9%, 20.5%, 20.8% 23, 69, 26 % Once per day (Pre, Mid, End) 21.4%, 12.6%, 6.3% 0.0%, 9.4%, 16.7% 6, 28, 11 % Weekly (Pre, Mid, End) 14.3%, 5.5%, 6.3% 10.7%, 13.4%, 10.4% 7, 24, 8 % Monthly (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 3.6%, 3.9%, 6.3% 1, 5, 3 % Never (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.8%, 0.0% 0, 1, 0 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 28, 66, 22 9, 61, 26 37, 127, 48 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 64 Table 27: Summary of Resident Survey Responses (Cross-tabulation: Question #5 and Question #4) Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Rd.? % Yes (Pre, Mid, End) % No (Pre, Mid, End) % Not Sure (Pre, Mid, End) Total (Pre, Mid, End) When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation? Auto (Pre, Mid, End) 42.6%, 49.5%, 59.4% 16.4%, 13.2%, 10.1% 1.6%, 1.6%, 0.0% 37, 117, 48 Bike (Pre, Mid, End) 16.4%, 8.8%, 11.6% 3.3%, 1.6%, 2.9% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 12, 19, 10 Transit (Pre, Mid, End) 3.3%, 0.5%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.5%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 2, 2, 0 Walk (Pre, Mid, End) 11.5%, 20.3%, 13.0% 4.9%, 2.7%, 2.9% 0.0%, 1.1%, 0.0% 10, 44, 11 Other (Pre, Mid, End) 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% 0, 0, 0 Total (Pre, Mid, End) 45, 144, 58 15, 33, 11 1, 5, 0 61, 182, 69 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 65 Appendix Table 28-A: Reported Collisions (Palo Alto Police Department) Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 1/9/2012 0 1 N Basic speed law Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 4/13/2012 Occur Time 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT 30 FEET EVERETT AVE 5/19/2012 8:52 AM 0 2 N Basic speed law Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 6/25/2012 9:18 AM 0 0 N Following too close Rear End Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 75 FEET HAWTHORNE AVE 7/5/2012 2:37 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 9/27/2012 6:14 PM 0 0 N Intersection - fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 10/3/2012 7:23 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 10/24/2012 12:37 PM 0 1 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 300 BLK OR 30 FEET LYTTON AVE 12/12/2012 2:42 PM 0 2 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 50 FEET LYTTON AVE 12/14/2012 8:30 AM 0 0 N - Side Swipe Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 1 FEET PALO ALTO AVE City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 66 Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 12/24/2012 2:08 PM 0 0 N Left turn – fail to yield right of way Head-on Other Vehicle - AT - PALO ALTO AVE 1/31/2013 11:32 AM 0 1 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 3/23/2013 10:14 AM 0 0 N Unsafe turn Hit Object Non- Collision 000 BLK OR 200 FEET PALO ALTO AVE 4/29/2013 9:04 AM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 5/28/2013 1:53 PM 0 0 Y Drive under influence/alcohol Rear End Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 170 FEET PALO ALTO AVE 7/26/2013 7:26 PM 0 0 Y Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 12 FEET THE EAST CURBLINE 8/18/2013 4:21 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Side Swipe Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 10/4/2013 6:26 PM 0 2 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - HAWTHORNE AVE 11/5/2013 5:36 PM 0 0 Y Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 200 BLK OR 20 FEET EVERETT AVE 11/7/2013 9:24 AM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 11/7/2013 5:53 PM 0 0 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle - AT - LYTTON AVE 12/1/2013 4:32 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 67 Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 12/9/2013 3:50 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - HAWTHORNE AVE 12/30/2013 12:51 PM 0 0 N Unsafe lane change Side Swipe Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 100 FEET PALO ALTO AVE 12/31/2013 7:13 PM 0 1 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 300 BLK OR 75 FEET LYTTON AVE 4/16/2014 9:07 AM 0 1 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 300 BLK OR 109 FEET EVERETT AVE 4/23/2014 9:08 PM 0 1 N Segment - Fail to yield right of way Broadside Vehicle on Other Roadway 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 5/10/2014 8:00 AM 0 0 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 300 BLK OR 150 FEET LYTTON AVE 5/19/2014 5:08 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 5/26/2014 8:34 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Vehicle on Other Roadway - AT - EVERETT AVE 6/11/2014 12:54 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 7/7/2014 5:04 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 7/10/2014 11:45 AM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 7/22/2014 6:06 PM 0 1 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 20 FEET PALO ALTO AVE City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 68 Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 7/31/2014 6:10 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 10/30/2014 5:03 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside - - AT - EVERETT AVE 12/4/2014 6:45 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 12/6/2014 10:25 AM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 12/12/2014 6:31 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 1/23/2015 1:32 PM 0 0 Y Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 2/1/2015 5:16 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 400 BLK AT - LYTTON AVE 2/18/2015 6:08 PM 0 1 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Fixed Object 200 BLK OR 75 FEET EVERETT AVE 3/26/2015 4:19 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 5/8/2015 8:21 AM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield - Other Vehicle - - - EVERETT AVE 7/18/2015 5:00 PM 0 2 N Unsafe turn Head-on Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 17 FEET SCL OF PALO ALTO AVE 8/8/2015 6:05 PM 0 0 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 300 BLK OR 150 FEET HAWTHORNE AVE City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 69 Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 8/18/2015 3:46 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK OR 1 FEET HAWTHORNE AVE 9/14/2015 9:38 PM 0 0 N - - - - - - EVERETT AVE 11/19/2015 2:28 PM 0 1 N Req. or Prohibited turn/fail to Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK OR 50 FEET EVERETT AVE 12/1/2015 - 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Pedestrian - AT - EVERETT AVE 1/4/2016 8:12 AM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 1/23/2016 9:35 AM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 100 BLK AT - HAWTHORNE AVE 4/6/2016 8:11 AM 0 0 N Basic speed law Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 4/19/2016 3:41 PM 0 0 Y - Hit Object Fixed Object - AT - LYTTON AVE 4/22/2016 6:50 PM 0 2 N Left turn – fail to yield right of way Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE 4/29/2016 6:56 AM 0 2 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 5/11/2016 10:18 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Auto/Pedestrian Pedestrian 300 BLK AT - LYTTON AVE 6/2/2016 6:23 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle - AT - EVERETT AVE City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 70 Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 6/19/2016 9:13 PM 0 3 N Basic speed law Rear End Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 70 FEET HAWTHORNE AVE 7/2/2016 3:26 PM 0 1 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Hit Object Fixed Object 200 BLK OR 12 FEET EVERETT AVE 8/11/2016 4:07 PM 0 0 N - - - - AT - HAWTHORNE AVE 8/19/2016 6:21 PM 0 0 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 200 BLK OR 20 FEET HAWTHORNE AVE 8/30/2016 1:45 PM 0 0 Y Unauthorized Removal from Priv. Side Swipe Other Vehicle - AT - LYTTON AVE 9/8/2016 5:44 PM 0 0 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR - PALO ALTO AVE 10/8/2016 3:10 PM 0 0 N - - - - AT - EVERETT AVE 10/17/2016 4:25 PM 0 1 N Left turn – fail to yield right of way Broadside Other Vehicle 300 BLK OR 2 FEET MIDDLEFIELD RD 11/19/2016 2:19 PM 0 0 N Intersection – fail to stop/yield Broadside Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - EVERETT AVE 12/2/2016 4:10 PM 0 0 Y Intersection – fail to stop/yield Hit Object Other Vehicle 100 BLK AT - HAWTHORNE AVE 12/12/2016 12:25 PM 0 0 Y Unsafe lane change Side Swipe Other Vehicle 200 BLK AT - HAWTHORNE AVE 1/11/2018 5:40 PM 0 2 N Unsafe turn Side Swipe Other Vehicle 100 BLK OR 9 FEET MIDDLEFIELD RD City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 71 Da t e Ti m e Fa t a l i t i e s In j u r i e s Hi t / R u n Pr i m a r y Co l l i s i o n Fa c t o r Vi o l a t i o n Co l l i s i o n Ty p e Pa r t i e s In v o l v e d Lo c a t i o n At / O r # Fe e t / Mi l e s Cr o s s St r e e t 3/19/2018 5:05 PM 0 2 N - Head-on Other Vehicle 400 BLK OR 21 FEET LYTTON AVE 5/10/2018 10:09 AM 0 N - - Other Vehicle 200 BLK OR 15 FEET PALO ALTO AVE City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 72 Table 28-B: Reported Collisions, Detailed Collision Factors (January 1st through June 30th) Year (Average January through June) Total Collisions Type* Injuries Primary Collision Factors* Motor Vehicle Involved with* Hi t O b j e c t Re a r E n d Si d e S w i p e He a d - o n Br o a d s i d e No t R e p o r t e d To t a l Fa t a l Un s a f e T u r n Un s a f e S p e e d Un s a f e L a n e Ch a n g e Fa i l t o Y i e l d / S t o p a t In t e r s e c t i o n Re q . o r P r o h i b i t e d tu r n f a i l u r e No t R e p o r t e d Ot h e r A u t o Fi x e d O b j e c t Pe d e s t r i a n No t R e p o r t e d 2012 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 2013 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2014 6 0 1 1 0 4 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 2015 5 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 2016 9 1 1 0 0 6 1 10 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 7 1 1 0 Average (2012- 2016) 5.6 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.4 3.8 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.2 4.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 2018 3.0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 Difference -2.6 -0.4 -1.0 0.6 1.0 -3.4 -0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 -1.2 0.0 -2.8 0.0 1.8 -1.4 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 * Some factors excluded for simplification of table City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 73 Table 29: Near-Miss Collisions Primary Secondary Date Time Event Parties Notes Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2017 7:39:34 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle N/A Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2017 17:19:30 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle N/A Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/19/2017 12:27:53 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle N/A Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/19/2017 16:40:39 Near Miss Vehicle, Pedestrian N/A Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 17:33:08 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle N/A Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 17:36:08 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineator as another car is reversing in intersection Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 5:36:55 Near Miss Vehicle, Bicyclist N/A Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 11:43:56 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle Illegal maneuver Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 12:14:46 Near Miss Vehicle, Pedestrian Pedestrian continues running across the street while vehicle is turning right Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 8:15:34 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle Vehicle turning left onto Hawthorne from Middlefield; Other vehicle driving along Middlefield Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 8:59:45 Near Miss Vehicle, Vehicle Vehicle turning City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 74 Table 30: Hazardous Behaviour Primary Secondary Date Time Event Parties Notes Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 16:24:19 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 16:25:35 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 16:26:35 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 16:47:11 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 16:52:30 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 8:01:06 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 8:53:13 Hazard Vehicle, Pedestrian Failed to Yield to Pedestrian Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 8:54:02 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: u‐turn around delineator Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 11:08:44 Hazard Other Illegal maneuver: pedestrian on Segway skirted around delineator Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 11:20:05 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 11:56:33 Hazard Vehicle, Pedestrian Vehicle turns while pedestrian is crossing Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 12:00:16 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 12:02:38 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 16:39:50 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 16:45:16 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car on the north side of Middlefield backs up and makes left turn from right lane Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 5:27:40 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 5:45:43 Hazard Vehicle illegal maneuver: u‐turn around delineator Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 8:30:52 Hazard Bicyclist, Vehicle No collision; Hazard/near miss between bicyclist and vehicle Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 11:29:49 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 4:23:20 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 75 Primary Secondary Date Time Event Parties Notes Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 17:35:55 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 8:25:11 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 8:43:09 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 11:16:27 Hazard Vehicle Vehicle turning illegally Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 11:59:56 Hazard Vehicle Vehicle turning illegally Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 12:57:19 Hazard Vehicle Vehicle turning illegally Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 16:24:46 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 17:50:04 Hazard Vehicle Vehicle turning illegally Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/17/2018 6:58:55 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 8:32:19 Hazard Bicyclist Bicyclist crossing outside crosswalk (during vehicle congestion) Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 10:58:33 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 11:17:17 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 12:05:27 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 12:27:42 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 76 Primary Secondary Date Time Event Parties Notes Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 17:32:19 Hazard Vehicle N/A Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 17:34:39 Hazard Bicycle Illegal maneuver: wrong‐way bicycling Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 7:20:44 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 8:46:55 Hazard Bicycle Bicyclist crossing outside crosswalk Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 8:51:25 Hazard Pedestrian Pedestrian crossing outside of crosswalk Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 11:05:30 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 12:02:10 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 12:06:33 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 12:06:50 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 12:25:00 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 12:43:30 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 13:07:23 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 15:54:04 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 15:54:16 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 16:00:00 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 16:15:53 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 8:36:27 Hazard Bicyclist Bicyclist crossing outside crosswalk Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 10:58:12 Hazard Other (Segway) Other crossing outside crosswalk Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 11:24:13 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 11:53:14 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:10:23 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:17:59 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:21:17 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:21:44 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:21:51 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 77 Primary Secondary Date Time Event Parties Notes Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:32:02 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:32:42 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:54:46 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 12:59:45 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 16:32:33 Hazard Vehicle, Vehicle Illegal maneuver: improper passing Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 16:36:04 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 17:35:10 Hazard Bicyclist Bicyclist crossing outside crosswalk Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 18:11:09 Hazard Vehicle Illegal maneuver: car skirted around delineators City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 78 Table 31: Observed Motor Vehicle Speeds Northbound/Westbound (mph) Southbound/Eastbound (mph) Both Directions (mph) Dates Corridor Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue (west) to Palo Alto Avenue (east) 26 27 28 33 27 28 28 33 26 27 28 33 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Middlefield Road from Hawthorne Avenue to Everett Avenue 26 28 28 34 26 27 28 33 26 28 28 33 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Middlefield Road from Everett Avenue to Lytton Avenue 26 27 28 32 23 24 28 31 24 26 28 32 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Webster Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 17 18 23 24 21 21 23 27 19 20 23 25 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Byron Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 17 18 23 23 18 19 23 24 17 19 23 24 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Palo Alto Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 17 18 18 22 17 18 18 22 17 18 18 22 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 15 17 8 23 17 18 23 23 16 17 18 23 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 19 21 23 26 18 20 23 25 19 20 23 25 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Guinda Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 12 13 8 18 14 16 18 19 13 15 8 19 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Hawthorne Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 17 18 18 22 16 17 18 22 16 17 18 22 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Everett Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 15 17 18 20 18 19 18 23 16 17 18 22 4/18/2017 ‐ 4/19/2017 Everett Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 18 19 23 23 20 21 23 24 19 20 23 24 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue (west) to Palo Alto Avenue (east) 24 25 28 29 22 23 23 29 23 24 28 29 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 79 Northbound/Westbound (mph) Southbound/Eastbound (mph) Both Directions (mph) Dates Corridor Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Middlefield Road from Hawthorne Avenue to Everett Avenue 27 27 28 32 23 25 28 31 25 26 28 31 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Middlefield Road from Everett Avenue to Lytton Avenue 27 28 28 32 25 26 28 33 26 27 28 33 ‐ Webster Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Byron Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 19 20 23 24 19 20 23 25 19 20 23 25 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Palo Alto Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 16 17 18 19 17 18 18 22 16 17 18 21 ‐ Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 16 18 18 23 17 19 23 23 17 18 18 23 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Guinda Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 14 16 18 19 13 15 8 19 14 15 18 19 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Hawthorne Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 19 20 23 24 18 18 18 23 18 19 18 23 ‐ Everett Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10/4/2017 ‐ 10/5/2017 Everett Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 19 21 23 25 19 21 23 24 19 21 23 24 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue (west) to Palo Alto Avenue (east) 25 26 28 31 24 26 28 32 24 26 28 32 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Middlefield Road from Hawthorne Avenue to Everett Avenue 26 27 28 31 23 25 28 31 24 26 28 31 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 80 Northbound/Westbound (mph) Southbound/Eastbound (mph) Both Directions (mph) Dates Corridor Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Middlefield Road from Everett Avenue to Lytton Avenue 24 24 23 39 17 19 8 28 21 23 23 28 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Webster Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 16 18 8 24 19 20 23 25 18 19 23 24 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Byron Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 17 18 18 23 19 20 23 24 18 20 23 24 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Palo Alto Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 17 18 18 23 16 17 18 21 17 17 18 22 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 18 19 18 24 19 20 23 25 19 20 23 25 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 18 20 23 24 19 20 23 25 18 20 23 24 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Guinda Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 14 16 18 19 9 9 8 16 11 11 8 18 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Hawthorne Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 18 19 23 23 17 18 18 22 17 18 18 23 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Everett Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 18 18 18 23 18 18 18 22 18 18 18 23 10/25/2017 ‐ 10/26/2017 Everett Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 18 19 23 24 18 19 23 23 17 18 18 23 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue (west) to Palo Alto Avenue (east) 23 26 28 31 25 27 28 32 24 26 28 32 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Middlefield Road from Hawthorne Avenue to Everett Avenue 21 23 28 29 25 27 28 33 23 26 28 31 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 81 Northbound/Westbound (mph) Southbound/Eastbound (mph) Both Directions (mph) Dates Corridor Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e Me a n Me d i a n Mo d e 85 th Pe r c e n t i l e 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Middlefield Road from Everett Avenue to Lytton Avenue 19 21 8 28 24 25 28 29 21 23 28 29 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Webster Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 18 19 23 24 16 18 23 23 17 19 23 24 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Byron Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 20 21 23 26 16 18 8 24 19 20 23 25 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Palo Alto Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 19 19 18 23 18 19 18 23 19 19 18 23 4/17/2018 ‐ 4/18/2018 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 20 21 23 26 19 20 23 26 20 21 23 26 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Fulton Street from Lytton Avenue to Everett Avenue 20 21 23 26 20 22 23 27 20 21 23 27 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Guinda Street from Lytton Avenue to University Avenue 17 18 18 23 20 21 23 24 19 20 23 24 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Hawthorne Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 18 18 18 23 18 19 18 23 18 18 18 23 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Everett Avenue from Byron Street to Middlefield Road 18 19 18 23 17 18 18 22 18 18 18 23 4/17/2018 ‐ 4/18/2018 Everett Avenue from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street 19 20 23 24 18 20 23 24 19 20 23 24 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 82 Table 32: Sound Level Data Period Location > 80 dB LCPeak LAeq LZPeak Lavg PRE-PILOT Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue 1 115.2 115.3 63.5 62.7 Byron Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue 0 101.2 107.2 54.9 54.6 Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue 1 115.4 115.8 68.1 67.1 Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue - - - - - MID-PILOT Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue 2 117.0 118.3 65.6 64.8 Byron Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue 0 111.0 111.5 55.3 54.9 Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue 0 113.4 115.6 67.0 66.2 Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue 0 108.0 109.6 53.8 53.5 END-PILOT Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue - - - - - Byron Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue - 120.0 58.0 120.0 72.2 Middlefield Road between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue - 110.6 69.3 119.3 71.2 Fulton Street between Lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue - 112.6 58.3 117.3 64.4 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 83 Table 33: Turning Movement Counts Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2017 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 0.91 2,391 2,313 78 5 32 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/19/2017 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.93 2,429 2,352 77 14 14 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.92 2,410 2,333 78 10 23 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2017 11:40 AM 12:40 PM 0.89 2,572 2,510 62 9 10 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/19/2017 11:25 AM 12:25 AM 0.92 2,547 2,463 84 5 15 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.91 2,560 2,487 73 7 13 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2017 4:55 PM 5:55 PM 0.92 3,350 3,294 56 8 23 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/19/2017 4:50 PM 5:50 PM 0.96 3,280 3,216 64 10 25 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 3,315 3,255 60 9 24 PRE‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,285 8,074 211 26 60 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2017 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.90 2,390 2,309 81 12 14 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/19/2017 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.91 2,424 2,346 78 17 15 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.91 2,407 2,328 80 15 15 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 84 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2017 11:35 AM 12:35 AM 0.92 2,291 2,233 58 11 13 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/19/2017 11:50 AM 12:50 PM 0.91 2,279 2,208 71 10 18 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.92 2,285 2,221 65 11 16 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2017 4:55 PM 5:55 PM 0.92 3,058 3,012 46 15 27 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/19/2017 4:45 PM 5:45 PM 0.95 3,028 2,959 69 17 28 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 3,043 2,986 58 16 28 PRE‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road Everett Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,735 7,534 202 41 58 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/18/2017 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.90 2,744 2,647 97 32 36 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/19/2017 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 0.94 2,750 2,652 98 65 31 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.92 2,747 2,650 98 49 34 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/18/2017 11:40 AM 12:40 PM 0.96 2,466 2,410 56 19 27 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/19/2017 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.94 2,443 2,363 80 14 40 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 2,455 2,387 68 17 34 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 85 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/18/2017 4:50 PM 5:50 PM 0.96 3,329 3,278 51 36 62 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/19/2017 4:45 PM 5:45 PM 0.96 3,328 3,265 63 51 47 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.96 3,329 3,272 57 44 55 PRE‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,530 8,308 223 109 122 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/18/2017 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.94 3,151 3,007 144 44 48 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/19/2017 7:50 AM 8:50 AM 0.96 3,215 3,087 128 44 61 PRE‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 3,183 3,047 136 44 55 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/18/2017 11:40 AM 12:40 PM 0.93 3,471 3,370 101 15 69 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/19/2017 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.95 3,501 3,380 121 24 75 PRE‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 3,486 3,375 111 20 72 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/18/2017 4:35 PM 5:35 PM 0.97 3,488 3,426 62 50 93 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/19/2017 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.96 3,501 3,430 71 57 85 PRE‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.97 3,495 3,428 67 54 89 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 86 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy PRE‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road University Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,164 9,850 314 117 216 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 7:45 AM 8:45 AM 0.95 2,256 2,198 58 13 9 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 0.91 2,234 2,153 81 25 23 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.93 2,245 2,176 70 19 16 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.93 2,418 2,358 60 12 8 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 0.95 2,443 2,396 47 10 6 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 2,431 2,377 54 11 7 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/4/2017 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.94 3,200 3,152 48 21 28 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 10/5/2017 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.95 3,176 3,114 62 17 26 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 3,188 3,133 55 19 27 MID‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,864 7,686 178 49 50 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 7:40 AM 8:40 AM 0.95 2,255 2,189 66 30 19 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 7:50 AM 8:50 AM 0.96 2,267 2,200 67 47 26 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 87 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.96 2,261 2,195 67 39 23 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.92 2,209 2,150 59 15 25 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 0.95 2,288 2,232 56 9 20 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 2,249 2,191 58 12 23 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/4/2017 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.97 2,961 2,912 49 28 31 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 10/5/2017 4:55 PM 5:55 PM 0.95 2,888 2,831 57 31 45 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.96 2,925 2,872 53 30 38 MID‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road Everett Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,434 7,257 177 80 83 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 10/4/2017 7:40 AM 8:40 AM 0.97 2,676 2,598 78 68 41 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 10/5/2017 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 0.98 2,673 2,579 94 55 45 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.98 2,675 2,589 86 62 43 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 10/4/2017 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 0.94 2,581 2,518 63 28 52 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 10/5/2017 11:50 AM 12:50 PM 0.98 2,682 2,610 72 28 33 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 88 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.96 2,632 2,564 68 28 43 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 10/4/2017 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.96 3,309 3,247 62 49 55 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 10/5/2017 4:15 PM 5:15 PM 0.98 3,270 3,214 56 58 58 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.97 3,290 3,231 59 54 57 MID‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ 8,596 8,383 213 143 142 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue 10/4/2017 7:50 AM 8:50 AM 0.93 3,136 3,004 132 49 70 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue 10/5/2017 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.92 3,125 2,984 141 65 79 MID‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.93 3,131 2,994 137 57 75 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 10/4/2017 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 0.93 3,456 3,344 112 34 76 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 10/5/2017 11:35 AM 12:35 PM 0.96 3,550 3,395 155 36 73 MID‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 3,503 3,370 134 35 75 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 10/4/2017 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.91 3,559 3,501 58 83 77 MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 10/5/2017 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 0.92 3,391 3,322 69 76 112 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 89 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy MID‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.92 3,475 3,412 64 80 95 MID‐PILOT ‐ Middlefield Road University Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,109 9,775 334 172 244 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/17/2018 7:40 AM 8:30 AM 0.92 2,323 2,251 72 18 21 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 7:30 AM 8:30 AM 0.95 2,247 2,167 80 15 24 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 2,285 2,209 76 17 23 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/17/2018 11:50 AM 12:50 PM 0.91 2,188 2,133 55 5 18 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.87 2,216 2,154 62 7 25 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.89 2,202 2,144 59 6 22 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/17/2018 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.94 2,969 2,921 48 8 16 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue 4/18/2018 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.96 3,052 3,007 45 14 20 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 3,011 2,964 47 11 18 END‐PILOT Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,498 7,317 181 34 62 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 7:35 AM 8:35 AM 0.94 2,363 2,285 78 17 27 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 90 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 7:30 AM 8:30 AM 0.93 2,285 2,210 75 26 19 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 2,324 2,248 77 22 23 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 11:20 AM 12:20 PM 0.93 2,024 1,964 60 7 18 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.86 2,070 2,014 56 12 32 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.90 2,047 1,989 58 10 25 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/17/2018 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.92 2,760 2,696 64 15 33 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue 4/18/2018 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.96 2,798 2,748 50 16 29 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Everett Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 2,779 2,722 57 16 31 END‐PILOT Middlefield Road Everett Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,150 6,959 192 47 79 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/17/2018 7:45 AM 8:45 AM 0.93 3,168 3,034 134 56 54 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/18/2018 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.93 3,096 2,973 123 42 33 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.93 3,132 3,004 129 49 44 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/17/2018 11:50 AM 12:50 PM 0.96 3,117 3,010 107 23 51 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 91 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/18/2018 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 0.95 3,126 3,032 94 25 54 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.96 3,122 3,021 101 24 53 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/17/2018 4:45 PM 5:45 PM 0.97 3,335 3,256 79 35 44 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue 4/18/2018 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 0.95 3,473 3,371 102 52 48 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.96 3,404 3,314 91 44 46 END‐PILOT Middlefield Road Lytton Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,658 9,338 320 117 142 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/17/2018 7:40 AM 8:40 AM 0.94 2,588 2,482 106 52 60 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/18/2018 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0.95 2,541 2,416 125 42 63 END‐PILOT 7:00 AM ‐ 9:00 AM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 2,565 2,449 116 47 62 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/17/2018 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 0.94 2,884 2,765 119 18 101 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/18/2018 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 0.95 2,869 2,758 111 17 58 END‐PILOT 11:00 AM ‐ 1:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.95 2,877 2,762 115 18 80 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/17/2018 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.96 2,976 2,920 56 42 98 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 92 Period Time Primary Secondary Date Peak Hour Start Peak Hour End PHF Volumes Motor Vehicle Bike Ped All Light Heavy END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue 4/18/2018 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0.92 2,931 2,865 66 50 78 END‐PILOT 4:00 PM ‐ 6:00 PM Middlefield Road University Avenue AVERAGE ‐ ‐ 0.94 2,954 2,893 61 46 88 END‐PILOT Middlefield Road University Avenue TOTAL ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,395 8,103 292 111 229 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 93 Table 34: Motor Vehicle Level of Service (Middlefield Road at Lytton Avenue) Location AM PEAK HOUR MID-DAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Pre-Pilot Mid-Pilot End-Pilot Pre-Pilot Mid-Pilot End-Pilot Pre-Pilot Mid-Pilot End-Pilot Northbound Left D (56s) E (63s) E (67s) E (58s) E (62s) E (68s) E (70s) E (64s) D (43s) Thru/Right N/A D (50s) E (63s) N/A E (55s) D (52s) N/A E (64s) F (86s) Approach D (56s) E (58s) E (65s) E (58s) E (58s) E (61s) E (70s) E (64s) E (74s) Southbound Left/Thru/Right D (51s) D (48s) D (53s) D (55s) C (33s) E (56s) D (51s) D (43s) D (53s) Approach D (51s) D (48s) D (53s) D (55s) C (33s) E (56s) D (51s) D (43s) D (53s) Eastbound Left E (62s) D (39s) E (72s) E (60s) C (43s) E (66s) D (55s) D (51s) E (73s) Thru/Right D (55s) D (51s) D (55s) E (63s) D (55s) F (93s) E (71s) F (*) F (124s) All E (58s) D (52s) E (64s) E (62s) D (52s) F (81s) E (64s) F (*) F (101s) Westbound Left/Thru/Right D (37s) D (51s) D (39s) C (28s) D (55s) C (33s) D (41s) D (51s) D (40s) Approach D (37s) D (51s) D (39s) C (28s) D (55s) C (33s) D (41s) D (51s) D (40s) Intersection D (52s) D (51s) E (58s) E (56s) D (54s) E (64s) E (60s) F (92s) E (74s) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 94 Table 35: Motor Vehicle Level of Service (Middlefield Road at University Avenue) Location AM PEAK HOUR MID-DAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Pre-Pilot Mid-Pilot End-Pilot Pre-Pilot Mid-Pilot End-Pilot Pre-Pilot Mid-Pilot End-Pilot Northbound Left D (50s) D (50s) D (50s) D (50s) D (49s) D (51s) D (50s) D (47s) D (50s) Thru/Right D (50s) D (50s) D (50s) D (50s) D (49s) D (51s) D (50s) D (47s) D (50s) Southbound Left/Thru/Right D (48s) D (48s) D (48s) D (49s) D (50s) D (48s) D (47s) D (50s) D (47s) Approach D (48s) D (48s) D (48s) D (49s) D (50s) D (48s) D (47s) D (50s) D (47s) Eastbound Left B (14s) B (14s) B (13s) B (14s) B (14s) B (13s) B (18s) B (18s) B (17s) Thru/Right B (16s) B (16s) B (14s) B (17s) B (17s) B (13s) B (21s) C (21s) B (17s) Approach B (16s) B (16s) B (14s) B (17s) B (17s) B (13s) B (21s) C (21s) B (17s) Westbound Left B (15s) B (15s) B (17s) B (15s) B (15s) B (17s) B (19s) B (19s) B (18s) Thru/Thru B (18s) B (18s) B (15s) B (16s) B (16s) B (14s) B (20s) B (20s) B (18s) Approach B (17s) B (17s) B (16s) B (16s) B (16s) B (15s) B (20s) B (20s) B (18s) Intersection C (32s) C (32s) D (35s) C (31s) C (31s) C (35s) D (36s) D (36s) D (39s) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 95 Table 36: Motor Vehicle Traffic Volumes and Classifications Northbound/Westbound Southbound/Eastbound Both Directions Dates Corridor Begin End ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Middlefield Road Palo Alto Avenue (west) Palo Alto Avenue (east) 9,977 8,868 352 3.5% 9,614 17,43 2 602 6.3% 19,591 8,564 250 1.3% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 14,803 13,021 620 4.2% 7,005 6,190 195 2.8% 21,808 19,211 815 3.7% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Middlefield Road Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 7,243 6,417 248 3.4% 7,522 6,399 251 3.3% 14,765 12,816 499 3.4% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Webster Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 463 389 20 4.2% 488 399 33 6.8% 952 787 53 5.5% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 190 180 5 2.6% 191 180 7 3.7% 382 360 12 3.1% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Palo Alto Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 163 97 2 0.9% 104 155 8 7.7% 267 252 10 3.6% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 129 112 3 2.3% 137 127 5 3.3% 266 239 8 2.8% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 132 120 5 3.4% 132 116 4 3.0% 264 235 9 3.2% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Guinda Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 778 730 23 2.9% 793 753 10 1.2% 1,571 1,483 32 2.0% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Hawthorne Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 1,479 1,959 60 4.1% 2,157 1,399 29 1.3% 3,636 3,358 89 2.4% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Everett Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 1,897 1,083 25 1.3% 1,147 1,802 34 2.9% 3,044 2,885 58 1.9% 4/18/2017 - 4/19/2017 Everett Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 552 605 11 1.9% 641 507 9 1.4% 1,193 1,111 20 1.6% City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 96 Northbound/Westbound Southbound/Eastbound Both Directions Dates Corridor Begin End ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Middlefield Road Palo Alto Avenue (west) Palo Alto Avenue (east) 8,549 8,112 393 4.6% 8,386 7,621 358 4.3% 16,935 15,733 750 4.4% 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 9,081 8,599 309 3.4% 9,519 7,719 247 2.6% 18,600 16,317 555 3.0% 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Middlefield Road Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 8,996 8,400 433 4.8% 10,747 9,944 559 5.2% 19,743 18,344 992 5.0% - Webster Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue - - - - - - - - - - - - 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 212 193 9 4.0% 497 446 16 3.1% 710 639 24 3.4% 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Palo Alto Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 232 224 5 1.9% 198 185 8 3.8% 431 409 12 2.8% - Fulton Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue - - - - - - - - - - - - 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 193 161 4 1.8% 134 118 4 2.6% 327 279 7 2.1% 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Guinda Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 811 755 21 2.5% 783 725 26 3.3% 1,594 1,480 46 2.9% 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Hawthorne Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 655 605 27 4.1% 2,131 2,041 48 2.2% 2,786 2,646 75 2.7% - Everett Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road - - - - - - - - - - - - 10/4/2017 - 10/5/2017 Everett Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 645 568 23 3.5% 602 549 16 2.7% 1,247 1,116 39 3.1% City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 97 Northbound/Westbound Southbound/Eastbound Both Directions Dates Corridor Begin End ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Middlefield Road Palo Alto Avenue (west) Palo Alto Avenue (east) 8,324 7,265 269 3.2% 9,851 8,573 374 3.8% 18,175 15,838 643 3.5% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 8,780 7,895 239 2.7% 9,174 7,982 252 2.7% 17,955 15,877 491 2.7% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Middlefield Road Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 8,669 8,354 288 3.3% 8,130 5,634 235 2.9% 16,800 13,987 522 3.1% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Webster Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 525 427 16 3.0% 799 688 21 2.6% 1,325 1,114 37 2.8% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 227 194 9 3.7% 473 436 13 2.6% 700 630 21 3.0% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Palo Alto Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 206 193 6 2.9% 258 246 5 1.9% 464 439 11 2.4% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 149 139 2 1.3% 244 228 6 2.5% 393 367 8 2.0% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 176 160 7 3.7% 137 131 2 1.5% 314 291 9 2.7% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Guinda Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 900 394 11 1.2% 854 393 11 1.3% 1,754 786 22 1.3% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Hawthorne Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 673 621 18 2.7% 2,216 2,133 35 1.6% 2,889 2,754 53 1.8% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Everett Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 485 441 20 4.1% 1,238 1,187 26 2.1% 1,723 1,627 46 2.6% 10/25/2017 - 10/26/2017 Everett Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 644 597 9 1.3% 1,305 1,195 24 1.8% 660 598 15 2.3% City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 98 Northbound/Westbound Southbound/Eastbound Both Directions Dates Corridor Begin End ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy ADT Light ADT Heavy ADT % Heavy 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Middlefield Road Palo Alto Avenue (west) Palo Alto Avenue (east) 8,859 7,559 217 2.4% 8,548 7,124 320 3.7% 17,40 4 14,683 537 3.1% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Middlefield Road Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 8,362 7,205 222 2.7% 8,237 6,699 383 4.6% 16,59 4 13,904 605 3.6% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Middlefield Road Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 7,646 6,464 247 3.2% 8,214 7,297 342 4.2% 15,85 5 13,760 588 3.7% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Webster Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 730 641 16 2.2% 427 368 10 2.3% 1,149 1,009 26 2.3% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Byron Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 402 378 12 3.0% 284 228 8 2.8% 683 605 20 2.9% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Palo Alto Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 238 225 7 2.9% 258 247 6 2.3% 492 471 13 2.6% 4/17/2018 ‐ 4/18/2018 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 376 342 11 2.9% 201 176 8 4.0% 570 518 18 3.2% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Fulton Street Lytton Avenue Everett Avenue 140 126 7 5.0% 212 189 5 2.4% 347 314 11 3.2% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Guinda Street Lytton Avenue University Avenue 980 892 35 3.6% 1,038 933 60 5.8% 2,012 1,825 95 4.7% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Hawthorne Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 2,030 1,941 50 2.5% 410 371 16 3.9% 2,435 2,312 66 2.7% 4/18/2018 ‐ 4/19/2018 Everett Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 1,231 1,166 21 1.7% 692 639 28 4.0% 1,917 1,805 48 2.5% 4/17/2018 ‐ 4/18/2018 Everett Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 568 507 21 3.7% 535 455 20 3.7% 1,099 962 41 3.7% City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 99 Table 37: Survey Responses Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments PRE- PILOT 1 2 1 1 Big traffic jams which will cause people to get out of the jam in various non-safe ways. 1 1 - 3 PRE- PILOT 2 2 3 1 more bike lanes! People turn from Middlefield onto Lytton very fast. 1, 2, 4 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 3 1 1 1 Lane reduction on Middlefield will only serve to increase traffic on adjacent and parallel streets- we've already seen an increase of people seeking shortcuts or ways to avoid traffic on Middlefield by zooming through our neighborhood. 1, 2, 4 1 - 3 PRE- PILOT 4 1 1 1 Cycling is dangerous with such fast cars. Everett Junction is a fatality waiting to happen. Crossing Middlefield (beg. At Everett) is difficult 7AM-9PM 1, 2, 4 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 5 1 1 1 Two left turn lanes off Lytton always make for collisions, speeding! Strange road markings before Palo Alto Ave. 1, 4 2 - 2 speed cameras = $$$ --> this is vital. 25mph = good 50mph =bad PRE- PILOT 6 2 1 2 1 2 - 2 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 100 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments PRE- PILOT 7 1 1 1 speeding traffic from Willow Road, Menlo into Palo Alto as if it is a highway. Slowing down to turn into Hawthorne is an ordeal. Always afraid of the unaware driver behind you. Rear ending danger. 1 2 - 1 Q4- "no way" next to walking option Q6- It is now one lane EA- North South. It looks like a highway traffic starts speeding from Willow notwithstanding the upcoming bend in the road especially busy hours AM and PM. Map on reverse of letter- [Middlefield and Hawthorne intersection] Dangerous bend, stop sign needed. "Turning" accident site some drive order curb PRE- PILOT 8 1 1 1 No shoulder. Two lanes on a narrow residential street. 1, 2, 4 2 - 1 PRE- PILOT 9 1 1 1 Concerned traffic will be even slower (and people will be less careful b/c of stress and delay) 1 1 - 2 PRE- PILOT 10 2 1 1 1 - 3 PRE- PILOT 11 2 3 1 need to allow for better flow of traffic on main corridor such as this if going to contrive allowing more people work in PA. 1 2 - 2 Q6- Middlefield is a main thoroughfare- reducing lanes just pushed traffic to real neighborhoods. People buy on Middlefield with knowledge that it is a busy street. PRE- PILOT 12 1 3 2 1 2 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 101 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments PRE- PILOT 13 2 1 2 1 3 - 3 PRE- PILOT 14 1 1 1 Middlefield is very dangerous between Lytoon and Willow. I have witnessed too many accidents. 1, 4 1 - 1 Q5- I live on Fulton PRE- PILOT 15 1 1 1 I think restricting Middlefield is a HUGE mistake. Middlefield will be completely gridlocked, and everyone will use Palo Alto as an alternatve making our neighborhood street dangerous. 1 1 - 2 PRE- PILOT 16 2 2 1 Already the size of many accidents and high traffic 1 1 - 3 Q5- I live on a parallel road Q6- will have to see but I think could even be worse PRE- PILOT 17 1 2 1 Motorists ignore cross- Middlefield left turn and straight restrictions. 1 1 - 3 PRE- PILOT 18 3 1 1 left turn fear Hawthorne visibility 1 1 - 2 PRE- PILOT 19 1 3 1 traffic moving too fast 1 1 - 2 PRE- PILOT 20 1 1 1 I am worried about all the accidents at the corner of Middlefield and Everett 1 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 21 1 1 2 1, 2, 4 1 - 1 Q6- We're excited and think it's going to be a great at reducing traffic City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 102 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments PRE- PILOT 22 2 2 1 It's terrible. Don't know how to fix it but something is very broken. It's not safer. Pushing to 1 lane will just move the mess onto other streets. 1, 2 1 - 2 PRE- PILOT 23 1 2 Traffic will back up both ways on Middlefield- this will cause more congestion. 1 2 - 2 PRE- PILOT 24 2 1 1 I live on Middlefield. There is traffic congestion morning and evening and at the other times road is like a speedway with average speed 40mph+ 1, 2 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 25 2 1 1 traffic getting in/out of driveway 1 2 - 2 PRE- PILOT 26 2 1 2 1 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 27 2 2 1 I get on or off the stops of bus #DB often and worry can I continue to take the bus during conducting this test. (Bus DB running through Middlefield Rd between MPCL and University Ave) 1 1 - 2 [map on back] Fulton and Lytton- bus stops I often take PRE- PILOT 28 1 1 1 Too fast traffic unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, illegal turns 2, 4 2 - 1 Q5- occasionally Bryant PRE- PILOT 29 3 1 1 There is lots of congestion at the rush hours. Many 1 1 - 3 Q1- which plan is being implemented City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 103 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments accidents, speeding, and people making illegal left turns from Hawthorne and Everett Q6- (not sure) if this will work, but it might be worth a try PRE- PILOT 30 2 1 2 Lane reduction would push traffic into parallel streets and impact neighborhoods directly. That is unacceptable 1 1 - 2 PRE- PILOT 31 1 3 2 2 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 32 2 3 2 1 2 - 2 PRE- PILOT 33 2 4 2 1 2 - 3 PRE- PILOT 34 1 3 1 Drivers entering from Everett and Hawthorne like to ignore stop signs at Middlefield. Stop "cut thru traffic" if you can cars all racing thru P.A. to get to Downtown Bridge 1 1 - 1 PRE- PILOT 35 2 2 1 Cyclists. Condition of road by sidewalks- narrow 1, 3 1 - 3 PRE- PILOT 36 2 1 1 Lots of accidents at Everett and Lytton. There should be a traffic light there! 1, 2, 3 1 - 3 PRE- PILOT 37 1 2 1 Will force traffic to Guinda and Palo Alto Av. Already a problematic intersection- against this 1 1 - 2 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 104 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments PRE- PILOT 38 1 1 1 Pedestrian crossing is dangerous. Vehicles ignore the posted turn restrictions and cause frequent near- accidents 1, 2, 4 1 - 3 Q4- bike/walk "across" Q6- I think the proposal will create major gridlock on Middlefield and divert unacceptable flows to Fulton Guinda and Webster. The test will fail. I think the best answer is a barrier down the centerline of Middlefield (live Ravenswood at Alma), blocking left/cross traffic at Everett and Hawthorne! PRE- PILOT 39 1 1 1 Yes. Narrower lanes are dangerous. It will increase traffic on residential back streets. 1, 2, 4 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 1 1 1 1 Dangerous back-ups on Lytton. Drivers turning anyway. Very dangerous to drive out of or into Webster house. Lytton Gardens drive. 1 2 - 2 Too dangerous. Open up PA North more MID- PILOT 2 1 3 1 All very good ideas. Only issue is leaving Menlo and coming into Palo A. at S Fra Creek bridge on Middlefield, when 2 lanes merge, warning arrows on road to be placed sooner like across from the Willows Market - easy to forget what is coming. Also, the lane 1 1 - 3 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 105 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments reduction warning arrows at Univ. Ave. & Middlefield (arrows on the pavement) come too quickly - need more warning. MID- PILOT 3 1 1 2 Comment: We would be in favor of an additional pedestrian crossing at Palo Alto Avenue & Middlefield Rd. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 4 1 1 2 1,2,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 5 2 2 1 Slows traffic 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 6 1 3 1 Elimination of lanes causes problems. No turns on Hawthorne & Everett cause TREMENDOUS congestion on Lynton - cause air pollution 1 2 - 2 You have sent much of the traffic to Lytton. Unfair to residents! MID- PILOT 7 1 1 1 High traffic volume prior to re- config. Dangerous pedestrian crossings. 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 8 1 1 2 1 1 - 2 Traffic is much WORSE with the pilot project MID- PILOT 9 1 1 2 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 10 1 1 1 If there were an emergency, vehicles that need to move quickly down Middlefield, the barriers might impede them. 1 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 106 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 11 1 1 1 I live @ 125 Middlefield and people are always taking a left onto Middlefield from Hawthorne. They do U turns into the Southbound lane with a blind turn in front of it, drive through the crosswalk, etc. NO ONE is policing this and it is dangerous. 1,2,4 1 - 1 As long as they fix the problems with people taking left hand turns going North on Middlefield at Hawthorne and Everett MID- PILOT 12 2 1 2 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 13 1 1 1 Occasionally, some drivers continue to make a left onto Middlefield from Hawthorne at off peak hours (late night, early morning) 1,2,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 14 2 3 2 2 1 - 3 MID- PILOT 15 2 3 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 16 1 2 2 It's a great pity that the layout precludes radar speed checks - people really hammer down there! 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 17 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 18 1 3 2 1 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 107 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 19 1 1 1 People are now making illegal u turns - turning around in people's driveways on Middlefield and driving the wrong way (brazenly) on Middlefield to avoid the barriers. If it's going to be enforced by police take it out. 1,4 1 - 3 Q6: It depends (re-coded as "Not Sure") MID- PILOT 20 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 21 1 1 1 People still taking left turns onto Middlefield around the barriers in the middle of the day. People not stopping for pedestrians 1,4 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 22 1 2 1 1. Pollution 2. Speeding on side streets by twice as many cars. 3. Danger crossing the street. 4. Silly turn restrictions that are ignored 1 1 - 2 Doesn't "improve" a thing! MID- PILOT 23 1 2 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 24 1 1 1 High speed & too much traffic contributing to many accidents. This has been reduced since the "road diet". 4 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 25 1 4 2 1 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 108 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 26 1 1 2 Huge improvement! 1,2 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 27 1 3 1 Notice no bicycles and that is wise. Need sidewalks on both sides for Hawthorne / Childrone -> Willow Market 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 28 1 1 2 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 29 1 3 2 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 30 1 1 2 Actually makes the area safer. 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 31 1 2 1 Narrow lanes, heavy traffic. 1 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 32 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 33 1 4 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 34 1 2 1 Lytton & Middlefield intersection is now very backed up. So many cars limit pedestrian & bike visibility. This is due to those yellow bumps. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 35 3 1 1 There are constant traffic jams along Lytton Ave and Middlefield Road - mainly in rush hours. It is very dangerous to cross these 1,4 3 - 2 P.S. I want to add the previous situation was better City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 109 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments streets for pedestrians and to make a left turn on Middlefield Road for the cars MID- PILOT 36 1 3 2 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 37 1 1 1 Traffic now blocks up on Lytton past Webster St. blocking our driveway and causing us to deal with noise/pollution at many times throughout the day and into the evening. The signal is so long at Lytton/Middlefield that we are in a near-constant traffic jam with cars idling right next to our windows. 1,4 1 - 2 Unless the problems on Lytton can be fixed MID- PILOT 38 1 3 1 People are still making a left turn from Hawthorne Ave. to Middlefield Rd. ignoring the yellow batons and raised curbs. 1 1 - 2 We don't want traffic along Middlefield impeded. The smoother, the more people will take arterial streets. MID- PILOT 39 1 1 1 I would like the ability to turn left onto Middlefield from Hawthorne & Everett outside of rush hours. 1 1 - MID- PILOT 40 3 2 1 One lane left turn on Lytton is too congested - backing up 2 blocks at rush hour. Difficult for us to drive in and out of garage on Lytton. 1 1 - 2 Needed: More emtral of traffic speed and recurring red lights along Lytton. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 110 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 41 1 1 1 Traffic stay in place - emitting exhaust below me - between University & Lytton on Middlefield. It wasn't like this before. We are the center of the mess now! Vehicles rush on Lytton - East bound - to make the signal. 1,4 1 - 2 You have backed up the problem to our area!! Lytton is tougher to negotiate now. Entry and exiting Lytton Gardens is much tougher. MID- PILOT 42 1 1 1 People still speed through during off-hours. A speed trap might help. Northbound Middlefield still isn't very safe for bicyclists, especially as they reach far end of Palo Alto Ave, where curb ramp is way off to the side. A few people still cut through the yellow center barriers to make left turns off of Hawthorne and Everett. Longer, permanent barriers would help. 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 43 1 1 2 Much better with new reconfiguration. People are forced to turn instead of zipping across Middlefield. I've seen a few drive around barriers, but much better than with just signs. 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 44 2 1 2 1 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 111 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 45 1 1 2 I was extremely concerned… am now satisfied with results of the pilot. 1,2,4 1 - 1 Q6: Am very much in favor of pilot configuration. (re-coded to "Yes") MID- PILOT 46 1 1 1 I live in Lytton Gardens senior community. There are more than 100 cars in the underground garage. Since the project has been implicated, driving in an out of the garage from Lytton Ave with left turn became complicated and dangerous for senior drivers. They need to cross two lanes with heavy opposite traffic. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 47 2 4 2 4 2 - 3 MID- PILOT 48 2 4 2 4 3 - 3 MID- PILOT 49 1 1 1 I have occasionally seen cars make a left turn onto Middlefield in spite of the barriers! 1,4 1 - 3 MID- PILOT 50 2 4 2 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 51 1 1 1 High speed traffic. Volume of traffic. Difficulty turning toward Menlo increases risk. 1 1 - 1 I assume you mean continued configuration of existing pilot. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 112 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments Traffic backup at Willow makes above worse. MID- PILOT 52 1 2 2 1,2 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 53 1 1 1 This configuration feels much safer. Wider lanes and better visibility both improve safety. I see cars going slower and much less aggressive behavior. 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 54 1 1 2 1 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 55 1 1 2 3,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 56 1 1 1 The turn restrictions at Hawthorne and Everett sometimes result in people making unsafe u-turns. Otherwise it has seemed remarkably effective in promoting safe speeds and safe behavior. 1,2,3 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 57 1 2 2 1 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 58 1 1 1 You have push all traffic to Lytton. I live in a first floor apt on Lytton between Middlefield & Webster. Noise, fumes, crowding, speeding 1,4 2 - 2 It's only safe for those on Middlefield - not those on Lytton who are far less safe! There are 600 people (all seniors, many handicapped) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 113 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments are unbearable. Often we cannot exit our Lytton driveway due to congested traffic. living on the University side of Lytton. This situation need to at least go back to where I was. Traffic will only increase. We walk, use walkers, and wheelchairs. We don't add a lot to traffic! MID- PILOT 59 2 2 1 1. Cone markers create lanes that are too narrow. 2. Many drivers are crossing the double yellow lane lines. 3. Drivers are using residential driveways to turn to change their directions as they can't turn left at Middlefield when East on Everett 1,4 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 60 1 1 2 Love love love the current configuration! *Noise is way down! Previously I couldn't walk, bike, or cross without being afraid. 2,4 1 - 1 So happy with this project! MID- PILOT 61 1 2 1 People driving across Middlefield in crosswalk instead of turning right 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 62 1 1 1 The left turn onto Everett etc. by cars going N on Middlefield gets clogged - better to have no turn// also confusing to anticipate left turn lanes, so cars cut in 1 1 - 3 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 114 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments (when going North on Middlefield) I also see MANY cars disobeying no right turn in morning when going South. Again better to block Everett from turns MID- PILOT 63 1 1 1 Having only one lane on Middlefield causes Lytton to back up because everybody is trying to turn left on Middlefield to go to Willow. People frequently run the light at Webster and cross into the wrong lane to try and get around traffic. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 64 1 1 1 I've heard their concerns, but what's happened is Lytton Ave (my street) becomes over-congested, cars race down the street from Middlefield to beat the light on Webster. This a safety/noise issue. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 65 1 1 2 Not a safety concern, but traffic concern. We don't like the no right turns from Middlefield to Hawthorne & Everett. Combined with one lane traffic, it can add five 1 1 - 2 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 115 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments minutes for us to get home as we live just off of Hawthorne. MID- PILOT 66 1 3 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 67 3 2 2 1 3 - 1 MID- PILOT 68 1 3 1 With limited access from Lytton to Middlefield traffic backs up for blocks on Lytton during rush hours. Difficult to enter Lytton from cross streets and driveways 1 3 - 3 MID- PILOT 69 1 3 2 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 70 1 2 2 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 71 1 2 1 Previous traffic was too fast with dangerous land changes before. I am a physician at PAMF and have been a responder at several accidents at our corner. Hawthorne & Middlefield. The situation, accidents have significantly reduced, since you have installed this project. We are very happy with this! 1,2,4 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 116 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 72 1 3 2 And we had no safety concerns prior to the pilot project. Traffic gets so backed up now that there will be fewer higher speed accidents. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 73 1 1 1 Firstly: huge improvement from before! Secondly, if anything can be done to either widen or highlight (perhaps with green paint) the bike lane, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your great work guys! 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 74 1 1 1 Very dangerous 1,4 1 - 1 Absolutely MID- PILOT 75 1 2 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 76 1 3 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 77 2 1 2 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 78 1 1 1 As I stated in response to the previous survey, the change has merely pushed more traffic on to the formerly quiet neighborhood streets. We now have frustrated drivers speeding thru our neighborhood! 1,2,4 1 - 2 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 117 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 79 1 1 1 The lane reduction is causing more traffic than before!! It's harder to cross Middlefield while on foot and the traffic buildup is horrendous during commute hours. I beg please remove it!! 1,4 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 80 1 1 1 Back up of the traffic from Menlo causing great increase in cut through traffic on our block 1,4 1 - 3 MID- PILOT 81 1 3 1 The backups on Lytton of cars waiting to turn left is unhealthy and long. Engines idle, lines exist where none were before. This is no good. 1 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 82 2 5 2 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 83 2 2 1 Lanes are very narrow care merging from Willow Road intersection to Palo Alto from two to one lane need more warning. You have caused traffic jams from University intersection to Lytton Intersection. Very difficult for residents. 1,4 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 84 1 2 2 1,4 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 118 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 85 1 1 1 Everyday I witness multiple violations sometimes 3 within 10 seconds. I have never seen the PA PD monitor this area. It's very dangerous for people to drive around the barriers. 1 1 - 3 MID- PILOT 86 1 1 2 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 87 1 1 1 I often cross Middlefield on Everette and while the new barriers are very helpful there are still some drivers going eastbound on Everett who drive through the pedestrian crosswalk at Middlefield. 2 2 - 1 It's working well MID- PILOT 88 1 1 2 The current set up is perfect. I feel so much safer now crossing the street, making a left turn on Middlefield to go home. Thanks! 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 89 1 3 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 90 2 3 2 1,2 1 - 2 Please go back to other configuration MID- PILOT 91 1 2 1 Some people continue to turn left going around the lane markers from Everett 1 1 - 1 This closure is inconvenient for us, but if it reduces accidents in this area we are all for it. Thanks! City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 119 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 92 2 2 1 Emergency vehicles are so frequent that driving often seems hazardous. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 93 1 2 1 Accident & health safety. Long traffic backup on Lytton extend thru light on Webster causing increased air pollution from idling affecting Webster House & Lytton Gardens senior citizens (600) in one sq. block. Impatient, risky driving. Dangerous turns from Byron to Webster. Auto exit from Witt. negatively impacted. Emergency vehicles impeded. Afternoon traffic build up begins at 2:30 and can extend to 7 or after. Light on Middlefield at Lytton too long. 1 1 - 3 MID- PILOT 94 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 95 1 1 1 As a 34-year resident, I applaud efforts to reduce speeds & accidents. We have more traffic on Byron 200 block as confused motorists speed by. Biggest safety concern - drivers two DISREGARD barriers and drive 1,2,4 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 120 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments around them in the opposite traffic lane. SO DANGEROUS! TICKET THEM! MID- PILOT 96 1 2 2 People seem to drive fast through the corridor and side streets to get through P.A. This seems unsafe for pedestrians and other traffic. 1 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 97 2 2 1 Speed of cars seems slower. Value seeing bicyclists along road and people using Everett crosswalk. Absolutely fewer accidents. 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 98 1 1 2 The backups on Middlefield and [from] this project will increase traffic on the side streets. 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 99 1 1 1 People are making illegal U- turns and this needs to be enforced. The project improved safety a lot from the original two-lane configuration. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 100 1 1 1 1 2 - 1 MID- PILOT 101 1 3 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 102 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 121 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 103 1 2 1 Increase traffic at [Lytton] Ave. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 104 1 2 2 The pilot project makes this stretch much safer. 1 2 - 3 Q6: Did you mean additional lane reductions? MID- PILOT 105 1 1 2 1,4 1 - 1 Q6: It made huge difference for the better! Thanks! Additional comment: P.S. For some reason trucks now travel more often on Hawthorne?! MID- PILOT 106 2 2 2 1 2 - 2 Additional comment: What is the purpose of the project? How are you going to measure its success or failure? What precipitated the project? MID- PILOT 107 1 2 1 Large size trucks turning from Middlefield to Hawthorne block the Menlo bound thru traffic. Also center lane marking unclear from opposing directions (i.e. left turn lanes). 1,2,4 1 - 1 Q5: To avoid Lytton Middlefield lights going south on Guinda. Q6: [Yes] but my wife disagrees (email removed for privacy) MID- PILOT 108 2 3 2 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 109 1 3 2 1 2 - 3 MID- PILOT 110 1 1 1 Now some cars are making unsafe U-turns to get around the barriers that prevent them 1 1 - 1 Q6: I live on Middlefield and it's a little harder to pull out of my driveway. But overall, I think it's safer. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 122 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments from turning left from Hawthorne or Everett. MID- PILOT 111 1 3 2 I love the changes at Middlefield and Everett. I usually walk downtown several times a week. Now I can cross Middlefield safely using the new pedestrian crossing at Everett. 4 1 - 1 Q2: Walk across Middlefield daily [; travel] weekly by car. Q5: walk Q6: I like the current changes Additional comments: Trying to cross Middlefield Road on foot before the changes was very dangerous. Drivers from downtown on Everett used to make left turns onto Middlefield without watching for pedestrians. MID- PILOT 112 1 1 1 I live at [address removed for privacy]. My neighbor and I are left out of the convenient turn lane. Also with the lane merge in front of the house there is honking all day long. 1,2,4 1 - 1 Q6: [Yes] if my house gets a turn lane!! Extend turn lane to Palo Alto Ave. MID- PILOT 113 1 2 2 [Illegible] at Hawthorne and Webster. It is inconvenient for me when I go north - I must drive 2 blocks south to Lytton to make the left turn on Middlefield. 1 1 - 3 MID- PILOT 114 2 3 1 I still see cars turning left onto Middlefield from Hawthorne. They turn left onto oncoming traffic and then move to the 1 1 - 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 123 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments right lane. It's very disturbing and dangerous. MID- PILOT 115 1 3 2 1 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 116 1 1 1 Please allow left turns onto Middlefield again. Disallowing them is naïve, inconvenient, and stupid. This whole project is a waste of money devoted to the fantasy that Palo Alto is a sleepy suburb. It's not. Get over it. 1 1 - 2 MID- PILOT 117 1 1 2 1 2 - 2 MID- PILOT 118 1 2 1 Hard to see when you cross into Palo Alto Ave. from Middlefield. 1,2,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 119 1 1 1 Due to traffic back up from the lane reductions, cars are cutting through the neighborhood in the morning. I regularly see multiple cars turning left on Middlefield onto Palo Alto Ave. and then racing down Fulton St. The opposite happens in the evening (Fulton out through to P.A. Ave). 1 1 - 3 Q6: Maybe - There needs to be other controls - Maybe no left turn onto Palo Alto Ave. in the morning (7-10 AM). [response recoded from no response to not sure]. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 124 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments MID- PILOT 120 1 1 1 More bike lanes! Better ped. [crossing] times at Lytton and Middlefield. 4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 121 1 3 2 1,4 1 - 1 MID- PILOT 127 1 1 1 Despite the signs and barriers, drivers on both Hawthorne and Everett still go straight across or turn left by jogging to the right around the barrier then jogging left or turning left. 1,4 1 - 2 Q1: …I didn't realize my block would be affected changing 2 straight lanes in to 1 left turn lane and 1 straight lane. Q2: morning, mid-day, and evening Q5: I travel northbound on Fulton when there is traffic and southbound on Guinda when I can't back out to go south. Q6: I am completely in favor of improving traffic safety, but too many drivers on Hawthorne and Everett are dangerously determined to go straight across or left on Middlefield for me to feel this is an improvement. I think it slows traffic down through congestion, not better safety. Now, southbound Middlefield is backing up on a regular basis. This configuration negatively impacts me because I now have to wait 1 or more light City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 125 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments cycles to get out of my driveway. I've always had to back out of my driveway. Backing out is more dangerous now because the lane going straight (north) tends to back up while the left-hand turn lane on Lytton doesn't, so cars in that lane drive fast. If I can't back out into just the north- bound lane (because drivers won't give me room), it creates a blind situation where a car turning left could hit me. It's now almost impossible for me to back out across both lanes to go south on Middlefield. Instead, I have to turn right on Lytton (because it's also difficult to get in the left-hand turn lane now -see above blind spot problem), turn right on Guinda (because it has a traffic light at University and Fulton doesn't) and then head south on Guinda until I get to Homer to go west or turn back on to Middlefield to go south. Whether I'm coming from the north or south, getting in my City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 126 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments own driveway is more difficult. The constant congestion on northbound Middlefield on my block means I have to wait an extra light cycle or 2 to turn right into my driveway. Turning left is also a problem. Right now, if everyone was driving legally and not yielding right of way, I could only get in to my driveway heading north and would have to wait minutes to back out. Thankfully, drivers allow me to back out even though they have right of way, but they do it when the northbound light is red. I'm forcing my way into traffic which is not safer. If you ask me if traffic is "calmer" on the last 4 blocks. I think it is, mainly because it's congested. I don't think it is safer or will be until there are consequences for turning illegally. I'm sorry I haven't been able to pay attention to all the decisions done on this project, so you might have already considered and dismissed this, City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 127 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments but would it help to go back to 4 lanes and put lights at Hawthorne and Everett with protected turn arrows and red light cameras? I know this would be more expensive, but there would be consequences for turning illegally and protection to turn. Other cities have block after block of traffic lights with success. I won't pretend to have all the answers, understand all the issues or even know what questions to ask, but this current configuration doesn't work for me and my wife. Can we please try another one? END- PILOT 1 1 1 2 - 1 5 1 1 Left turn from Hawthorne on Middlefield could be open during off hours. END- PILOT 2 2 1 2 - 1 1 3 3 I am usually in a car on Middlefield. I live a block West from there. I suspect it is sager now for bikes and pedestrians but for cars I don't think it matters. I don't walk there often so I am not a good person to ask about that. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 128 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 3 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Please keep the safety measures. Have made a big difference. Love it! END- PILOT 4 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 1 Hawthorne and Middlefield turns into a complete mess if you remove the safety measures. END- PILOT 5 1 2 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 2 While it has cut down on accidents at Middlefield- Everett, it has drastically increased speeding cut- through traffic on our block of P.A. Ave from Middledfield to Fulton to Everett to Guinda. A curvy block with near head on accidents daily (rest of text is cut off) END- PILOT 6 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 3 LOTS more traffic on Hawthorne, Everett, Fulton, etc; Long, long lines of traffic on Middlefield and Lytton, ugh. Multiple violations everywhere everyday!! * Better times lights on Lytton would help East/West traffic. Why no enforcement anywhere? END- PILOT 7 1 1,2 1,2 - 1 1 3 2 The project created extreme conjection of the area, City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 129 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments especially at Lytton and Middlefield. Huge inconvenience!!! END- PILOT 8 1 2 2 - 1,2 1 1 1 Easier to enter/exit our driveway END- PILOT 9 1 1 2 - 1 2 2 "Less is more" for left turns cars can use bike lanes to keep traffic moving END- PILOT 10 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 It funnels heavy traffic into safer channels END- PILOT 11 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 The neighborhood is much safer now. Speeding and accidents have decreased substantially. Thank you so much END- PILOT 12 1 4 2 - 1 1 3 1 END- PILOT 13 1 4 2 - 1 1 1 1 seems good END- PILOT 14 1 1 2 - 1,2 2 1 1 The changes have ahd a marked positive impact on traffic speed and safety for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. While backups persist they are much easier to live with given the new configuration. END- PILOT 15 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 1 We live at Middlefield and Everett. People speed down Everett now. It's not safe. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 130 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 16 3 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 17 1 3 1 - 1,2,4 2 3 3 See enclosed note END- PILOT 18 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 19 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 20 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 3 2 These measures impair residents from full use of Middlefield while facilitating cut thru traffic to Alma. Please removed all diversions. Keep only ped zebra crossings. END- PILOT 21 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 Better for biking and the no left turn onto Middlefield from Everett and Hawthorne a great improvement. END- PILOT 22 1 2 - 1 1 2 2 I can't see that it has made any difference. How are you measuring whether not it is working? END- PILOT 23 1 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 24 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 1 It works much better than before END- PILOT 25 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 This project has reduced speeding. Traffic flows better. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 131 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 26 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 2 One thing necessary. More posting making drivers aware of lane change far left turn only in lane at Lytton- Many drivers making lan change after (text cut off) END- PILOT 27 2 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 Center turn lane improves traffic flow. END- PILOT 28 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 I think it has helped the intersections become less chaotic END- PILOT 29 1 1 1 - 1,4 2 2 2 People make unsafe lane changes all the time now. There is too much of a bottle neck now! Traffic is backed up a lot of the time on Middlefield. END- PILOT 30 1 2 2 - 1,4 1 1 1 It's quieter and safer. I travel an extra 3 blocks and it's worth it. Thank you. END- PILOT 31 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 2 Single lane slows and congests. People are making more dangerous turns to go North on Middlefield. Traffic gets backed up a lot more on Middlefield, very congested. END- PILOT 32 1 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 132 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 33 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 It is safer and stops traffic cutting thru on Hawthorne where I've lived for 30 years. END- PILOT 34 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 I live on Webster St. in Downtown North, so the project has been a siginificant inconvenience. However, realistically we need to contain for safety reasons so I support it going forward. END- PILOT 35 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 2 1 I like the center lane but in my house does not have it or my neighbor!! It is now ridiculous to try to get out of my house. If I am coming from Alma or University (text cut off) END- PILOT 36 2 2 2 - 1 1 2 3 END- PILOT 37 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 Before the project there was an accident at Middlefield and Everett about once a week. END- PILOT 38 1 1 1 - 1,4 1 1 Need to monitor for people driving over the barriers- making illegal U-Turns END- PILOT 39 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 3 END- PILOT 40 1 4 2 - 1 2 2 3 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 133 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 41 2 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 More even flow of traffic END- PILOT 42 1 3 1 - 1 1 1 1 slowing speeders down END- PILOT 43 1 2 2 - 1 1 2 2 Pain to not be able to turn left off the side streets. It congests the main lights even more. END- PILOT 44 1 2 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 Current measures have greatly reduced congestion in the area. A full median would be an improvement in my opinion. END- PILOT 45 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 It's a huge improvement left turns onto Middlefield used to be so hazardous! Please keep this! END- PILOT 46 1 3 2 - 1 1 3 1 Appears to show incoming traffic from cross-streets END- PILOT 47 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Reduced number of accidents, cars driving slower, safer for pedestrians and bicycles END- PILOT 48 1 3 2 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 +protected left turn lanes onto Everett/Hawthorne! + crosswalk along Everett! END- PILOT 49 1 1 2 - 1,2 1 1 1 Has led to increase of cars/vehicles on side streets- ours 'Guinda' END- PILOT 50 1 3 1 - 1 1 1 1 I think the traffic is slower although there is s lot of noise City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 134 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments from man cars. I see no way to reduce traffic. END- PILOT 51 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 - slows down speeding cars - manages flow much better for increased # of cars in town - cut through on Hawthorne & (text cut off) END- PILOT 52 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 I think it has created more safety. It has also created more traffic bottlenecks. And it it difficult to leave the neighborhood and go north due to no left turn. END- PILOT 53 2 3 2 - 1 1 3 1 END- PILOT 54 1 2 1 - 1 1 2 2 This project creates dangerous conditions for drivers from senior communities Licon gardens and Webster house END- PILOT 55 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 2 focus excess traffic on parallel streets and other streets due to longer delays and queing on Middlefield. Unsage traffic conditions on these other schools. END- PILOT 56 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 1 Until a better plan comes along. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 135 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 57 1 3 2 - 1 2 1 1 Accident rates have been significantly reduced, safer for bikes too! END- PILOT 58 1 1 - 1 1 3 1 how to limit spillover traffic from univ. and Middlefield to P.A. Ave Neighborhood END- PILOT 59 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 2 Traffic now backs up on Lytton Ave causing constant traffic jams at Lytton/Webster END- PILOT 60 1 2 2 - 1,4 1 2 2 The project is a waste of my tax dollars. Palo Alto is not a sleepy suburb; give up on your dreams. If you don't like Palo Alto, sell your overvalued house and cash out. These "safety" improvements are nothing more than inconvenient NIMBYism END- PILOT 61 1 1 2 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 Safer. Has NOT slowed down traffic. END- PILOT 62 1 3 2 - 1 1 3 I live at 401 Webster and my apr. faces Lytton. I call Lytton from Webster to Middlefield Co2 Alley. So noisy cars speed between lights. I am so sorry I moved here. Some knocked off fire hydrant in January-- still not replaced, you (text cut off) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 136 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 63 1 1 1 - 1,2 2 1 1 Feels safer! Traffic flows steadily and well END- PILOT 64 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 It has improved safety. Note: people do drive around the barriers at Everett and Middlefield. END- PILOT 65 2 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 we need a walkway to the Willow Market. If you want to improve traffic increase walking to local stores. END- PILOT 66 1 1 2 - 1 1 2 2 Very inconvenient to not be able to make left turns evenings or on weekends when no cars are aroung. Prohibiting turns during busy periods was fine. Crosswalks at turning points is also unexpected and has almost caused several accidents! END- PILOT 67 1 1 1 - 4 1 1 1 Crosswalks are much safer. However, when I observe the crossing of Palo Alto Ave to Woodland Ave. I see many bikes and pedestrians unprotected from quickly moving cars. Please protect this crossing as well. END- PILOT 68 3 3 2 - 1,3 1 2 2 It is a hassle not being able to turn onto Middlefiels from City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 137 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments certain streets (e.g. left onto Middlefield from Hawthorne) END- PILOT 69 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 70 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 The side streets enties are now much safer (and no more entering out in the middle of Middlefield, blocking traffic. Overall result, much smoother ride on Middlefield END- PILOT 71 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Brilliant design!!! The Middlefield-Everett interseciont is no longer littered with accidents! Also, excellent dedicated right-turn lane onto Homer (text cut off) END- PILOT 72 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 Easier to make a left turn from Middlefield both north and southbound. Some like less congestion. Lytton, however, is a mess. END- PILOT 73 1 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 This is the first time since implementing traffic calming measures that they have worked!!! Keep going! END- PILOT 74 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 It seems much safer to me and prevents people from doing stupid things to cross Middlefield (mostly) (have seen a few drive around barriers) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 138 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments Maybe add blinkers to crosswalk if possible. Cars don't stop. END- PILOT 75 1 2 2 - 1 1 3 3 END- PILOT 76 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 A friend who lives on Middlefield says it's cut down on accidents. It's working. END- PILOT 77 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 The signs too large and not street friendly! Look like highway. Remove please! END- PILOT 78 1 1 2 - 1,2,4 2 1 1 I no longer fear for my life when walking on the sidewalk or gardening. There has been a HUGE reduction in crashes. END- PILOT 79 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 Live 2 blocks away- even though not making L turn is a pain, I hear a lot fewer sirens in the PM END- PILOT 80 1 3 2 - 1 1 1 3 Seems to be forcing traffic onto my street (Guinda) at rush hour. People run strop sign- many close calls. END- PILOT 81 1 1 1 - 1,4 1 2 1 Sidewalks excellent. Congestion horrendous around Middlefield, Willow, and Lytton City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 139 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 82 1 1 1 - 1,2 1 3 2,3 I live on 400 block Fulton. It has greatly increased traffic on our block END- PILOT 83 1 1 - 1 1 3 3 The merge going North between University and Lytoon doesn't provide enough distance. END- PILOT 84 1 1,2 1 - 1 1 3 One dangerous spot is at Middlefield and Embarcadero-- too little length left turn lane- r turn and thru traffic block left lane from getting to the light. Also, traffic only is horrendous between Tasso and Middlefield- (text cut off) END- PILOT 85 3 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 I live on Hawthorne and Byron St. Traffic was terrible and many accidents at Haw and Middlefield and Everett. It's huge improvement!! END- PILOT 86 1 2 2 - 1 1 3 1 I thought it might be annoying to have to turn right and go around a block but it's actually nice not to have the stress or longer wait of crossing both directions of traffic at once. END- PILOT 87 3 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 140 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 88 1 1 1 - 5 1 1 1 END- PILOT 89 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Fewer accidents BUT people do bonehead maneuvers to get around proxy barriers including head on into opposing traffic. Please make this harder or impossible. My street traffic as increased because of this project but slwing speeds on Middlefield has been successful. END- PILOT 90 1 1 2 - 4 1 2 1 Complete the project! Hope! Hope! END- PILOT 91 1 3 1 - 1 1 2 2 Speeding on side streets- zero enforcement- excess pollution and traffic backups, etc. END- PILOT 92 1 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 93 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 My neighbors can back out of their driveways more safely. However, northbound bicyclists abruptly have to merge into auto traffic at P.A. Ave. Also, central barricade against left turns off Everett and Hawthorne need to be longer and more robust. Still lots of illegal left turns- at harrowing risk. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 141 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 94 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 The pilot program reduce the amount of thru-traffic and commuter on neighborhood streets END- PILOT 95 1 2 1 - 1 1 3 3 The changes are very inconvenient, especially at lowtraffic times when I could easily turn left off Byron onto Middlefield but now cannot. But isf you have data showing that fewer people are being hurt or killed in accidents then I'm fine with the inconvenience. Please share the data. Thanks. END- PILOT 96 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 2 I live here!! Middlefield and Menlo Park needs 2 lanes! Pinching it off at University is CRAZY!! You made (can't read) at Lytton Gardens very difficult!!! END- PILOT 97 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 It seems to be safer, by far, and traffic seems to flow better END- PILOT 98 1 1 2 - 2,4 1 1 1 There has not been a single car crash on my neighbor'ss lawn. At least monthly we would have to run out the door to help witness at the scene of an accident. (text cut off) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 142 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 99 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 It definitely improved safety. The illegal u-turns happened very often which needs to be enforced. END- PILOT 100 3 3 2 - 1 1 2 3 END- PILOT 101 1 1 1 - 1,2 1 2 2 I see people confused making u-turn around barries, Traffic on Everett and Fulton due to detour. END- PILOT 102 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1,2 Middlefield does seem to be safer but other streets have become more dangerous! Fulton and Lytton for example. END- PILOT 103 1 1 2 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 safer turns off Middlefield END- PILOT 104 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 1 It is a safer configuration with no accidents that I am aware of. END- PILOT 105 1 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 They (the measures) seems to have decreased public accidents at corner. It is easier to get out of driveway. END- PILOT 106 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 2 Cars back up on Lytton- traffic does not flow. Gas fumes sped into lower level of Webster House- this is a terrible idea- ineffective END- PILOT 107 2 1,2 2 - 1 2 2 1 The new lane configuration sensibly stows thru traffic City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 143 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 108 1 3 2 - 1,4 1 1 1 END- PILOT 109 1 1 1 - 1,4 1 2 2 Now it's very difficult to drive along Middlefield Rd. and Lytton Ave. to go through and to make right or left turns because of severe traffic caused by the new project. Moreover, it is unsafe both for cars and pedestrians. Formerly it was better. END- PILOT 110 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 1 1 1. "reduction" (elimination of certain kinds) of accidents (significant) 2. traffic at better pace-fewer speeding cars 3. "bike lane" is a plus. Overall- increased safety END- PILOT 111 1 2 1 - 1 1 3 2 I have witnessed on cen(?) almost daily basis people ignoring the new features and simply going around. END- PILOT 112 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 113 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 2 2 The project has significantly increased traffic/congestion during commute hours whih makes for angry drivers and more likelihood for accidents! City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 144 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 114 1 1 2 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 Now that people have adjusted to the changes, it is safer to both driver and walk in the area. END- PILOT 115 1 2 2 - 1 1 1 1 no accidents, controlled traffic flow END- PILOT 116 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 just seems far safer END- PILOT 117 1 3 2 - 1 2 1 1 END- PILOT 118 1 1 2 - 1 1 2 2 too many restrictions and long paths to go N. on Middlefield wastes time and gas. We live at 228 Byron St. END- PILOT 119 1 1 2 - 1 1 2 3 I think traffic is slower and there are more and longer backups (at least when I am on Middlefield North); slowness and backups may make things safer, but they also create slow traffic and backup/congestion. END- PILOT 120 1 3 2 - 1 2 2 3 I didn't notice a safety problem before. END- PILOT 121 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 1 1 Remarkavle improvement to safety for both pedestrians and cars. I've noticed many cars try to go arount the barriers, FYI. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 145 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 122 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 seems like significant improvement. Less fighting for lanes both directions. END- PILOT 123 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Although these safety measure are inconvenient for us the safety measures are mostly working, (although sometimes drivers on Everett or Hawthorne turn left onto Middlefield by driving around the safety poles), so they should probably remain in place. We do not know how they impact traffic back up. We have more (text cut off) END- PILOT 124 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 this has been a big improvement END- PILOT 125 1 1 1 - 1,4 1 1 1 Improving safety on Middlefield has reduced safety on adjacent streets as it has forced traffic elsewhere. Traffic has increased on Fulton St. by a facto of 10x END- PILOT 126 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 1 1 Suggestion to add speed bumps to slow truths stop signs on crosswalks END- PILOT 127 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Please- someone needs to monitor people taking left turns from Hawthorne and Everett. They go through the City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 146 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments crosswalk, around the median and even go in the southboudn lane to head north. This is extremely dangerous. Also no one stops for the crosswalk. END- PILOT 128 1 1 1 - 1,2 1 2 2 Traffic is much worse. Also, please elminate the no right onto Everett and Hawthorne in the mornings which can add 5 minutes to my time getting done in the morning. END- PILOT 129 1 1 2 - 1 1 2 1 END- PILOT 130 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 3 2 It inconveniences the residents that are no longer able to turn left on Middlefield. Also a crossing at Palo Alto Ave would help safety. END- PILOT 131 1 2 1 - 1 1 3 3 People drive over dividers to make illegal turns. Turn lanes very narrow-- no lefts ignored. END- PILOT 132 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 3 I would like to see safety data rather than rely on personal anecdotal observations END- PILOT 133 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 END- PILOT 134 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 The number of accidents at Everett and Middlefield have dropped dramatically. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 147 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 135 1 2 2 - 1 1 2 1 seems fine END- PILOT 136 1 2 2 - 1 1 3 2 END- PILOT 137 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 you are creating more traffic jams END- PILOT 138 1 2 2 - 1 1 2 3 END- PILOT 139 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 2 2 We feel strongly that the pendulum has swung too far away from having Middlefield act as an efficient artenal. Please allow a left out of Downtown North from either Everett or Hawthorne, add a lighted crosswalk at either Everett or Hawthorne and re- program the Lytton/Middlefield stoplight to (text cut off) END- PILOT 140 1 1 1 - 1,4 1 2 2 Traffic on Lytton has gotten much worse causing idling in front of my windows, noise increase, safety for seniors living on Lytton gardens and Webster House difficulty getting in/out of driveway…. END- PILOT 141 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 Improved safety at Middlefield and Everett. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 148 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments END- PILOT 142 2 2 1 - 1 1 3 3 Just moved to the area 2 weeks ago. END- PILOT 143 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 1 END- PILOT 144 1 3 2 - 1 1 2 2 I'd prefer the road to be one lane each direction for cars, with bike lanes on both sides all the way! END- PILOT 145 2 1 1 - 1 1 2 3 END- PILOT 146 1 2 1 - 1 1 3 3 END- PILOT 147 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 This is a great improvement. It's perfect. Keep it in place please! END- PILOT 148 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 1 Before this project people were doing illegal turns onto Middlefield from Hawthorne. Totally unsafe. Now it's much better! END- PILOT 149 1 1 1 - 1,2,4 1 2 2 Congestion does not equal calming! People are still driving straight on Everett… 3 crashes in front of my house… Extra 20 min. a day getting out of my driveway…Less safe: almost get rear-ended by someone moving into "straight" lane on Middlefield at last minute City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 149 Period ID Question #1* Question #2** Question #3*** Question #3 Follow-up† Question #4†† Question #5††† Question #5b†††† Question #6/7‡ Additional Comments when [rest of comment cut off at bottom of page]. END- PILOT 150 1 1 2 - 1,4 1 3 1 *Question #1: Were you aware of this project prior to receiving this survey? Yes (1), No (2), Not Sure (3), and No Response (4) ** Question #2: How often do you typically travel along the project corridor? Multiple times per day (1), Once per day (2), Weekly (3), Monthly (4), Never (5), and No Response (6) *** Question #3: Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor? Yes (1), No (2), and No Response (3) † Question #3 Follow-up: If yes, please describe (Open-ended) †† Question #4: When traveling along the project corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation? Auto (1), Bike (2), Transit (3), Walk (4), Other (5), N/A (6), and No Response (7) ††† Question #5: Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Rd.? Yes (1), No (2), Not Sure (3), and No Response (4) ††† Question #5b: Have you perceived an improvement in safety conditions on Middlefield Road since the start of the pilot project? Yes (1), No (2), Not Sure (3), and No Response (4) ‡ Question #6/7: Pre- and Mid-pilot: Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? Yes (1), No (2), Not Sure (3), and No Response (4) End-pilot: Would you like to retain the current safety measures after the pilot period ends? Yes (1), No (2), Not Sure (3), and No Response (4) City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 150 Table 38: Additional Comments Received ID Date Received Comment 1 6/6/2017 I am a resident of Downtown North and noticed that the turn restrictions from Hawthorne and Everett onto and across Middlefield have become 24-7 prohibitions. My understanding is that this is part of the road diet trial for Middlefield. My question to you is, aside from the advocacy group that was working on the project, was anybody from the adjoining neighborhoods consulted on these changes to the hours? I don't recall ever seeing a meeting notice of any kind with regards to the change in the turn restrictions. 2 6/21/2017 Sorry for the delayed response as I was out of town. Thank you for your email. I have been a resident of Downtown North since 1990 and lived through the ill-fated road closure trial in the early 2,000's. So, when these 24/7 turn restrictions were put in, many of my neighbors became upset, not only because it was so sudden and severe, they didn't know about it and had they had a chance to attend a meeting in order to view the plans, they would have. I am speaking from experience here. Not everybody is on NextDoor, or is on subscriber lists. Most people don't read the Council agendas or notices in newspapers. Of all of the means of communication that you listed below, the most effective way to reach the residents is the post card mailers. It is not enough to just mail them within a 2.5 block radius of a proposed project. These turn restrictions affect everyone who lives in Downtown North and the Fulton neighborhood east of Middlefield. I strongly urge the City to send out post card mailers to ALL the households in Downtown North and The Fulton Street neighborhood before any more changes/additions are made to the Middlefield arterial trial or if there are going to be anymore more public meetings. 3 6/5/2017 As a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood for over 35 years, I have watch the gradual deterioration of the traffic situation on Middlefield Road as well as the gridlock on Willow Road and University Avenue approaches to the Dumbarton Bridge. Are there any proposals to address this difficult situation that is strangling this part of our city at peak traffic times? 4 6/11/2017 We live on Hawthorne between Cowper and Webster. I am writing to state my opposition to the "No Left Turn at all times” sign at Hawthorne (and Everett). As I live and drive on Hawthorne turning onto Middlefield going south multiple times a day, I have seen a blatant disregard and complete lack of enforcement for the signs even during just peak hours. Cars making illegal left turns clog up traffic beyond the city block during peak hours and I would watching this as the car at the end, waiting for 5-10 minutes to make my legal right turn onto Middlefield while all the illegal turners cleared their turns going left. This has created such bad blood and hostility both between neighbors and cut-through drivers. The addition of the “at all times” now with the lack of enforcement is one of the most ridiculous impediments to the smooth flow of traffic. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 151 ID Date Received Comment The left turn restriction should be only during peak hours and ENFORCED. If not enforced, it is useless and only creates hostility. I would like to know who decided the unenforced left turn restriction during peak hours should have turned into an unenforced left turn restriction at all times. 5 6/9/2017 thanks, I am not sure either.... kind of blindsided, I know Middlefield is a mess during rush hour but there should be weekend and wee hour exemptions, imho :) 6 6/9/2017 I just heard tonight that those of us in Downtown North now cannot turn left onto Middlefield 24-7? Really? And there may be other restrictions. And this came up in casual conversation....as involved as I am I hadn't heard a thing. I get it, people on Middlefield have traffic issues, which were factored into the price of their homes, but be that as it may, this trial means that if even at 4a for an early flight or late night on a weeknight, we have to go blocks out of our way...and spend a lot of time, plus a LOT of idling car engines which is so bad for the environment..... This is extreme. Seriously. So what are your thoughts? 7 6/13/2017 I think your current direction is obstructive and signal lights would probably be a cheaper and better solution 8 6/13/2017 During the last 5 days, the intersection of Everett & Middlefield has come up in three different ways so I wanted to send you my thoughts on this. The three different threads have been: 1) The Upgrade Downtown outreach session at Johnson Park last Friday 2) An SVBC Palo Alto Local Team thread on other BPTP bike infrastructure to prioritize. 3) A NextDoor post about the new traffic signs prohibiting straight & left turn travel from Everett to Middlefield First and foremost, I would like to see Everett Avenue green lighted as a bike boulevard through downtown Palo Alto immediately. My 5-year- old daughter just learned to ride her bike, and she is soooo elated, wanting to ride her bike every chance she gets! We have her ride on the street, so we can ride with her, and have taught her how to signal left/right/slow/stop. It is crystal clear, riding with a 5-year-old, how treacherous our existing bike infrastructure is, even if we get Gold Bicycle Friendly Community status every year. Since the 101 Alma (Survey Monkey now A9) building was completed, the Lytton Avenue bike lane has ceased to exist from the train station to Middlefield, and there is now no good bike route through downtown PA that is parallel to University. The University Ave bike lane proposal presented at the Upgrade Downtown session is great (I have no problems with the parking reductions), but the 2012 BPTP calls out Everett Avenue as a Bike Boulevard so why not also create an immediate bike boulevard route on Everett? Everett is a much lower stress street to ride on, definitely much more so than Lytton, so we always choose to ride on Everett with our 5-year-old. With the buses, the cars, and the side by side left turn/all turn lanes, the Lytton/Middlefield intersection is a treacherous place for bikes to cross Middlefield. Everett/Middlefield would a much City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 152 ID Date Received Comment better bicycle crossing. Yesterday at 9a, I saw a dozen cyclists on Lytton Ave squashed in the shoulder or between two car lanes trying to get across Middlefield. If we really lived up to our reputation as a bike friendly community and had truly safe, low stress bike infrastructure, we wouldn't be squashing cyclists between cars and in narrow shoulders so they can bike downtown or to Stanford. That brings us to the new traffic signs on Everett and Middlefield. I was quite surprised (along with many others) to see these in place AT ALL TIMES not just during peak travel hours. I realize you may have been working with a lot of neighbors on this, but it still caught most of us off guard. I find it to be a real inconvenience, especially when traveling on my bike during off peak times (midday and on wknds). I much prefer to bike on Everett and cross Middlefield on Everett without the signal, then deal with the traffic (especially the buses) on Lytton. I understand the need to prevent accidents during peak travel times and the inconvenience of so many cars cutting through neighborhood streets so I grudgingly supported the signs during peak hours. (side note - you may want to step up enforcement- at 6:30p I have seen 6-8 cars queued to turn left onto Middlefield from Everett during a lull in the cross traffic). We shop at Willows Market, go to Zoe's Cafe in MP and visit friends in the Fulton St. neighborhood, and the new signs feel like overkill, especially when there is NO CROSS TRAFFIC on Middlefield. I understand the number of accidents at that intersection is higher during off peak times, but solving that problem may demand a different design solution that is not as large of an inconvenience. I also want to mention that Everett Ave is a well-traveled route to Johnson Park, which many people in the Fulton St and Willows neighborhood of MP consider to be their neighborhood park. The several families I know who live north/east of Middlefield all want to cross on foot or bike/scooter at Everett safely, at a crosswalk with a traffic signal. I would like to see a signal at Everett too, because as I said before, I would prefer to bike on Everett across Middlefield (instead of Lytton). For Everett & Middlefield, something like the Bryant and Embarcadero intersection could allow safe travel of bikes and ped.s across Middlefield, while also restricting car travel options (maybe right turn only?) onto Middlefield. I understand the no left/straight traffic signs at Everett & Middlefield are a one-year pilot. After the pilot is over, I hope you and you staff will consider some other design measures for that intersection that couple two things: - the need for improved bike infrastructure downtown - the need for safety, traffic calming and cut through traffic prevention on Everett. A Complete Streets corridor along Everett and Vision Zero engineering principles for Everett & Middlefield might be a more holistic way to think about all the issues, and lead us to a much safer, convenient, and well-designed solution. 9 9/8/2017 The new lane markers on Middlefield at the Menlo Park boarder going north eliminated what little space there was for a bicycle to travel safely in this direction. There is no sidewalk either to ride on across the creek. This has created a very dangerous situation for cyclists going north. I’m very disappointed that the city didn’t take this into consideration at the time of remarking the road. This situation needs to be corrected before someone is seriously injured and sues the city. I ride this every day. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 153 ID Date Received Comment 10 Undocumented (phone) [Location redacted for privacy]. When a bus is stopped at this location to serve riders, it blocks traffic behind it since this is only one lane segment now. We have received complaints from drivers who got stuck behind the bus, blocking the travel lane. 11 Undocumented (phone) [Location redacted for privacy]. Resident of this property complains that they are unable to get out of their driveway and travel southbound on Middlefield. 12 Undocumented (phone) Middlefield/Hawthorne: Have received some complaints that vehicles are still trying to turn left from Hawthorne onto Middlefield and there is a request to add more bollards on the median. This could partly be due to lack of painted crosswalk on Middlefield at Hawthorne. City Contractor is scheduled to install a curb ramp and crosswalk in the next 2 - 3 weeks. 13 11/20/2017 I’d like to respond to your questionnaire questions and then add comments. 1. Were you aware of the project prior to receiving this survey? Yes, but I didn’t realize my block would be affected changing 2 straight lanes in to 1 left turn lane and 1 straight lane. 2. How often do you typically travel along the project corridor? Multiple times per day – morning, mid‐day and evening 3. Do you have any safety concerns about the project corridor? Yes. Despite the signs and barriers, drivers on both Hawthorne and Everett still go straight across or turn left by jogging to the right around the barrier and then jogging left or turning left. 4. When traveling along the corridor, what is your typical mode of transportation? Auto, but I also Walk on it daily. 5. Do you frequently travel along parallel or adjacent streets to Middlefield Rd.? Yes, I travel northbound on Fulton when there is traffic and southbound on Guinda when I can’t back out to go south. 6. Are you in favor of a lane reduction on Middlefield Road to improve traffic safety? No. I am completely in favor of improving traffic safety, but too many drivers on Hawthorne and Everett are dangerously determined to go straight across or left on Middlefield for me to feel this is an improvement. I think it slows traffic down through congestion, not better safety. Now, southbound Middlefield is backing up on a regular basis. This configuration negatively impacts me because I now have to wait 1 or more light cycles to get out of my driveway. I’ve always had to back out of my driveway. Backing out is more dangerous now because the lane going straight (north) tends to back up while the left‐hand turn lane on to Lytton doesn’t, so cars in that lane drive fast. If I can’t back out into just the north‐bound lane (because drivers won’t give me room), it creates a blind situation where a car turning left could hit me. It’s now almost impossible for me to back out across both lanes to go south on Middlefield. Instead, I have to turn right on Lytton (because it’s also difficult to get in the left‐hand turn lane now ‐ see above blind spot problem), turn right on Guinda (because it has a traffic light at University and Fulton doesn’t) and then head south on Guinda until I get to Homer to go west or turn back on to Middlefield to go south. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 154 ID Date Received Comment Whether I’m coming from the north or south, getting in to my own driveway is more difficult. The constant congestion on northbound Middlefield on my block means I have to wait an extra light cycle or 2 to turn right in to my driveway. Turning left is also a problem. Right now, if everyone was driving legally and not yielding right of way, I could only get in to my driveway heading north and would have to wait minutes to back out. Thankfully, drivers allow me to back out even though they have right of way, but they do it when the northbound light is red. I’m forcing my way in to traffic which is not safer. If you ask me if traffic is “calmer” on the last 4 blocks, I think it is, mainly because it’s congested. I don’t think it is safer or will be until there are consequences for turning illegally. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to pay attention to all the decisions done on this project, so you might have already considered and dismissed this, but would it help to go back to 4 lanes and put lights at Hawthorne and Everett with protected turn arrows and red light cameras? I know this would be more expensive, but there would be consequences for turning illegally and protection to turn. Other cities have block after block of traffic lights with success. I won’t pretend to have all the answers, understand all the issues or even know what questions to ask, but this current configuration doesn’t work for me and my wife. Can we please try another one? 14 4/20/2018 Thank you for your follow-up survey on the Middlefield Road North Pilot Project. I believe this project has largely been a success: Middlefield Road traffic is slowed. As far as I know, there have been no collisions at Everett or Hawthorne. The crosswalk at Everett has improved pedestrian safety in spite of poor driver compliance. However, the project has created several issues: Lengthened platoons mean fewer and shorter safe crossing intervals for pedestrians and cyclist. Without enforcement of the morning turn restrictions into Downtown North from Middlefield and Alma (which are now flagrantly ignored), traffic has risen on Everett. 20-50 cars/day U-turn on the short block of Everett between Middlefield and Fulton, many using my driveway. At least 10 cars per day make an illegal turn through the crosswalk at Everett from Downtown North onto Middlefield. Around 50 cars per day make U-turns on Middlefield after being forced to turn right at Hawthorne or Everett. There is heavy northbound afternoon cut-through traffic on the eastbound El Camino-Alma-Hawthorne-Middlefield- Everett-Guinda-University rout, particularly problematic on Hawthorne. Here are a few suggestions: Enforce the crosswalk across Alma at Everett, especially 8am-9am. Add two flexible reflective channelizing devices inside the crosswalk at Middlefield and Everett, leaving a four foot clear area for wheelchairs but block automobiles. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 155 ID Date Received Comment Add additional channelizing devices to the barrier to discourage those who simply drive over it. Add ‘No U-Turn’ signs on the northbound 700-749 block of Everett, and a “U-Turn OK” sign in the relatively spacious Everett/Fulton intersection. Enforce the turn restrictions from Middlefield and Alma into Downtown North. Add “No Through Traffic” signs at the Middlefield Road cross streets. 15 4/25/2018 While I have filled out the current survey, I wanted to make a few additional points on the project since I live at Lytton Gardens: 1) You have made ingress and egress very difficult at Lytton Gardens. We’re trying to enter from west-bound Lytton and it not only is difficult to cut across and enter, but we also hold up the line behind us waiting. You might add some white lines. We used to be able to walk across Bryon at Lytton, but now you are taking your life hand. 2) To eliminate cut-through traffic on Everett and Hawthorne, you have funneled massive traffic on Lytton. We pay a steep price in traffic and danger now on Lytton. I have previously alluded to you “robbing Peter (Lytton) to pay Paul (Middlefield folks).” 3) We get a lot honks because you pinch off the right lane of Middlefield (north) at University, forcing unaware drivers to move suddenly from the left lane to the right lane. Why are you taking away two-lanes of Middlefield north, a main artery to Willow Road? 4) You don’t take into consideration the buses twofold: there is a stop on Middlefield that can back up traffic; and buses pivoting from Middlefield to Lytton have a difficult time of it. Myself? I find the project ill-conceived from the get-go, a classic example of NIMN. If you wanted to make the traffic flow better, make Hawthorne and Everett on-way as a parallel to Homer and Channing Avenues. City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 156 Table 39: Pre-Pilot Survey Instrument City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 157 Table 40: Mid-Pilot Survey Instrument City of Palo Alto | Middlefield North Road Diet Evaluation 158 Table 41: End-Pilot Survey Instrument City of Palo Alto (ID # 9880) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment No 2 with Cigna Title: Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C15157537 With CIGNA for LTD, Life Insurance and Accidental Death Policies for an Additional Three-year Term With a Total Not-To -Exceed Amount of $5,373,662 From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council: Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract extension with Life Insurance Company of North America (CIGNA) for an additional amount up to $2,435,904 for a three-year term, not to exceed the total contract amount of $5,373,662, to provide group life, accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) and long-term disability (LTD) insurance benefits. Background A Request for Proposals (RFP) was conducted to obtain group life, AD&D and LTD insurance policies as the current contract term end date with CIGNA was approaching. Council approved a one-year contract extension for January 1 – December 31, 2018 (CMR# 8774) with CIGNA in order to continue services as well as to complete this RFP process conducted by the City’s benefits broker, USI and HR Benefits Manager as project lead. The original contract can be found via CMR# 5497. The following is the summary of the solicitation process: Proposal description RFP results Contract term length 3 years Number of proposals emailed to potential bidders 19 vendors Total days to respond to proposals 28 days Number of proposals received 7 proposals Company names who submitted acceptable proposals: Cigna, Hartford, MetLife, Standard City of Palo Alto Page 2 Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted including claim costs: $2.4 million - $3.1 million Discussion Human Resources staff carefully reviewed the responses with assistance from the Benefits broker representatives at USI. Staff considered each firm’s qualifications based on following criteria: quality and effectiveness of services, cost, compliance with applicable laws and experience. Included in this RFP process was a request to provide short term disability options as part of the City’s maternity leave initiative. After considerable research with the City’s insurance brokers to evaluate the market, staff concluded that this is not a recommended option. Concerns include the instability of the insurance market in California and the potential for large premium increases in the future. Additionally, the option would only cover maternity leave and provide no coverage for paternity leave and was therefore not a viable option. Cigna, the incumbent carrier, provided the most competitive proposal for group life, AD&D and LTD insurance based upon rates and benefits. Cigna agreed to continue the contract terms and rates for an additional 3 years. Therefore, staff is recommending a contract extension in the amount up to $2,435,904 for a new not to exceed amount of $5,373,662 under the current contract. Resource Impact Funds for life insurance, accidental death and disability and long-term disability policy coverage costs are included in FY20 General Benefit Fund Operating Budget and will be factored into the development of the FY21 and FY22 Operating Budgets. The rates for group life, AD&D and LTD policies are based on the number of City employees, and on the current salary of employees. The City pays for basic life insurance coverage for its employees, however, employees can choose to purchase an additional supplemental plan. Total annual costs are anticipated at approximately $812,000, of which $347,000 is paid by the City. The balance of $465,000 is paid directly by employees for supplemental plans. The City’s per-employee rate will remain the same as in past four years and have been factored into the development of the FY20 Operating Budget. Attachments: Attachment A: Cigna Contract Amendment No 2 (C15157537) 1 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C15157537 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE CIGNA CORPORATION This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C15157537 (“Contract”) is entered into January 15, 2019, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE CIGNA CORPORATION, located at 1601 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19192 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties on March 26, 2015, for the provision of Group Life, Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D), and Long Term Disability Insurance (LTD), for the CITY’s employees. B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation by $2,435,904 from $2,937,758 to $5,373,662 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services. C. The parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2022 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4 NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” shall consist of the payment of insurance premiums at the rates specified in Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3. The total amount authorized for these services shall not exceed Five Million Three Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($5,373,662.00) In the event that, during any fiscal year of the City, the total required insurance premiums exceeds the amount stated above, as a result of increased enrollment or increased volume of insurance coverage: (1) the parties may amend this provision to increase the DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 2 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 authorized compensation; or (2) Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3 shall lapse according to their terms, subject to the grace period provisions contained therein. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.” SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A1” entitled “BASIC & VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE POLICY [NO. FLX 962659] (Including Amendments 1, 2 & 3)” b. Exhibit “A2” entitled “BASIC & VOLUNTARY AD&D LIFE INSURANCE POLICY [NO. OK 964302] (Including Amendments 1, 2, 02a & 3)” c. Exhibit “A3” entitled “LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE POLICY [NO. LK 961943] (Including Amendments 1, 2, 02a & 3)” d. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. e. Exhibit “C1” entitled “RENEWAL RATE SUMMARY” SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE CIGNA CORPORATION DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 Robin England Underwriter Director of Risk Management Brett Kennedy 3 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 Attachments: Exhibit “A1” entitled “BASIC & VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE POLICY [NO. FLX 962659] (Amendment 3)” Exhibit “A2” entitled “BASIC & VOLUNTARY AD&D LIFE INSURANCE POLICY [NO. OK 964302] Amendment 02a)” Exhibit “A3” entitled “LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE POLICY [NO. LK 961943] (Amendment 02a) Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION Exhibit “C1” entitled “RENEWAL RATE SUMMARY DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 4 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “A1” BASIC & VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE POLICY [NO. FLX 962659] (Amendment 3) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA (herein called the Company) Amendment to be attached to and made a part of the Group Policy A Contract between the Company and Policyholder: Trustee of the Group Insurance Trust for Employers in the Public Administration Industry Participating Subscriber: City of Palo Alto (herein called the Subscriber) Policy No.: FLX - 962659 The Company and the Subscriber hereby agree that the Policy is amended as follows: Effective January 1, 2019, the rates shown on the attached Schedule of Rates will remain in force for coverage under the Policy. No change in rates will be made until 36 months after the effective date of this Amendment. However, the Company reserves the right to change the rates at any time during a period for which the rates are guaranteed if the conditions described in the Changes in Premium Rates provision under the Administrative Provisions section of the Policy apply. Except for the above, this Amendment does not change the Policy in any way. Date: October 30, 2018 Amendment No. 03 TL-004780 FOR THE COMPANY William J. Smith, President DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 5 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 SCHEDULE OF RATES The following monthly rates apply to all Classes of Eligible Persons unless otherwise indicated. FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Basic Life Insurance $.13 Per $1,000 Voluntary Life Insurance $.24 Per $1,000 FOR FORMER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Monthly Rates are based on units of $1,000. Under Age 20 $.153 Age 45 - 49 $.384 Age 20 - 24 $.144 Age 50 - 54 $.726 Age 25 - 29 $.153 Age 55 - 59 $1.347 Age 30 - 34 $.177 Age 60 - 64 $2.461 Age 35 - 39 $.19 Age 65 - 69 $4.065 Age 40 - 44 $.243 A change in rates due to a change in the Former Employee's age will become effective on the Policy Anniversary Date coinciding with or following the Former Employee's birthday. TL-004718 DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 6 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “A2 BASIC & VOLUNTARY AD&D LIFE INSURANCE POLICY [NO. OK 964302] Amendment 02a) Life Insurance Company of North America 1601 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19192-2235 AMENDMENT Policyholder: Trustee of the Group Insurance Trust for Employers in the Public Administration Industry Subscriber: City of Palo Alto Policy No.: OK - 964302 This Amendment is attached to and made part of the Policy specified above. It is subject to all of the policy provisions that do not conflict with its provisions. Subscriber and We hereby agree that the Policy is amended as follows: Effective January 1, 2019, the following rates will remain in force for Classes 1, 2 and 3 for coverage under the Policy: Premium Rate: Basic Insurance Employee Rate: $0.02 per $1,000 Voluntary Insurance Employee Rate: $0.02 per $1,000 No change in rates will be made until 36 months after the effective date of this Amendment. However, the Company reserves the right to change the rates at any time during a period for which the rates are guaranteed if the conditions described in the Changes in Premium Rates provision under the Administrative Provisions section of the Policy apply. Except for the above, this Amendment does not change the Policy in any way. Life Insurance Company of North America William J. Smith, President Date: October 30, 2018 Amendment No. 02a GA-00-4000.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 7 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “A3” LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE POLICY [NO. LK 961943] (Amendment 02a) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA (herein called the Company) Amendment to be attached to and made a part of the Group Policy A Contract between the Company and Policyholder: Trustee of the Group Insurance Trust for Employers in the Public Administration Industry Participating Subscriber: City of Palo Alto (herein called the Subscriber) Policy No.: LK - 961943 The Company and the Subscriber hereby agree that the Policy is amended as follows: 1. Effective January 1, 2019, the following rates will remain in force for Class 1 for coverage under the Policy: Option 1 $1.23 per $100 of Covered Payroll Covered Payroll for an Employee will mean his or her Covered Earnings for the insurance month prior to the date the determination is made. However, an Employee's Covered Payroll will not include any part of his or her monthly Covered Earnings which exceed $6,000. Option 2 $.575 per $100 of Covered Payroll Covered Payroll for an Employee will mean his or her Covered Earnings for the insurance month prior to the date the determination is made. However, an Employee's Covered Payroll will not include any part of his or her monthly Covered Earnings which exceed $3,000. 2. Effective January 1, 2019, the following rates will remain in force for Classes 2 and 3 for coverage under the Policy: $.62 per $100 of Covered Payroll Covered Payroll for an Employee will mean his or her Covered Earnings for the insurance month prior to the date the determination is made. However, an Employee's Covered Payroll will not include any part of his or her monthly Covered Earnings which exceed $15,000. No change in rates will be made until 36 months after the effective date of this Amendment. However, the Company reserves the right to change the rates at any time during a period for which the rates are guaranteed if the conditions described in the Changes in Premium Rates provision under the Administrative Provisions section of the Policy apply. Except for the above, this Amendment does not change the Policy in any way. DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 8 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 Date: October 30, 2018 Amendment No. 02a TL-004780 FOR THE COMPANY William J. Smith, President DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 9 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rate schedules within Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $5,373,662.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES CITY’S sole financial obligation to CONSULTANT shall be the payment of premiums as provided in the Policies. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in such proposal. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 10 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “C1” AMENDMENT NO 2 RENEWAL RATE SUMMARY Product Policy #’ s Inforce Rate Renewal Rate Rate Basis % Change Basic Life FLX 962659 $0.13 $0.13 per $1,000 of coverage 0% LTD LK 961943 Class 1 Option 1 $1.23 Class 1 Option 2 $.575 Class 2 and 3 $.62 Class 1 Option 1 $1.23 Class 1 Option 2 $.575 Class 2 and 3 $.62 per $100 of covered payroll 0% Basic AD&D Voluntary OK 964302 OK 964302 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 per $1,000 of coverage 0% 0% AD&D Voluntary Ad&d OK 964302 $0.0 2 $0.02 Per $1,000 of coverage 0% Voluntary Life FLX 962659 $0.2 4 $0.24 Per $1,000 of coverage 0% Rate Guarantee Period Life, LTD and AD&D to renewal 01/01/2022 Cigna reserves the right to change premium rates if any of the following occurs: The policy terms change A division, subsidiary, eligible company, or class is added/deleted There is a change of more than 10% in the number of eligible employees since the last census was provided. Additional benefits and services In addition to you current benefit levels, there are the below additional benefit programs included at no additional cost to your benefit eligible employees. Will Preparation – Allows you to easily complete essential life and health legal documents online at no cost to you. These include: Last Will & Testament Living Will Healthcare Power of Attorney Financial Power of Attorney CIGNA Secure Travel –Provides emergency medical, financial, legal, and communication assistance to covered individuals traveling domestically and internationally. Services include: DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 11 of 11 Revision July 20, 2016 Medical evacuation services 24 hour multi-lingual assistance Pre-departure services Assistance with lost or stolen items Travel arrangements for companion or dependent child Prescription refill services CIGNAssurance –Package of financial, bereavement, and legal services to help your Life / Accident beneficiaries. Your loved ones will have access to: Bereavement Counseling with Professional Behavioral Health Experts Legal Assistance from Licensed, Practicing Attorneys Expert Financial Guidance – no products are sold Identity Theft –CIGNA's personal case managers can assist you with credit card fraud, financial or medical identity theft. You have access to one-on-one assistance 24/7, 365 days a year in every country in the world DocuSign Envelope ID: EB603866-D83F-492D-A46C-B4CA097572B4 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: EB603866D83F492DA46CB4CA097572B4 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: C15157537 Cigna Contract Amendment No 2.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 11 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 12/18/2018 12:46:38 PM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Robin England Robin.england@cigna.com Underwriter Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 170.48.2.186 Sent: 12/18/2018 1:08:28 PM Viewed: 12/19/2018 7:17:18 AM Signed: 12/19/2018 1:07:39 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Brett Kennedy Brett.Kennedy@Cigna.com Director of Risk Management Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 170.48.2.184 Sent: 12/19/2018 1:07:42 PM Viewed: 12/20/2018 6:10:06 AM Signed: 12/20/2018 6:10:40 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Elizabeth Lucido Elizabeth.Lucido@Cigna.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 208.242.14.200 Sent: 12/18/2018 1:07:39 PM Viewed: 12/18/2018 1:08:27 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Frank Lee Frank.Lee@CityofPaloAlto.org Senior Human Resources Administrator City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 12/20/2018 6:10:42 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Angelica Jimenez angelica.jimenez@cityofpaloalto.org Manager Employee Benefits City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 12/20/2018 6:10:43 AM Viewed: 12/20/2018 7:24:52 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/20/2018 6:10:43 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/20/2018 6:10:43 AM Completed Security Checked 12/20/2018 6:10:43 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 10002) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Public Hearing on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption Title: PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 22, 2019) From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Staff requests this item be continued to January 22, 2019 due to a noticing error. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9917) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 3705 El Camino Real: Apply AH Zoning Overlay and 59 Affordable Units Title: PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN- 00136]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Site, as well as Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100 Percent Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four-story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments Into Required Rear and Street Side Yards, and a Waiver From Retail Preservation Requirements. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption); 2. Introduce for first reading and adopt the attached Ordinance to apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the subject property (Attachment A); and, 3. Adopt the proposed Record of Land Use Action approving the Applicant’s request for architectural review, design enhancement exception, and a request to waive the retail preservation requirement for the project (Attachment B), subject to the rezoning ordinance taking effect. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary The subject application from Palo Alto Housing is a request to construct a 100% affordable housing project containing 59 rental dwelling units on a site located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. The project as designed requires legislative approval to apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the subject property and discretionary approvals for an Architectural Review application, Design Enhancement Exception, and waiver from retail preservation requirements. The project represents approximately 19% of the net new housing units the City is targeting for approval this year. Background A conceptual version of the subject project was presented to the City Council at a prescreening study session in August 2017. Eight months later, the City Council adopted a new regulatory framework to encourage 100% affordable housing projects with the AH Combining District, which allows a qualifying housing project to benefit from modified development standards. Following adoption of this ordinance, the applicant, Palo Alto Housing, filed applications to construct the proposed 59-unit affordable housing project. The subject project is located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue and contains two mid-century, one-story, commercial buildings. The existing retail establishments include a stamp and coin shop, a European grocery, a hair salon, and a bridal shop. The site is located on the southern edge of the Ventura neighborhood, and is surrounded by a diverse range of uses, including one and two-story retail buildings and multi-family residential apartments. Reflecting this diversity of uses, the zoning districts in the vicinity of the site are varied, but generally follow a pattern of Neighborhood Commercial Districts fronting El Camino Real abutting Multi-Family Residential districts one block off the corridor. The Multi-Family Districts in the vicinity are long and narrow following the contour of the El Camino Real corridor, and abut Two-Family and Single-Family Residential districts to the northeast. The proposed project redevelops the site to include a 100% affordable housing unit project with approximately 25% of the units reserved as independent living opportunities for developmentally disabled residents. All units are deed restricted for occupancy by income- restricted residents consistent with local requirements. The project requires approval of the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District and a design enhancement exception for a portion of the ground floor building that provides access to a ground level and subterranean parking garage and bicycle storage room. The applicant also seeks a waiver from the retail preservation requirements as provided for in the AH Combining District regulations. Discussion The proposed building is 49 feet tall and located on an L-shaped lot. The design accommodates 41 parking spaces whereas only 33 parking spaces are required with the AH Combining District. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Access to the garage is provided from the alley at the rear of the site. The project includes 56 studios, 2 one-bedroom units, and a manager’s unit. The building contains 37,279 square feet of buildable floor area whereas 40,382 square feet is allowed with the AH Combining District. Open space is located on a raised podium courtyard above the parking garage and at ground level at the rear of the site. Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning The subject property is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial, a district which is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The district allows for a range of permitted and conditionally permitted commercial uses, as well as residential uses in conjunction with a mixed-use project. The maximum permitted residential density in a mixed use project is 15-20 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5:1. The CN district does not permit residential-only development. The CN District provides for a maximum building height of 40 feet on El Camino Real, which is reduced to a maximum of 35 feet for portions of a site within 150 feet of a residential zone abutting or located within 50 feet of the site. Affordable Housing Overlay CN(AH) The Affordable Housing Combining District functions as an overlay, and modifies the development standards of the underlying district in a number of ways. Attachment D includes an analysis of how development standards would be modified relative to the base CN zoning district. In summary, the AH Combining District generally permits and conditionally permits the underlying uses in the base zone, with the substantive change of allowing 100% affordable housing projects. Section 18.30(J) of the Municipal Code (which sets forth the AH Combining District) “is intended to promote the development of 100% affordable rental housing projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or one-quarter mile of a high-quality transit corridor [. . .] by providing flexible development standards and modifying the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts”. The AH combining district eliminates the residential density standard, and allows for an increase in gross floor area (FAR) up to 2.0:1 (Residential- only projects), or 2.4:1 FAR (mixed use projects). Additionally, the AH district allows for a height increase up to 50 feet, with a 35 foot residential transitional height limit for portions of a site within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property. As described above, one of the key siting criteria for the AH district is transit proximity. VTA provides regular, fixed route bus service along much of the El Camino Real corridor in the City of Palo Alto. During peak commute hours, as well as throughout most of the day, the 22 Bus Route provides 15 minute headways with service between Palo Alto Transit Center and San Antonio Caltrain (and beyond). The subject site is located directly across El Camino Real from the south-bound 22 Bus stop, and one block from the north-bound 22 bus stop (El Camino Real City of Palo Alto Page 4 and Matadero Avenue). As a result, the site meets the code-defined transit proximity qualification. In addition to the transit proximity criterion, the AH district may only be combined with commercial districts (CD, CN, CS, and CC). Generally, these districts include areas in downtown, California Avenue, Stanford Shopping Center, and many portions of the El Camino Real corridor. As a result, the site meets the requirements and is eligible for application of the Affordable Housing Combining District. Comprehensive Plan Designation The subject property has a Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, which is intended to allow for retail and commercial services as well as higher density multifamily housing development. The Council’s action to establish the affordable housing overlay as well as a number of other regulatory changes recently approved furthers the City’s expressed interest to expand housing opportunities in the community. The project’s compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is provided in the enacting regulatory documents attached to this report. On balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are policy documents intended to provide project applicants, the community, and local decision makers with guiding design principles to evaluate and promote appropriate development. Planning staff and the Architectural Review Board, as well as the Council, use these documents when evaluating remodels and new development along the El Camino Real corridor in order to determine where a project meets the relevant findings for approval and can therefore be supported. To this end, the draft findings for approval in the attached draft Record of Land Use Action contain an analysis of the policies applicable to the project. In summary, the Guidelines call for new development to provide parking in the rear of the site, as well as screening for at-grade parking with landscaping. The Guidelines encourage new developments to define and enhance the pedestrian realm by promoting “active” frontages with prominent lobbies, appropriate landscaping, and pedestrian-oriented lighting. The Guidelines also encourage the provision of community rooms and above-grade plazas for residential-only projects. The project adheres to these aforementioned policies, as well as a great number of other policies for the subject Barron-Ventura node and for exclusively-residential projects. On balance, the project is consistent the guidance provided in the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Design Enhancement Exception City of Palo Alto Page 5 The project includes a request for a deviation from the 10 foot rear (abutting adjacent commercial building on El Camino Real) and 5 foot street side (alley) setback requirements to allow for the at-grade and subterranean garage levels and bicycle room through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). For clarity, as the site is located on a corner lot, the shorter frontage on Wilton Avenue is considered the front lot line, while El Camino Real and the alley are considered a street side lot line and the side facing the adjacent commercial building on the block is considered the rear lot line. The findings to approve a Design Enhancement Exception are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. In summary, DEEs may be applied to site development and parking requirements that are otherwise applicable for multifamily development projects when such exceptions would enhance the design of the project, do not add gross floor area (FAR), and are not injurious or detrimental to people or property. The required rear setback of the site contains parking for vehicles and bicycles, which do not add gross floor area to the project, and allows for adequate turning radii for vehicles entering the below grade parking level. The DEE would allow for additional at-grade and subterranean parking spaces that would otherwise be restricted by the application of the required setbacks. With adherence to all project conditions of approval, the garage setback exceptions would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Given these conditions, the Architectural Review Board, as well as staff, believes that the findings for approval of a DEE can be made. Retail Preservation Waiver The existing site contains two buildings with approximately 7,000 square feet of retail space that is protected by the Citywide Retail Preservation ordinance (PAMC Section 18.40.180). In accordance with the AH Combining District regulations, the applicant has requested that the retail requirement for the new development be waived due to difficulties in financing a commercial tenant shell, which is not PAH’s mission, and which would arguably require subsidy by the residential component of the project. In lieu of ground floor retail, the applicant proposes to provide community amenity space, vehicle and bicycle parking, and other ancillary ground floor uses. The AH Combining District regulations allow the Council to approve such a waiver with a finding that such an action would be in the public interest (PAMC Section 18.30(J)). Given that the ground floor frontage of the project along El Camino supports an active street frontage and well-defined pedestrian realm, as well as the community’s interest in providing livable multifamily housing with amenities and parking, staff believes that the public interest finding can be made in the affirmative. Transportation Demand Management and Parking Some neighbors have expressed concerns about the amount of parking associated with the project, and that the reductions authorized by the AH Combining District would cause future residents to park on nearby surrounding streets. In accordance with the AH district regulations, the applicant has provided a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the project City of Palo Alto Page 6 (Attachment E), which includes a number of measures that will be taken to incentivize alternative forms of transportation for future residents and employees. The measures for the project are included below: With the TDM strategies identified, the plan indicates that the project would greatly exceed the Comprehensive Plan’s 30% peak hour trip reduction target established for the El Camino Real corridor. The TDM plan also includes an analysis of the parking proposed for the site using the GreenTRIP Connect model1, which uses a number of variables (TDM measures, transit proximity, unit affordability, etc.) to estimate parking demand for new residential development. The GreenTRIP Connect model described in the analysis estimates that an on-site parking 1 The GreenTRIP Connect model, developed by Transform, is one of several tools used to assess parking demand for new multifamily projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. The model is sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and is intended to provide local officials with information on the benefits of locating housing near transit and providing only the necessary amount of parking for such developments. More information on GreenTRIP Connect can be found on the Transform website at http://www.transformca.org/greentrip/connect. City of Palo Alto Page 7 supply of 0.5 spaces per bedroom (31 spaces) would be sufficient for the project, which the project exceeds by 10 spaces. The AH Combining District requires only 33 parking spaces for the project, whereas the development provides 41 parking spaces and therefore exceeds code requirements. Planning and Transportation Commission The PTC reviewed the subject rezoning application in a public hearing on September 26, 2018. Links to the minutes, video, and staff report for that hearing are available in the Chronology document in this report (Attachment C). The PTC’s deliberations focused on the development standards of the underlying CN Zoning District and proposed AH Combining District, such as transitional height and parking, as well as the targeted income range for future residents. Ultimately the Commission found that rezoning the site was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and unanimously recommended approval of the subject application. Architectural Review Board The ARB reviewed the subject Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception applications in public hearings on October 4, 2018 and December 6, 2018. Links to the minutes, video, and staff report for that hearing are available in the Chronology document in this report (Attachment C). At the October 4, 201 hearing the Board recommended a number of architectural changes to the project, including a more prominent lobby entrance, landscaping and lighting plans, and refinements to the building materials to provide enhanced texture and relief. The applicant revised the project plans to reflect these comments, and on December 6, 2018 the Board found that plan revisions met the applicable findings for approval, subject to additional review by the ARB subcommittee of minor architectural details and landscaping. The ARB also supported the Design Enhancement Exception for the requested setback encroachments and found the project exempt from CEQA. City Council The Council is requested to consider several items with this application, the legislative change to the zoning map to add the AH District to the subject site, discretionary review of the Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception applications, the retail preservation waiver, and the finding of CEQA exemption. Typically the Director of Planning and Community Environment, upon a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, makes a tentative decision on an Architectural Review application, which may be appealed to the City Council. However, in this instance the Director has elevated all of the requested entitlements to the Council’s decision in order to enable a full consideration of the project. Analysis Over the past few years the City Council has responded to the ongoing need for housing in a number of ways, including prioritizing housing-related policies and programs in the City of Palo Alto Page 8 Comprehensive Plan and by developing the Housing Work Plan2. One of the Housing Work Plan items (Project 1.8) achieved last year was amending the zoning code to create the Affordable Housing overlay, with the intent of supporting a project on the subject site. Palo Alto Housing has since responded to this legislative action by requesting the application of the overlay with the subject application. The applicant has been in conversation with many residents of the Ventura neighborhood, and has attempted to address stated concerns about parking and cut-through traffic. Undoubtedly, some of these concerns remain. However, provided the transportation analyses conducted by both the City’s and the applicant’s transportation consultants (Hexagon and Nelson-Nygard, respectively), both of which were reviewed by the planning and transportation divisions, staff believes that the parking and traffic impacts of the project on the neighborhood will be negligible. Moreover, as required by the AH district standards, the project will have an ongoing TDM performance monitoring requirement to support the efficacy of the identified strategies on an annual basis. Apart from the parking concerns, some of the more immediate neighbors have raised concerns with the building massing, which would represent a change from the existing 1-story commercial buildings on the site. However, while the proposed building’s massing along El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue is indeed greater than the adjacent apartment and commercial buildings, the net increase of 10-15 feet enabled by the application of the AH overlay will provide the sense of scale encouraged in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and supports additional housing units. The project provides a transition in height and mass towards the rear of the site to acknowledge the decreasing density and intensity of existing multifamily development on Wilton Avenue. As discussed above, the project has been evaluated for consistency with the development standards for the underlying CN district, the proposed AH overlay, and as the context-based design criteria and performance criteria for multifamily development. Except as modified through the aforementioned Design Enhancement Exception for the garage setbacks, the project meets all applicable code requirements. On balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, achieves specific initiatives described in the Housing Work Plan, and adheres to the applicable policies for new development in the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project would also represent a significant contribution (19%) to the City’s annual unit production goal, which now stands at 315 per year through 2030. Resource Impact 2 A link to the adopted Housing Work Plan can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Consistent with City procedures, a portion of the application fees for this nonprofit affordable project have been waived with approval from the City Manager. The Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule Planning Fee Waiver allows the City Manager, upon the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, to waive all or a portion of a Planning fee when the applicant is a non-profit organization or another governmental entity, and the following findings can be made: (1) the proposed project would advance a public purpose benefitting the residents of Palo Alto; and (2) General Fund support is available to backfill the fee(s) waived. Fees for service from City staff have been waived. The applicant has paid for consultant-related expenses. This project is exempt from existing Development Impact Fees. For development impact fees that apply to residential development, the Municipal Code exempts affordable housing, either for sale or rental, which, by recordable means, is permanently obligated to be 100% affordable from existing development impact fees. While no formal request has been received, the applicant has expressed an interest and need for local affordable housing funding. The City has approximatey 14 million dollars combined in its housing funds. Three million has been reserved for a possible teacher housing project near the County Courthouse. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). The project meets the required criteria for this exemption as established in Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194, as further detailed in Attachment F. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment C: Hearing Chronology (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: TDM Plan and Parking Analysis (PDF) Attachment F: Notice of Exemption - Affordable Housing (DOCX) Attachment G: Location Map with Existing Zoning (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) Not Yet Adopted Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Existing Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: (A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2018, recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real) from CN Neighborhood Commercial to CN (AH) Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District. (B) After reviewing the facts presented at a public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the Commission recommended that the subject site meets the commercial zoning and transit proximity requirements of the Affordable Housing Combining District and that rezoning to the CN (AH) designation would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (C) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on January 14, 2019, found the project exempt from environmental review, and after reviewing all relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter, found that the public interest, health, and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by applying the Affordable Housing (AH) combining district to all that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit 1 (Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real. SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The rezoning is exempt from CEQA per Section 15194 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts affordable housing projects meeting certain criteria. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. In the event that the planning entitlements granted in Record of Land Not Yet Adopted Use Action No. 2019-XX expire, this ordinance shall be automatically repealed and the zoning map for the real property described in Exhibit 1 shall be amended to remove the Affordable Housing (AH) combining district without the need for further action by the City Council. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Adopted 3705 El Camino Real – Legal Description Not Yet Adopted 3707 El Camino Real – Legal Description Not Yet Adopted ACTION NO. 2019-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3705 EL CAMINO REAL: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION (18PLN-00136) On January 14, 2019, the Council of the City of Palo Alto, after considering all of the evidence presented, approved the Architectural Review application for a four-story, 59-unit affordable rental housing project containing two levels of garage parking and associated site improvements in the CN(AH) (Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District), making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. An application for Architectural Review to allow a four-story affordable housing project on the site was submitted on April 19, 2018 B. The application was filed in conjunction with an application to amend the Zoning District Map to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the site. C. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and recommended approval of the Zoning District Map Amendment on September 26, 2018. D. The Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and recommended approval of the Architectural Review and associated Design Enhancement Exception on December 6, 2016. E. The City Council, after reviewing the evidence presented, adopted the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board and approved the Zoning District Map Amendment, Architectural Review, and Design Enhancement Exception for the project, and also waived the project from Citywide Retail Preservation requirements. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The project meets the required criteria for this exemption as established in Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194. A further analysis is provided in the accompanying Notice of Exemption. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. Architectural Review approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.020: Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project design is consistent with a number of policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan, including the following: Land Use Element • Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The project includes housing units for lower income households exclusively. • Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. The project provides 59 housing units along the El Camino Real corridor, which is a high- quality transit corridor providing connections to retail and employment centers. The project provides enhancements to the streetscape, including new and wider sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture, which enhance the neighborhood. • Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. The project seeks to utilize the Affordable Housing Combining District, which incentivizes housing density near transit. • Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The project’s main entrance is located at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue, and provides a clear, intuitive entrance for pedestrians. Outdoor space for the project is located in a raised platform above the garage, which shields residents from noise along the El Camino Real corridor. • Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project provides a transition in height, mass, and scale towards the project rear in order to reflect the medium and lower-density structures and neighborhood to the site rear. • Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. The project includes a request to waive the retail preservation requirements that are otherwise applicable in order to provide parking and site amenities for project residents. • Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The project includes 59 units of affordable housing on the El Camino Real corridor. • Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The project provides a transition in height, mass, and scale towards the project rear in order to reflect the medium and lower-density structures and neighborhood to the site rear. The AH Combining District zone boundary would be at the centerline of the alley in order to provide a transition between the site and the adjacent medium density multifamily zone to the north. Housing Element • Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The project seeks to utilize the Affordable Housing Combining District, which provides increased density for projects proposing 100% affordable units. The site is located near a range of community services, retail and restaurant establishments, and employment centers. • Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the The project seeks an amendment to the zoning district map in order to permit the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one –quarter mile of fixed rail stations. proposed higher units density along El Camino Real, which is a high-quality transit corridor. • Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The site includes all necessary urban services and utilities to service the project. • Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. The project’s housing units are a mix of studio and 1-bedroom apartments for rent, all of which would be less than 900 square feet. • Program H2.1.6: Consider density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments. The project is not considered a density bonus project, however, the AH Combining District regulations allow for more flexible development standards, including minimum parking, maximum height, coverage, and unit density, than the underlying CN district. • Program H2.2.8: Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and adopt standards as appropriate. The AH Combining District removes maximum unit density as a development standard entirely. • Program H2.1.10: As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. The site is located in the Barron-Ventura District in the South El Camino Design Guidelines, which calls for buildings to enhance the pedestrian environment. The project includes a number of pedestrian- oriented features, including a lobby on El Camino Real, a widened sidewalk, and street furniture and landscaping. • Program H2.2.6: On parcels zoned for mixed use, consider allowing exclusively residential use on extremely small parcels through the transfer of zoning requirements between adjacent parcels to create horizontal mixed use arrangements. If determined to be appropriate, adopt an ordinance to implement this program. The underlying CN zone allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses. With the AH Combining District, the site would be permitted to construct an exclusively residential project. • Program H3.1.5: Encourage the use of flexible development standards, including floor-area ratio limits, creative architectural solutions, and green The requested AH Combining District would provide the project with a number of flexible development standards in order to incentivize building practices in the design of projects with a substantial BMR component. the production of affordable housing, including relaxed standards for density, floor area ratio, height, and parking. • Program H3.1.12: Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide extremely low-income (ELI), very low- income, and low income housing units, above and beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping requirements, and reduced fees. The requested AH Combining District would provide the project with a number of flexible development standards in order to incentivize the production of affordable housing, including relaxed standards for density, floor area ratio, height, and parking. The site is located on El Camino Real, and accordingly, the project has been evaluated relative to the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines as applicable. The project includes a number of design elements that are consistent with these Guidelines, including the following: Barron-Ventura District Vision: New buildings should front El Camino Real with a scale appropriate to a neighborhood commercial district. Street level facades should have numerous pedestrian amenities. Street level facades should also be highly transparent from the sidewalk The project includes a building with a minimal setback on El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue in order to provide the higher-density scale that is appropriate for the El Camino Real corridor. The project includes a number of pedestrian amenities, including a large open space patio, street trees and other landscaping, and street furniture. The street level facades are a combination of highly transparent facades and board-formed concrete. Build-to Lines: Buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. […] On parcels located in node areas, a minimum of seventy-five percent of the El Camino Real frontage must be comprised of building mass built up the build-to setback line.\ The building is designed in compliance with the required build-to lines in order to provide an urban form along the El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue frontages. Corner Parcels: For corner parcels, the building should be built up to the setback line in order to define the corner[…] In node areas, the building should continue at the side street setback line for a minimum of fifty percent of the side street property frontage. The project is located on a corner and adheres to the required setbacks on the main street frontages of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. Minimum height: Building should have a minimum height of twenty-five feet in order to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. The building proposes a total height of 49 feet on the El Camino Real frontage. Limited Driveway Access from El Camino Real: New developments should minimize driveways and curb cuts to reduce impacts on El Camino Real traffic flow and on- street parking. The project eliminates an existing curb cut on El Camino Real, and instead provides vehicle connection to the site via the rear alley. Alley Access: Properties with rear alleys are strongly encouraged to have all vehicles access from the alley. Vehicles would access the site from the rear alley. Usable Amenities: Landscape and hardscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed[…]Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. The project includes landscape and hardscape amenities along the street frontages, as well as in a rear courtyard patio that includes tables, a covered trellis, and a barbeque. Privacy of Adjacent Residential Uses: Privacy of existing residential properties must be protected through screening and landscaping. Fencing, shrubbery, trellises, and high windows should be used to protect views into residential properties. The project includes an offer to upgrade the fence of the adjacent neighbor in order to provide enhanced privacy for adjacent multifamily residents. The majority of the project’s units would be stepped back from the adjacent multifamily building, and would be further screened by ground level landscaping. Minimum Alley Setback: Buildings and landscaping should be set back to create a 20-foot minimum clearance. Where alleys intersect with streets, adequate sight distances and building setbacks should be provided. The existing 20 foot clearance in the alley would be maintained with the project. The building is stepped back at the corner of the alley and Wilton Avenue in order to provide adequate sight lines for pedestrians and vehicles. Orientation to Alley: Buildings should have windows and doors oriented towards the alley. Although it is not expected that a building will have as many doors and windows facing the alley as it does El Camino Real, the openings that do face the alley should have a human scale and details. Alley-accessed parking should include well-designed, covered rear building entries, or connect to front entries through generously proportioned pedestrian passageways. The majority of the building immediately adjacent to the alley consists of a one-level parking garage, which provides a transition in scale compared to the higher massing profile on Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real. Articulated Facades: In order to create a cohesive streetscape, building facades should be articulated with a building base, body, and roof or parapet edge. The building includes an articulated façade using a number of high quality materials, including terra cotta tile, stucco, and board- formed concrete. The building is identifiably composed with a base, body, and roof. Corners: Corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing, and architectural elements. The corner of the building at El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue includes the main entrance, as well as enhanced sections of terra cotta tile in order to lend prominence and importance to this area. Architectural Expression of Building Entries: Entries should be marked by architectural features that emphasize their importance. Features such as tall building features, projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and signage can signify the location and importance of an entry. The primary entrance is located at the corner and is distinguished by enhanced sections of terra cotta tile, as well as a canopy overhang and areas for signage and pedestrian scale lighting. Expression of Habitation: Residential or mixed-use residential projects should incorporate elements that The fenestration of the building is identifiably residential and stimulates visual interest to signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bay and balconies that are visible to people on the street. people on the street. Articulation and Depth: Building elevations should have variation and depth, rather than a false front treatment. Varies massing, projections, and recesses can be used to create a sense of articulation and depth. The street facades are varied, with the upper levels overhanging the first in order to provide a sense of articulation. Active Street Frontage: Residential projects should maintain an active ground floor street frontage. Uses such as lobbies, community rooms, and habitable outdoor terraces and plazas should be situated along ground floor street frontage. The El Camino Real-facing façade includes an active ground floor program composed of a lobby, community meeting room, and bicycle parking areas. Partially-Recessed or Underground Garage Treatment: Where parking is provided in a partially- submerged/split level garage, the ventilated garage façade should be completely screened with architectural and landscape devices. The project includes two levels of parking, one of which is underground. The garage vents would be screened with vines and other landscaping along the alley frontage. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project includes an intuitive program that would be desirable for future residents, visitors and the community. The building contains a main entrance at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue, with two levels of vehicle parking accessed via the rear alley. An existing heritage oak tree on the site contributes beneficial canopy and habitat on the site, and will be protected during construction. The building includes a stepped massing away from El Camino Real, which provides a transition in scale, mass, and character to the two-story multifamily apartments across the rear alley from the site. The project has eliminated a previously proposed roof deck on an upper level, which will help mitigate potential privacy and noise concerns for the adjacent multifamily residents, and includes an offer to upgrade the neighboring property’s alley fence. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria in PAMC 18.16.090(b) for the underlying CN zone, and which are included below: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity. The project has been designed to enhance the pedestrian environment on El Camino Real by pulling the building to the sidewalk, increasing the sidewalk width, eliminating an existing curb cut on El Camino Real, and providing street level landscaping and furniture. The project promotes cycling by providing two long-term bicycle storage areas with direct access to El Camino Real, which provides convenient bicycle parking for residents and employees. The project relegates vehicle access to the rear alley, which prioritizes the pedestrian and bicycle experience while also providing sufficient vehicle connectivity and parking. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The project has its primary entry and lobby at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue, which provides an intuitive and pedestrian-oriented building program with a strong relationship to the street. The building adheres to the required build-to line regulations, which require buildings to adhere to “maximum” setbacks in order to provide an urban form along the El Camino Real corridor. The project also includes street landscaping and furniture to enhance the pedestrian environment. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. The project conforms to the required setbacks for the CN zone along El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue, and has requested a Design Enhancement Exception to allow encroachments into the rear and alley side setbacks. The project has been designed to push the majority of the massing to the primary El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue frontages, and provides a reduced height and massing on the alley frontage. Scale has been minimized through the use and arrangement of varied building materials, such as terra cotta tile, stucco, and board-formed concrete, as well as articulation of the primary facades. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The project provides a transition in height, mass, and scale to the rear in order to better reflect the existing pattern of development to the north of the site, which includes an abutting apartment building across the rear alley, as well as single family homes beyond. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors and/or employees of the site. Open space is provided at the rear of the site in a raised courtyard patio above the at-grade parking level, and would provide usable amenities, including seating, a trellis, and barbeque area for residents, visitors, and employees 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Parking is provided in two garage levels accessible from the alley at the rear of the site, and would not be visible from the two main street elevations on El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. The project would widen the sidewalks along El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue in order to enhance the pedestrian environment for residents and passers-by. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This site is less than an acre. Therefore, this context-based criteria is not applicable. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. The building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 in accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, As summary of the green building features of the project is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project contains a variety of compatible, durable and high quality materials, including terra cotta tiles, board formed concrete, and stucco of various colors. The materials are largely earth-tone and muted, but also provide a cohesive and unified architectural statement. Architectural details, such the use of a second floor overhang, sunshades, and an articulated glass façade on the ground level, also stimulate visual interest and will enhance the streetscape appearance of the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project has been designed appropriately for a building along an urban commercial corridor. The El Camino Real frontage includes the pedestrian lobby, as well as two dedicated bicycle rooms with direct access to the street to encourage cycling. Vehicle access for the project is off of the rear alley, which would reduce vehicle queuing on El Camino Real and provide superior access management than curb cuts along the primary frontages. The alley frontage also contains a trash room, which is appropriately arranged to allow for necessary building operations. Open space on the site consists of a podium courtyard above the ground-level parking garage, which contains a variety of site amenities and landscaping. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The landscaping for the site consists of a number of appropriate, edible, fragrant, and indigenous plants, including citrus trees, lavender, sage, and toyon shrubs, and a variety of grasses and groundcovers. The landscaping is arranged adjacent to and within the public rights-of-way on the site frontages, as well as in the podium courtyard and rear landscape area. The landscaping enhances the building design, as well as the attractiveness and usability of the project’s open space area. Additionally, vines are proposed to cover the garage vents at the rear alley, which will provide an appropriate screen for adjacent residents. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, heritage tree protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, a solar-ready roof. Site planning emphasizes the primacy of pedestrians and cyclists accessing the site frontage, and enhances connections with nearby transit services. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code based on the foregoing findings and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 5. Design Enhancement Exception Findings. Design Enhancement Exception approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.050: Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; The site includes two legal lots on a corner that, when merged, place the front lot line on Wilton Avenue rather than El Camino Real. The vast majority of lots along the El Camino Real corridor contain front lot lines along El Camino Real, and otherwise contain zero-lot lines for commercial components of projects in the CN zoning district. The project does not contain a commercial component, however, ground floor uses are exclusively amenities and site parking, and do not contain any residential units. The requested Design Enhancement Exception would allow for the garage and bicycle parking room to encroach into the street side (alley) setback and rear (commercial-abutting) setback, the latter of which would be permitted by-right if the El Camino Real frontage were narrower than Wilton Avenue’s or if the ground floor contained a commercial use, rather than residential amenity use. Given these zoning constraints, there are exception and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and project that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district. Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and The Design Enhancement Exception to allow setback encroachments for the garage and bicycle room will allow for a functional garage ramp to access the underground parking level, which reduces the impact of surface parking on the site. The DEE also allows for additional structured parking for the project that would otherwise be required to conform to the street side and rear setbacks. As discussed above, the DEE would not be necessary should the project include a commercial component or deeper lot configuration, and will allow for a function garage space that also provides for a continuous streetscape appearance along El Camino Real. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The exception is for accessory parking uses that are excluded from Gross Floor Area and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. SECTION 6. Design Enhancement Exception Granted. Design Enhancement Exception approval hereby is granted for rear and street side yard setback encroachments for vehicle and bicycle garage parking, effective [DATE] based on the foregoing findings and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. The granting of this Design Enhancement Exception does not constitute a variance, and shall be effective only to the extent that the approved plans are not changed in a manner that affects the granted exception. SECTION 7. Retail Preservation Requirements Waived. In accordance with the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District regulations in PAMC Section 18.30(J).060, the Council determines that it is in the public interest to waive the project from the Retail Preservation requirements that are otherwise applicable per PAMC Section 18.40.180. SECTION 8. Effective Date. The approvals memorialized in this Record of Land Use Action shall be effective on the same date that the accompanying ordinance applying the Affordable Housing (AH) combining district to the subject property takes effect. SECTION 9. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Use and development shall be conducted in substantial conformance with the approved plans entitled, "Wilton Court Apartments,” dated November 20, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING UNITS. The project shall provide no less than 25% of the total dwelling units in the development to individuals with special needs as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to individuals with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities. 5. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Update the landscaping plan to show, to the degree feasible, street trees along the El Camino Real frontage, or other significant landscaping. b. Enhance the corner of the building at the intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue to make it a more visible and distinctive part of the building. c. Modify the color and texture of the alley-facing elevation to better relate to the rest of the building. 6. VAPOR INTRUSION PREVENTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the underground parking garage to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. 7. SUBDIVISION. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Compliance to merge the two lots constituting the project site in compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. The certificate of compliance and any associated agreements shall be finalized and recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder prior to issuance of building permits. 8. NOISE. The use of the podium courtyard shall at all times be in conformance with the Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 8). 9. LIGHTING. All exterior lighting associated with the podium courtyard shall be oriented downward and away from City rights of way and adjacent properties. Light filaments and bulbs shall not be visible at the property line in order to prevent glare. 10. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 11. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 12. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 13. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Jodie Gerhardt at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection. TRANSPORTATION Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the following information, clarifications, and notes on the project plans: 14. The zoning standards applied to this project require submittal and approval of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The applicant shall prepare and submit a final TDM plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM plan shall include measures and strategies to reduce evening peak-hour motor vehicle trips arriving and departing the site by a minimum of 30%. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to determine compliance with the trip reduction target. If results from the monitoring reports show the target was not achieved, the Director of Planning & Community Environment may require changes to the TDM program or impose administrative penalties if deficiencies are not addressed within six months. 15. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: As part of this project, the following off-site improvements shall be required and constructed to the satisfaction of the City prior to final occupancy. a. The required 12-foot sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage shall be paved with city- standard sidewalk and free of vertical obstructions with the exception of street trees, street furniture, lighting, and other approved furnishings. b. Driveway on the alley shall be at sidewalk grade as per Palo Alto Public Works drawing 120. It may be modified to include curb in lieu of layers if desired. Adjust grading and drainage as required. c. Modifications or replacement of the curb ramps adjacent to project frontage required. At a minimum replace the Caltrans Case-C curb ramp with Caltrans Case-A ramp to provide a curbless sidewalk area. Adjust grading and drainage as required. URBAN FORESTRY Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the following information, clarifications, and notes on the project plans: 16. Tree protection, fencing alignments and type, shall be shown for all trees retained on the site. 17. Tree Replacement will meet the Urban Forest Master Plan Policy of No Net Loss of tree canopy. The project applicant shall supply canopy diameters of trees currently on site and expected diameters of newly planted trees at 15 years of growth. In general, small stature tree species are expected to have a canopy 15’ in diameter, medium stature 25’ and large stature 35’. a. Trees along El Camino Real will be large stature at maturity, drought tolerant and of a species that is native or climate adaptive. California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) or an approved alternate with similar attributes. b. Site identified for potted plants along El Camino Real shall be planted with large stature trees. Potted plants are not acceptable unless alternatives are cost-prohibitive due to utility conflicts. 18. The City requires adequate viable soil volume areas for healthy public trees. The volume of viable soil to be provided per tree is based on the size of the tree at maturity. Connecting two or more planting sites is ideal and requires 75% of the soil volume per tree as compared to single-site volumes below. Soil cells may be used under the sidewalk or an engineered equivalent. c. 400 cubic feet of rootable soil volume shall be available per small tree, d. 800 cubic feet per medium-sized tree and e. 1200 cubic feet per large-sized tree 19. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right- of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 20. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 21. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 22. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 23. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 24. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 25. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 26. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 27. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. FIRE Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the following information, clarifications, and notes on the project plans: 28. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, NFPA 24 underground fire svc, NFPA 72 fire alarm system and an Emergency Responder Radio (DAS) Sys. 29. Provide Code analysis allowing only 1 exit from the Garage Level B1 parking area. The 2016 CBC Table 1006.3.2(2) requires 2 exits from this area if the occupant load exceeds 29 persons. The occupant load calculated for this area is 38 for 7657 sq ft. On Sht TS0.0 under project data Garage Level B1 is shown as 988 sq ft. On Sht TS0.1 the Garage Level B1 is shown as 7657 sq ft. Please clarify. 30. Upgrade public fire hydrant located in front of 480 Wilton Ave to a Clow model 76. 31. Provide exterior elevations on the plan sets with dimensions. 32. Roof access will be the way of fixed ladders at the top of the stairwell enclosure with min 4’x4’ roof hatches. Roof hatches shown can be reduced in size if needed. 33. Elevator shall be sized to accommodate a gurney and 2 attending medical personnel. PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall provide the following information, clarifications, and notes on the project plans: 34. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. A stamped and signed letter from the third party reviewer confirming which documents they reviewed and that the proposed C.3 design is in compliance with MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11 and this C.3 Data Form (http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/pdfs/1112/SCVURPPP_C.3_Data_Form_final_2012.pdf) completely filled out and stamped and signed as approved by the qualified third party reviewer must be submitted in advance of PWE approving the Planning application. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 35. EL CAMINO REAL SIDEWALK. The applicant shall be required to dedicate the additional portion of land to create a 12’ sidewalk on El Camino Real. Please clearly show this 12’ clear dimension on plans to confirm proposed improvements do not encroach into the 12’. 36. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must all existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work . The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 37. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 38. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 39. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 40. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 41. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 42. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 43. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 44. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the Building and/or Grading permit. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 45. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The logistics plan shall include measures to maintain pedestrian access on the El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue during construction, and prohibit construction parking and staging on Wilton Avenue. 46. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 47. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 48. GRADING PLAN. Applicant shall provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496-6929”. 49. STREET LIGHTS. Decorative streetlights shall be added to meet spacing guidelines of 35-feet to 40- feet per light. Existing “cobra head” lights shall be replaced by tall decorative lights and the remaining distance shall be met with pedestrian scale lights. Fixture specification sheets shall be provided, and applicant shall use LED luminaire instead of incandescent or sodium vapor. 50. PAVEMENT: Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Wilton Avenue and Lane 66 based on the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the following information, clarifications, and notes on the project plans: 51. The clearances for the transformer are: 3’ all around, 8’ in front and 30’ above. Submit drawings that demonstrate the building meets the required transformer clearance. 52. Transformer must be 10’ away from any windows or doors and requires a 30’ clearance for any building overhang. 53. The existing overhead electrical line is in conflict with the new building. California General Order 95 requires a radial clearance of 6 feet round this overhead electric line in the alley. Applicant shall submit drawing to show the clearance between proposed building and existing poles and overhead utilities. 54. Applicant shall install streetlights with and LED photo cell (both substructure and the streetlight system), CPAU shall terminate them to the existing power system. Submit plan for streetlight. 55. The proposed building shall be right next to existing vault 1104 and system of 12kV conduits (along ECR and Wilton. Applicant shall propose a plan to prevent compromising this equipment during the excavation process. Applicant shall coordinate with CPAU should they need to install tie-back in this area. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITES Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the following information, clarifications, and notes on the project plans: 56. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for each unit on the property for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads. 57. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 58. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 59. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 60. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 61. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 62. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 63. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 64. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 65. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 66. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 67. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters; lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters . 68. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment B: Hearing Chronology 3703-3709 El Camino Real - Prescreening August 28, 2017: City Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60907 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61317 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-136/ AH Combining District Ordinance February 14, 2018: Planning and Transportation Commission (1st hearing) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63360 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64590 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2/ March 14, 2018: Planning and Transportation Commission (2nd hearing) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63857 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64589 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2-2/ April 9, 2018: City Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64347 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43577.64&BlobID=65350 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-2/ 3703-3709 El Camino Real – Rezoning and Architectural Review September 26, 2018: Planning and Transportation Commission (1st hearing) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66818 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67266 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-09262018/ October 4, 2018: Architectural Review Board (1st hearing) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66966 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-10042018/ Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67470 December 6, 2018: Architectural Review Board (2nd hearing) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68003 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1262018/ Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68346 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zoning District CN (Existing Zoning) CN (AH) (Proposed Zoning) (18.30(J))(9) Regulation Required Required Proposed Minimum Site Area (ft2) None Required None Required 20,150 sf Site Width (ft) None Required None Required 98 feet Site Depth (ft) None Required None Required 168 feet Min. Front Yard 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (7) Same as Underlying District 5 feet off Wilton Avenue Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Same as Underlying District 10 feet for residential units; 1 foot for ground floor and below grade portions Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Same as Underlying District N/A Min. Street Side Yard 5 feet Same as Underlying District 5 feet off El Camino Real; 5 feet off alley for residential units, 2.7 feet for garage (DEE proposed) Build-to-Lines 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Same as Underlying District 81% build-to on ECR frontage; 57% build-to on Wilton Avenue Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent None Required None Required Maximum Height Standard: 40 feet on El Camino Real. Maximum Height Within 150 feet of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side: 35 feet(4) Standard: 50 feet Maximum Height Within 50 ft of a R1, R-2, RMD, RM-15, or RM-30 zoned property: 35 feet (11) Standard: 44 feet to roof, 48 feet to parapet Transitional Height: 35 feet Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1(4) 2.0:1 1.85:1 Maximum Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1(4) 2.4:1 Not applicable Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Adjacent RM-30 zone is greater than 70 feet in width, and therefore no side or rear daylight plane is required Page 2 of 3 Maximum Residential Density per Acre 15-20 units/per acre (8) None Required 127 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space/Landscape Coverage (percent) (10) 30 percent 20 percent 32 percent Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (when six units or more) (2) 25 sf per unit for 5 or fewer units, 50 sf per unit for 6 units or more 110 sf per unit Minimum Common Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required None required Minimum Private Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required None required Zoning District CN (Existing Zoning) CN (AH) (Proposed Zoning) (18.30(J)) Regulation Required Required Proposed Multiple-Family Off-Street Parking Requirement 1.25 per studio, 1.5 per one- bedroom; 2 per two-bedroom 0.75 per unit (33 total spaces required). The Director may modify this standard based on findings from a parking study that show fewer spaces are needed for the project. The required parking ratio for special needs housing units, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. 41 total spaces 0.69 per unit (project total) 0.75 per unit for units not dedicated for individuals with developmental disabilities Guest Parking 33% of all residential units provided None None Bicycle Parking PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) Same as Underlying District 86 spaces in bicycle storage rooms; 8 short term spaces near main entry CN Notes 1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. 2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. 4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). Page 3 of 3 5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. 6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. 7) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 8) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. CN (AH) Notes 9) These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060 for residential-only projects, Section 18.16.090 for mixed use projects in the CN, CC, and CS districts, and Section 18.18.110 for mixed use projects in the CD district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 10) Landscape coverage is the total area of the site covered with landscaping as defined in Chapter 18.04. For the purposes of this Chapter 18.30(J), areas provided for usable open space may be counted towards the landscape site coverage requirement. Landscape and open space areas may be located on or above the ground level, and may include balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens. 11) The Planning Director may recommend a waiver from the transitional height standard. [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING Transportation Demand Management Plan November 2018 Image: Google Earth © 2018 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1 INTRODUCTION The following TDM Plan has been prepared for Palo Alto Housing as part of the City of Palo Alto’s TDM requirement for new projects. As an affordable housing development, the project is subject to the Affordable Housing Combining District regulations. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Project The proposed affordable housing development is be located along the northern side of El Camino Real between Wilton Avenue and Curtner Avenue. The project is a 100% affordable development that will include 59 residential units, comprised of 56 single-room occupancy (SRO) units and three one-bedroom units. The proposed project meets or exceeds vehicle and bike parking requirements with 41 vehicle parking spaces, a bike room with capacity for 70 bikes, and guest bike parking for 8 bikes near the main entry.1 Area Context Transit Service The site of the proposed project is along El Camino Real, the main arterial road serving the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The site is accessible to a number of bus services including 24-hour frequent local service, express service and a local community shopper shuttle. The site is also immediately adjacent to northbound buses running along the El Camino Real Corridor. Transit services available on site include the following: Figure 1 Existing Transit Service within 1/2 Mile of Site Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop Stanford University Marguerite Shopping Express (SE) Palo Alto Transit Center to San Antonio Shopping Center Academic Year2 Weekdays (3:15 pm – 10:35), Academic Year Weekends (9:35 am – 11:08 pm) 50 to 60 minutes (Regular Academic Year Service) 0.3 miles at Hansen Way and El Camino Real Summer weekends and Academic holidays3 (9:45 am – 11:08 pm) 2 hours (Summer/Holidays) 1 Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52, Table 1 2 Approximately from mid-September to mid-June. 3 Approximately from mid-June to mid-September, and 10 federal holidays WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop VTA 22 (Local) Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 10 to 60 minutes (Weekdays) 250 feet at Curtner and El Camino Real 15 to 80 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) VTA 101 (Express) Camden & Highway 85 to Palo Alto Weekdays (Southbound departure at 4:10 pm and 5:10pm; Northbound arrival at 6:17am and 7:05am) N/A (Two runs in each direction) 0.5 Miles at Hansen & Curve VTA 102 (Express) South San Jose to Palo Alto Weekdays (Northbound 6:44-9:01 am; Southbound 3:15-5:33 pm) 10 to 30 minutes 0.5 Miles at Hansen & Curve VTA 104 (Express) Penitencia Creek Transit Center to Palo Alto Weekdays (Westbound 6:47 & 7:35 am; Eastbound 4:22 & 4:51 pm) N/A (Two runs in each direction) 0.5 Miles at Hansen & Curve Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities There are two Class III and three Class II bicycle facilities, headed multiple directions, within a ½ mile of the site. Figure 2 Bike Facilities within 1/2 Mile of Site Class of Bike Facility Facility Name Description of Corridor Destinations Distance from Site Class III Matadero Ave Shared Lane Markers Bol Park Bike Path to Park Bike Boulevard 0.08 Miles Class III Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard Palo Alto School Campus to San Antonio Shopping Center. 0.25 Miles Class II Los Robles Ave Unbuffered Bike Lanes and Shared Lane Markers El Camino Real to Bol Park Bike Path 0.3 Miles Class II Hansen Way Buffered and Unbuffered Bike lanes Page Mill to El Camino Real 0.35 Miles Class II W. Meadow Dr. Unbuffered Bike Lanes El Camino Way to E. Meadow Circle 0.45 Miles Future Improvements The City of Palo Alto and the California Department of Transportation will be installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) System at El Camino Real and Baron Avenue to enhance pedestrian crossing safety at the un-signalized intersection. WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 Access to Amenities The site of the proposed project is located on El Camino Real, with restaurants and coffee shops in close walking proximity. Additionally, the site is an approximate 15 minute walk to a Grocery Outlet on Alma Street. However, there are other major amenities and shopping centers less than 10 minute transit trip away, including San Antonio Center. Other major destinations, such as downtown Palo Alto, are easily accessible by transit or bicycle. Figure 3 Shopping Areas within Three Miles of Site Shopping Area Distance from Proposed Site (Miles) Estimated Travel Time by Mode, minutes Major Amenities Bike Walking Transit California Ave. Business District 0.9 6 18 7 Country Sun Natural Foods, Caltrain San Antonio Center 1.8 7 36 10 Trader Joes, Walmart, Safeway, Target, CVS, Sprouts Farmers Market Embarcadero Rd. 2 13 40 16 Trader Joes, CVS Downtown Palo Alto 2.8 16 55 20 Whole Foods, CVS, Caltrain Baseline Vehicle Trip Generation The baseline figure was informed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) report. The average rate of total weekday trips per dwelling unit for mid-rise apartments4 is 5.44. Therefore, the baseline estimation of this site’s weekday trip generation totals 321 daily trips. The highest peak hour baseline estimation is in the afternoon, with 26 trips. It should be noted that the affordable housing proposed for the site, which currently contains retail, will only net a total of 11 new trips per day. Figure 4 Baseline Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Size Total Weekday Rate Total Weekday Trips AM Peak Rate AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Rate PM Peak Hour Trips Affordable Housing (Proposed Use) 59 units 5.44 321 0.36 21 0.44 26 Retail (Existing Use) 8,200 square feet 37.75 310 0.94 16 3.81 21 Net Trips -- -- 11 -- 5 -- 5 Source: Project Trip Generation Estimates by Hexagon, using Rates from ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017 Note: Above numbers may not add up due to rounding 4 ITE Code 221 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 TDM PROGRAM A TDM program can encourage the site’s residents to use the most environmentally friendly and spatially efficient mode possible for each trip, with an emphasis on transit, bicycling, walking, and shared rides. Proposed TDM Strategies The strategies outlined in Figure 5 are designed to work together to affect site users’ travel habits. Targeted programs strengthen the benefits of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the site’s proximity to major transit nodes by reinforcing awareness of these options, breaking down barriers to incorporating them in travel routines, and incentivizing habitual use. Figure 5 TDM Strategy Summary TDM Strategy Description Caltrain Go Pass provision Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. VTA SmartPass provision Provide unlimited VTA local and express bus rides for all residents. Emergency Mobility Subsidy Tenants who commit to not owning a motor vehicle will receive an annual stipend of $100 per household for emergency rides to be used towards a transportation network company (TNC) (e.g. Lyft, Uber), taxi and/or scooter share in order to reduce parking demand. Bike Share Provide shared bicycles onsite for the use of residents. Carpool Ride-Matching Services Tenant ride-matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. Information Boards/Kiosks TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. Improved Bus Shelter Upgrades to on-street bus shelter to encourage transit ridership Improved Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Site Improvements to crossing along El Camino Real Shuttle to Caltrain Station and Neighborhood Amenities/Shopping Centers Provide timed connections to Caltrain stations during peak travel hours, shopping shuttles to area shopping centers during evenings and weekends, and demand-response services during off-hours. Promotional Programs Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. On-site Transportation Coordinator On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. Monitoring program By annually monitoring the TDM and parking program, the owner/management can adjust the strategies etc. in order to meet requirements, parking ratio, mode split, etc. WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5 Impact of Proposed TDM Program Trip Generation (URBEMIS) The URBEMIS model5 is used in this analysis to estimate an appropriate and conservative potential trip percentage reduction impact from the stated baseline. Based on the proposed site’s existing context in the urban environment and regional transportation network, along with the TDM program as described in Figure 5, the model estimates a 50.5% reduction in daily trips from the Hexagon baseline of 321 trips. This reduction would result in the project creating 159 daily trips and may help justify a proportionate reduction in the parking requirement. Peak hour motor vehicle trips, which are the standard set by the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan6, are estimated to be a maximum of 13 trips during the afternoon peak hour, a 50.5% reduction from the Hexagon baseline of 26 trips. This estimate exceeds the minimum 30% reduction required for new projects along the El Camino Real Corridor. Parking Demand (GreenTRIP Connect) To estimate parking demand for the project, the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was used. The GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), a national nonprofit organization focused on developing research and modeling tools for city planning. The model’s equations were developed and calibrated using parking demand data from 71 transit-oriented developments throughout the Bay Area.7 The model is similar to those produced by CNT for King County, Washington State (RightSizeParking.org) and Washington, D.C. (ParkRightDC.org). The model’s calculations are based on local data and include several variables such as parking supply, average rent, parking price, average bedrooms per unit, presence of transit passes or carshare memberships, availability of affordable units, and neighborhood variables (walkability, job density and frequency of transit). Due to the local variables used in it, the GreenTRIP model only applies in the San Francisco Bay Area. These variables demonstrate the critical relationship between parking and vehicle trip generation. Parking supply and parking pricing are two of the most important factors to consider when determining ultimate vehicle trip generation. They are also the primary reasons why there is such a strong nexus between reductions in parking demand and vehicle trip generation – by limiting the former, lower vehicle trip generation naturally follows (whereas having TDM programs such as transit passes with free and abundant parking oftentimes has limited success in reducing vehicle trips). For transit-oriented developments in particular, the model is more appropriate than relying on more generic parking demand data from sources such as the ITE Parking Generation (4th Edition) report, which provides data gathered at isolated suburban sites around the United States with free parking and little or no transit. While data from the ITE Parking Generation report is valuable for estimating demand at conventional auto-oriented sites, it is inappropriate for sites such as 3709 El Camino Real, unless substantial adjustments are made to account for factors such 5 Urban Emissions Model 6 p. 78 7 http://www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP-Connect/Methodology. http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Parking%20Model%20July%202016.pdf WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 as transit service levels, neighborhood character, area parking prices, and other factors that affect parking demand. When factoring in the site, context, and proposed strategies (including resident transit passes and bike share programs), the GreenTRIP model estimates a predicted rate of 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, is substantially less than the recommendation for a generic location in Santa Clara County on average (0.9 spaces per unit). This 0.5 rate equates to a demand for approximately 31 parking spaces8. Therefore, the proposed supply of 41 parking spaces is sufficient for this site. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Per the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan new developments are expected to regularly monitor the success of their TDM measures. Success in TDM programs comes with meeting or surpassing measurable benchmarks that relate directly to the implementing entity’s overarching goals. With regular and rigorous monitoring, the developer can ensure that its investments in TDM programs are as cost-effective as possible, and it can enable staff to adjust the proposed TDM framework over time in response to changing resident needs. The number of vehicle trips associated with the project will be tracked using an annual hose count through the first five-year evaluation period. The trip count will be managed and overseen by the site-wide TDM coordinator. The purpose of the hose count is to determine how many vehicles are entering and exiting the site during the peak hour. The hose count will be conducted over a 3-day period; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during a normal business week. Data on vehicle entries and exits will be collected at all entry and exit points to the site continuously over the 3- day period. An average of the peak hour data for the three days will be taken to determine the number of peak hour vehicle trips. The count will be conducted during the same month each year and the initial count should commence within a year of the certificate of occupancy. The target of 30% trip reduction, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, will be measured using a baseline of 26 afternoon peak hour vehicle trips. A manual count and/or a limited timeframe may be necessary if cost is a prohibitive factor. If the TDM project is not achieving the trip reduction target, changes may be made to the TDM program to assure objectives will be met. 8 http://connect.greentrip.org/ NOTICE OF EXEMPTION PROJECT TITLE: 3703-3709 El Camino Real (Wilton Court) PROJECT LOCATION: 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real; APNs: 132-35-045 and 132-41-085; City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezoning of the site to add Affordable Housing Combining District (Overlay), and Architectural Review of a new 59-Unit, 4-story residential housing project containing 100% income-restricted units. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING THE PROJECT: City of Palo Alto NAME OF PERSON OR GROUP CARRYING OUT PROJECT: Palo Alto Housing EXEMPT STATUS (check one) ☐ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268) ☐ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)) ☐ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)) ☐ Categorical Exemption ☒ Exemptions for Agricultural Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects (Article 12.5) REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: Project meets threshold criteria set forth in Sections 15192 and 15194 of Article 12.5, as described in Attachment A. PROJECT PLANNER: Graham Owen IF FILED BY APPLICANT: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Declare if a Notice of Exemption has been filed by the public agency approving the project ☐Yes ☐ N/A Signature (Public Agency) Title Date City of Palo Alto ⬧ Notice of Exemption P a g e | 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15192. Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects. As stated in Section 15192, in order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria set forth below. These criteria and the projects consistency with these criteria are discussed below. (a) The project must be consistent with: (1) Any applicable general plan, specific plan, or local coastal program, including any mitigation measures required by such plan or program, as that plan or program existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete; and The project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation for the site is CN Neighborhood Commercial, which allow for higher density residential uses near transit services. (2) Any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete, unless the zoning of project property is inconsistent with the general plan because the project property has not been rezoned to conform to the general plan. The project includes a request for application of an overlay district and is otherwise consistent with the zoning ordinance. (b) Community-level environmental review has been adopted or certified. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted for the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan on November 13, 2017. (c) The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-lieu or development fees. The site is located on an existing developed site in an urbanized area that is currently developed with all relevant utilities. The applicant will be required to pay any applicable development impact fees. (d) The site of the project: (1) Does not contain wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The site is located in an urbanized area and does not contain any wetlands. The nearest watercourse is the Matadero Creek, located approximately 0.2 miles from the site. (2) Does not have any value as an ecological community upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection. City of Palo Alto ⬧ Notice of Exemption P a g e | 3 The site is developed with commercial buildings and an associated parking lot, and does not contain significant habitat or ecological value to animals, birds, or plants. Protected trees on and near the site would be protected during construction or replaced in accordance with Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (3) Does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) or by the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. The site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan and is not known to contain any species protected by federal or state statutes. (4) Does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the application for the project was deemed complete. The site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Palo Alto. The site is almost entirely covered by buildings, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces, and does not contain wetlands or valuable wildlife habitat. The site is not known to contain any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, Native Plant Protection Act, or the California Endangered Species Act. The project would not cause the destruction or removal of any locally-protected plant or animal species. (e) The site of the project is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The site is not located on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) The site of the project is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. In addition, the following steps have been taken in response to the results of this assessment: (1) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed, or any significant effects of the release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. The site was characterized in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Summary Limited Investigation. The Phase II investigation collected soil, vapor, and groundwater samples from the subject site, and several samples contained contaminants in concentrations above residential screening levels. These contaminants are suspected to have originated from the historical motor and marine supply business that operated on the site prior to the existing uses. The Phase II report provided recommended mitigation measures to ensure that the health and safety of future building occupants is protected, including the removal of contaminated soil from the site and the installation of a vapor intrusion barrier beneath the planned parking garage. All such measures would be City of Palo Alto ⬧ Notice of Exemption P a g e | 4 reviewed and approved by the appropriate oversight agency in accordance with the recommended Site Management Plan and in compliance with all state and federal requirements. With an approved Site Management Plan, all effects of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants on the site would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (2) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. The nearest surrounding property with a history of releases of hazardous substances is located approximately 150 feet away at 3601 El Camino Real. This nearby site contains a Shell-branded Gas Station and is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup site under the oversight of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Local Oversight Program. Due to historical leaking underground tanks associated with the gas station use, petroleum hydrocarbons were found in the soil and groundwater at and near the site. The associated groundwater plume was delineated in a Site Conceptual Model from 2014, which showed groundwater movement in the north-ward direction from the site. A case closure and no further action notice for this site was issued on July 29, 2016. The Wilton Court site is located outside of the plume delineated in the Site Conceptual Model and in the opposite direction of the detected groundwater movement. (g) The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms for the two existing commercial buildings were prepared to survey the historical development of the two parcels on the site. These forms are used to assess whether a building or site contains a potentially significant historic resource due to its association with events, persons, or exemplar architectural style significant to the development of the state of California. Both buildings were assessed and neither was found to be a potentially historic resource or eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. The site is located in an urbanized area and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. (i) The project site does not have an unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby properties. The site contains retail uses containing stored materials that are typically associated with such uses. The surrounding uses are multifamily residential apartments, a restaurant, and other retail uses. Neither the site nor the surrounding properties have an unusually high risk of fire or explosions. (j) The project site does not present a risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. City of Palo Alto ⬧ Notice of Exemption P a g e | 5 Criteria addressed under subsection (f)(1). With an approved Site Management Plan, all effects of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants on the site would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. As mitigated, the site would not present a risk of a public health exposure that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. (k) Either the project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone or a seismic hazard zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2622 and 2696 of the Public Resources Code respectively, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake or seismic hazard. The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone or seismic hazard zone. Construction of the project would proceed in compliance with the California Building Code. (l) Either the project site does not present a landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction zone, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a landslide or flood. The site is not located in a flood zone or area subject to landslide hazards as noted in Comp Plan Map S-4. (m) The project site is not located on developed open space. The site is located in an urbanized area and is not located on any developed or undeveloped open space. (n) The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. The site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. (o) The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in sections 15193 to 15195. The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in Sections 15193 to 15195.The project will merge the two lots constituting the site through a Certificate of Compliance. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21159.21 and 21159.27, Public Resources Code. CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) As noted in Section 15194, CEQA does not apply to any development project that meets the following criteria: (a) The project meets the threshold criteria set forth in section 15192. As demonstrated below, the project meets the threshold requirements set forth in 15192. (b) The project meets the following size criteria: the project site is not more than five acres in area. City of Palo Alto ⬧ Notice of Exemption P a g e | 6 The project is located on a site encompassing less than half of an acre. (c) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding location: (1) The project meets one of the following location requirements relating to population density: (A) The project site is located within an urbanized area or within a census-defined place with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile. Not applicable (B) If the project consists of 50 or fewer units, the project site is located within an incorporated city with a population density of at least 2,500 persons per square mile and a total population of at least 25,000 persons. Not applicable (C) The project is located within either an incorporated city or a census defined place with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and there is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. The site is located within the City of Palo Alto, which is an incorporated City with a population density in excess of 1,000 persons per square mile. There is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. Net peak hour vehicle trips associated with the project would be negligible given the existing intensive retail uses. (2) The project meets one of the following site-specific location requirements: (A) The project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; or (B) The parcels immediately adjacent to the project site are developed with qualified urban uses. (C) The project site has not been developed for urban uses and all of the following conditions are met: 1. No parcel within the site has been created within 10 years prior to the proposed development of the site. 2. At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. 3. The existing remaining 25 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have previously been developed for qualified urban uses. The project site contains two commercial buildings that contain several retail establishments. Retail is considered a qualifying urban use per City of Palo Alto ⬧ Notice of Exemption P a g e | 7 Guidelines Section 15191. Additionally, the site is surrounded by retail and residential uses, which are also qualifying urban uses. (d) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding provision of affordable housing. (1) The project consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-income households. (2) The developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs deemed to be “affordable rent” for lower income, very low income, and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The project consists of the construction of 59 units that would be affordable to low- and very-low income households, with deed restrictions in excess of 30 years. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21159.23, Public Resources Code. 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 0.0' 107.9' 50.0' 07.9'9' 5.0' 5.0' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 50.0' 113.3' 8.2' 42.5' 120.4'50.0' 102.9' 26.7' 24.4' 113.3'45.0' 153.9' 421 19.3' 7.9' 151.4' 7.9' 50.1' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 45.0 6.0' 45.0' 06.0' 106.0'106.0' 20.7' 71.6' 26.3' 67.6' 35.9'4.3' 121.6' 2.2' 106.8' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 109.7' 50.8' 101.3'50.0' 128.9' 109.7' 50.0' 101.3' 50.1' 102.9' 90' 62.6' 88.2' 62.6' 88.2' 53.9' 60.0' 120.0'20.0' 80.0' 60.0' 102.8' 100.0' 70.0' 71.7' 27.1' 49.6' 62.6' 19.0' 47.2'71.7' 65.0' 106.0'150.0' 90.0' 9.7'2.0'22.0' 126.2' 50.0' 114.7' 32.6' 2 0.9' 95.8' 50.0' 95.8' 1 2.2' 40.6' 79.6' 50.0' 79.6' 21.0' 46.2' 47.6' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 10.0' 94.0' 107.9' 106.0' 87.9' 15.7'2.0' 55.0' 140.0' 55.0' 140.0' 75.0' 165.0' 75.0' 165.0' 165.0' 50.0' 165.0' 99.2' 155.0' 120.1' 104.3' 110.2' 15.7' 94.0' 31.4' 57.7' 24.9' 20.6' 85.1' 119.2' 165.0' 109.0' 13.7' 130.2'98.7' 130.2' 141.2' 120.3' 15.7' 131.3' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 120.4' 50.5' 114.7' 110.0' 140.0' 100.0' 15.7' 130.0' 27.6' 127.4' 49.9' 155.0' 49.9' 155.0' 59.1' 155.0' 59.1' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 143.0' 50.0 50.0' 120.0'120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 92.9' 15.7' 50.0' 102.8' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 108.0' 93.8' 15.7' 98.0' 103.6'103.6'167.5' 15.7' 93.1' 177.5'50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 50.0' 143.0' 20.6' 24.9' 57.7' 31.4' 30.1' 120.0' 35.1' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 119.9' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 89.0'119.8' 89.0'120.0' 110.0' 130.2' 55.0' 109.0' 165.0'239.2' 105.0' 55.0' 130.2' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.7' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 148.8' 148.8' 153.9' 150.4' 150.4' 76.7' 37.7' 37.6' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.8' 119.8' 101.6' 93.6' 66.0' 53.4' 82.5' 82.5' 165.0' 55.1' 265.0' 74.2' 50.0' 119.7' 164.5' 239.2' 239.2' 5.9' 45.0' 101.2' 38.9' 18.9' 175.8' 1.2' 80.6' 150.0' 161.8'7.5' 101.2' 19.2' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0' 100.0' 89.0' 92.4' 7.9'17.4' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' BARRON AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMIN MATADERO AV BARRON AVENUE CURTNER AVENUE WILTON AVENUE KENDALL AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MADELINE COURT CY PRESS LANE LANE 66 L A R-2 RM-30 CN This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 128' Existing Zoning Map - 3703-3709 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-09-18 17:43:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “3705 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, CEQA Notice of Exemption and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4374&TargetID=319 1 Carnahan, David From:CHRISTA BROWN <christajbrown@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 11:45 AM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:3703-3709 El Camino Real at Wilton Avenue Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council members, I currently live in Webster Woods, a Palo Alto Housing Community. I am a single mother of two and I work at Palo Alto High school for the last five years. In this economy I am not able to afford to live in non-subsidized housing. If it weren’t for theses types programs my family and I would be displaced. I am truly grateful for Palo Alto Housing as they have changed our lives for the better. I am in full support of Palo Alto Housing's new affordable project located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real at Wilton Avenue. Currently, the project has 59 studio and one-bedroom apartments. Twenty-one apartments will be set aside for adults with developmental disabilities. These apartments will be for households earning between 30 and 60% of area median income. The property is on a high quality transit corridor that will make it easy for residents to commute to work or other services. Adding more affordable housing units will truly help our community! Thank you for all the support in this project! Sincerely, Christa Brown 1 Carnahan, David From:Lourdes Gonzalez <lgonzalez@sarc.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Javier Zaldivar; Jeffery Darling; 'Jan Stokley' Subject:Support letter from San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) Attachments:letter to Palo Alto City council 1.8.19.pdf City Council, For your consideration, attached is a letter in support of the Wilton Court Project. Thank you. Lourdes González Executive Administrative Assistant San Andreas Regional Center 6203 San Ignacio Avenue Suite 200 San Jose CA. 95119 Office Tel : 408-341-3826 Cell: 408-685-9658 Fax: 408-281-6967 lgonzalez@sarc.org SANTA CLARA AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES 6203 San Ignacio Avenue Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95119 P.O. Box 50002 San Jose, CA 95150-0002 Tel: 1 (408) 374-9960 Fax: 1 (408) 281-6960 MONTEREY COUNTY 1370 S. Main Street Salinas, CA 93901 Tel: 1 (831 ) 900-3636 Fax: 1(831) 424-3007 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 111 0 Main Street Suite 8 Watsonville, CA 95076 Tel: 1(831) 900-3737 Fax: 1 (831) 728-5514 www.sarc.org Member of the Association of Regional Center Agencies 009 STAY CONNECTED January 8, 2019 Letter of Support for Palo Alto Housing's Proposed Wilton Court Apartments Dear Mayor and City Council of the City of Palo Alto: San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is funded by the State of California to provide people with developmental disabilities the services they need to live in the community, as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Service Act. Our service area includes the City of Palo Alto. The purpose of this letter is to support Palo Alto Housing's proposal to create affordable studio apartments at the intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton A venue (Wilton Court), with 21 rental units subject to a preference for people with developmental disabi lities. The transit-oriented location of this site makes it ideal for adults with developmental disabilities, many of whom do not drive or own a car. Setting aside some units for people with developmental disabilities will reduce the traffic and parking impact of the project, while addressing a critical Palo Alto housing need. According to data provided by the California Department of Developmental Services, only 40 of Palo Alto's 221 adults with developmental disabilities have their own place to live. Palo Alto currently has fewer than 10 spaces in licensed residential care facilities ("group homes") fo r people with developmental disabilities. This means that more than three- fourths of Palo Alto adults continue to live in the parents' home. As these parents age, it is of vital importance to secure affordable rental housing for their adult children. Although SARC is not able to pay for our consumers' actual housing costs, we are funded to provide a variety of services that help consumers li ve successfully in integrated housing in the community. SARC currently supports Housing Choices to provide supportive services to more than 250 residents with developmental disabilities living in set-aside rental units at 15 different affordable housing sites across Santa Clara County. If Palo Alto Housing's Wilton Court proposal is approved, SARC is able to provide for housing support services for the residents with developmental disabilities, in addition to other services SARC provides our consumers to help them live in their own apartment, including Independent Living, Supported Living, Community Day Programs, Employment Services and Behavioral Support. Please let me know if I can provide any other information on the need for the Wilton Comt project or the services that will be provided to support the success of each resident with developmental disabilities. Since,ly, Javit ~a Ciivar Executive Director "Consumers First Through Service, Advocacy, Respect and Choice" Serving Persons with Developmental Disabilities 1 Carnahan, David From:Grady, David@SCDD <David.Grady@scdd.ca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 3:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:'Jan Stokley'; Lucas, Jennifer@SCDD Subject:Support Wilton Court Apartments with units set aside for people with developmental disability. January 8, 2019 Mayor and City Council via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor and City Council members: As Regional Manager and staff for the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Central Coast (SCDD CC) , I am pleased to provide a letter of support for the proposal of Palo Alto Housing to develop 59 affordable studio apartments at the intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue (Wilton Court Apartments), with 21 units subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from Housing Choices and the San Andreas Regional Center. In collaboration with individuals, families, providers, and the Regional Center, SCDD CC promotes the ongoing work to improve the number and quality of services for men and women with developmental disabilities and their families. Throughout our catchment which includes Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, SCDD CC works hard to support educational, employment, and residential services for men and women with I/DD. The housing needs within the Bay Area effect our community as it does everyone, and the aim of SCDD CC is to promote housing opportunities for this important often overlooked and underserved population. The Wilton Court project addresses a critical need for housing among Palo Alto’s residents with developmental disabilities. The city is currently home to more than 460 people with developmental disabilities, of whom more than 216 are adults. Of the adult population, only 40 are living in their own apartment, while 11 are living in a community care facility. One hundred sixty‐five (165) of Palo Alto’s adults with developmental disabilities (approximately 76%) are living at home with aging parents. The lack of access to affordable housing is the primary reason many adults with developmental disabilities continue to live at home with aging parents‐‐long past the time when the adult is able to and would benefit from living independently, with services available to them provided by San Andreas Regional Center. 2 Community inclusion is important for all, by collaborating with Housing Choices and San Andreas Regional Center, Palo Alto Housing’s proposal for Wilton Court aligns with federal and California priorities to provide housing for people with developmental disabilities in typical community housing, with access to affordable housing coordinated with access to supportive services. In conclusion, we at SCDD CC urge your support for Palo Alto Housing’s Wilton Court project. Sincerely, David Grady, MA Jennifer Lucas, MA Regional Manager Community Support Specialist State Council on Developmental Disability, Central Coast State Council on Developmental Disability, Central Coast 3 1 Carnahan, David From:Jill Escher <jill.escher@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of Support for Wilton Court Affordable Housing for Residents with Developmental Disabilities Attachments:Wilton Court SFASA PDF.pdf [Letter attached and below] Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area PO Box 249 San Mateo, CA 94401 www.sfautismsociety.org info@sfautismsociety.org January 8, 2019 Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Support for Wilton Court Affordable Housing for Residents with Developmental Disabilities Dear Mayor and City Council members: Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area is writing to convey its strong support for Wilton Court, a 65-unit project with with 21 units subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from Housing Choices and the San Andreas Regional Center. The Wilton Court project addresses a critical need for housing among Palo Alto’s residents with developmental disabilities. The city is currently home to more than 460 people with developmental disabilities, of whom more than 216 are adults. Of the adult population, only 40 are living in their own apartment, while 11 are living in a community care facility. One hundred sixty-five (165) of Palo Alto’s adults with developmental disabilities (approximately 76%) are living at home with aging parents. We must also note that Santa Clara County, including Palo Alto, has experienced a dramatic increase in the numbers of individuals affected by disabling autism. In 1990, Santa Clara County had 147 cases of autism recognized by the developmental services system. Today that number is 4,065, representing about 40% of the county’s developmental disability population. As a result, we are facing a growing autism housing crisis in our county, including of course in Palo Alto. Additionally, the Wilton Court proposal dovetails perfectly with federal and state requirements for inclusionary options in all our communities to serve this growing population. We thank you very much for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to email me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, Jill Escher President 1 Carnahan, David From:Robyn Stanton <robynstanton@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 8:25 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Affordable Housing Needed in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council members, I'm a Palo Alto resident and I strongly believe that Palo Alto needs more affordable housing. Wilton Court addresses this need by providing affordable housing to those earning between 30 and 60% of the area median income. I support Palo Alto Housing's Wilton Court project which will create 59 affordable studio and one bedroom apartments. The project will also provide much needed housing for adults with developmental disabilities. Providing more affordable housing will help keep our community diverse. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Robyn Stanton Midtown Resident 2 Carnahan, David From:Joy Wright <joy0603@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wilton Court Hi, Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend this meeting, as I’m working that night. However, I strongly support the development of this affordable housing project. My son Russell is autistic and in dire need of affordable housing. Unfortunately, my family can no longer afford to rent in Palo Alto, but would very much love to see Russell reside in Palo Alto, a city he’s called home all his developing years. Thank you, Joy Sent from my iPhone 1 Carnahan, David From:Kristine McCann <Krismccann@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of Support for Wilton Court Attachments:Bahc Letter of Support.pdf; PastedGraphic-1.tiff Hi, Enclosed is a letter of support for Wilton Court from Bay Area Housing Corporation. Many thanks, Kris McCann Kris McCann, Executive Director Bay Area Housing Corporation 101 Church Street, #4 Los Gatos, CA. 95030 Cell: 408-438-7392 krismccann@aol.com www.BAHC1.org Support us by shopping on Amazon at: smile.amazon.com/ch/55-0830072 >1<>1<>1< BAHC January 9, 2018 Mayor and City Council city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor and City Council members: On behalf of Bay Area Housing Corporation (BAHC), I am pleased to provide a letter of support for the proposal of Palo Alto Housing to develop 59 affordable studio apartments at the intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue (Wilton Court Apartments), with 21 units subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from Housing Choices and the San Andreas Regional Center. The mission of BAHC is to be a catalyst for improving the lives of people with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities by creating and maintaining quality housing opportunities that meet the needs of the individual and the community. I am also a Mom of a daughter that has cerebral palsy and has affordable housing thanks to Housing Choices Coalition, she could not afford to live in Santa Clara County if it were not for the affordable rent that she has and the services that she receives from San Andreas Regional Center. The Wilton Court project addresses a critical need for housing among Palo Alto's residents with developmental disabilities. The city is currently home to more than 460 people with developmental disabilities, of whom more than 216 are adults. Of the adult population, only 40 are living in their own apartment, while 11 are living in a community care facility. One hundred sixty-five (165) of Palo Alto's adults with developmental disabilities (approximately 76/o) are living at home with aging parents. The lack of access to affordable housing is the primary reason many adults with developmental disabilities continue to live at home with aging parents--long past the time when the adult is able to and would benefit from living independently, with services provided by San Andreas Regional Center. Bay Area Housing Corporation 101 Church Street Suite 4 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: 408/395-5100 Fax: 408/395-5101 www.bahcl.org >'<>'<>'< BAHC By collaborating with Housing Choices and San Andreas Regional Center, Palo Alto Housing's proposal for Wilton Court aligns with federal and California priorities to provide housing for people with developmental disabilities in typical community housing, with access to affordable housing coordinated with access to supportive services. I am very grateful that Palo Alto is focusing on affordable housing with a specific set- aside for people with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities. We hope you will approve Wilton Court. If you have any questions, please contact me at 408-438-7392. Sincerely, Kristine Mccann, Executive Director Bay Area Housing Corporation 101 Church Street Suite 4 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: 408/395-5100 Fax: 408/395-5101 www.bahcl.org 1 Carnahan, David From:Jenn Wagstaff-Hinton <jennwaghinton@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:58 AM To:Council, City Cc:Soheila Razban; Charlie Weidanz; jhinton; Jennifer Hinton; salfaro@sarc.rg Subject:Support Wilton Court Project housing for Adults with Disabilities Attachments:AU Letter template supporting Wilton Court Jan9 2018.docx Dear Honorable Council members. Please accept this attached letter of support for inclusion in the Council Packet for the January 14 council meeting discussion of the Wilton Court project. As a Palo Alto native and current Barron Park resident with an adult daughter "Jane" with special needs ‐ I can advocate strongly for this project. Thank you very much in advance for supporting this initiative. Sincerely, Jennifer Wagstaff‐Hinton President, Abilities United Board of Directors Parent of adult daughter with Special Needs January 9, 2019 Mayor and City Council via email to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor and City Council members: On behalf of the Abilities United Board of Directors – and as a Palo Alto native and Barron Park resident with a 28 year old Special Nees daughter - I am pleased to provide a letter of support for the proposal of Palo Alto Housing to develop 59 affordable studio apartments at the intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue (Wilton Court Apartments), with 21 units subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services from Housing Choices and the San Andreas Regional Center. The mission of Abilities United is to advance inclusion, advocacy, and independence for people of all ages with developmental disabilities. The Wilton Court project addresses a critical need for housing among Palo Alto’s residents with developmental disabilities. The city is currently home to more than 460 people with developmental disabilities, of whom more than 216 are adults. Of the adult population, only 40 are living in their own apartment, while 11 are living in a community care facility. One hundred sixty-five (165) of Palo Alto’s adults with developmental disabilities (approximately 76%) are living at home with aging parents just like me and my husband. The lack of access to affordable housing is the primary reason many adults with developmental disabilities continue to live at home with aging parents--long past the time when the adult is able to and would benefit from living independently, with services provided by San Andreas Regional Center. By collaborating with Housing Choices and San Andreas Regional Center, Palo Alto Housing’s proposal for Wilton Court aligns with federal and California priorities to provide housing for people with developmental disabilities in typical community housing, with access to affordable housing coordinated with access to supportive services. In conclusion, we urge your support for Palo Alto Housing’s Wilton Court project. Sincerely, Jennifer Wagstaff-Hinton President, Abilities United Board of Directors 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 9, 2019 12:41 PM To:Council, City; Barron Park Association: Miscellaneous Subject:Rezoning 3703-09 El Camino Dear Mayor Filseth and Council members; Jan. 9, 2019 I am concerned regarding to reported proposal regarding El Camino rezoning plans. According to a notice in the Post Jan. 4 and several to messages on Next Door there will be a proposal on the agenda Jan. 14 to rezone 3703- 3709 El Camino from CN to residential, and force out local ground floor retail businesses in violation of the Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Design Guidelines, and formal city policy to preserve retail on El Camino. The four locally owned businesses - Treasure Island Stamps, Novelle Bride, Euro market Grocer and Family Fashion Cut will be forced out and probably out of business. They will all be missed and are unlikely to find replacement locations anywhere nearby. The El Camino Design Guidelines that were generated originally by three of us in Barron Park over 40 years ago are intended to preserve and enhance local retail stores and retain a walk able El Camino streetscape. We also wanted to pacify some of our neighbors that voted against merging Barron Park with Palo Alto for fear that the city would be insensitive to our local needs and interests. This conversion of local retail to housing with no ground floor retail unfortunately confirms those suspicions. The CN zone does allow housing on upper floors, and that option should be fully reviewed and discussed along with this proposal, ideally by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission interacting with the public. There will be many negative impacts of such a conversion. In addition to loss of local businesses, it will make El Camino less walkable for residents to shop, and seems to verify these old concerns about how our part of town is treated by city hall. There also will be negative financial impacts. Sales taxes will be lost when the retail businesses leave. Housing will cost the city budget over $625,000/year more for city services than the development will pay in local taxes, and the cost will increase over time since residential assessment increases are limited to 2% by Prop. 13 while expenses will rise more than 2%/year. Some of you may recall former city manager Keene stating at the start of the council meeting several years ago that each residential unit costs the city $2800 more annually than it pays in local taxes. The current cost is higher, probably close to $3000/year/unit. Housing also generates traffic, and even assuming above average use of public transit and carpools by new residents at the site trip generation will be in the range of 350-400/day on an already congested El Camino. I urge the city council not to agree to this zone change now. Send the request to the Planning and Transportation Commission for more public review and discussion. Get local neighborhood associations such as the Barron Park Association also involved by having staff and the proposed developer meet with them and answering questions. This issue is too important to just ram through. It needs more careful and extensive review and discussion. Sincerely, Bob Moss City of Palo Alto (ID # 9802) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 3743 Redwood Circle: Appeal of IR Approval Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3743 Redwood Circle [17PLN- 00272]: Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval of a new Two-story, Single Family Home. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential) (Continued From October 29, 2018) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a hearing on the appeal of the Individual Review (IR) application (17PLN-00272) for a new two-story home at 3743 Redwood Circle and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval by adopting the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Executive Summary In May 2018, staff determined the proposed project complied with applicable zoning and Individual Review Guideline requirements and issued a tentative approval letter. A request for hearing was received thereafter and the City’s hearing officer (Chief Planning Official) required further design modifications to address privacy concerns. Following submission of revised sketches, the hearing officer issued a conditional approval letter to the applicant on August 31, 2018 (Attachment F), which was subsequently appealed. On October 29, 2018, after hearing from six speakers including the applicant and appellants, three Council Members voted to remove the appeal from the consent calendar and set the City of Palo Alto Page 2 matter for a future hearing1. The subject property, zoned for single family residential use, is located within the Fairmeadow Eichler Homes tract. The property is not subject to single story overlay zoning. The existing one-story home is proposed to be replaced by a two story home, and is adjacent to one- and two-story homes. The appellants’ properties, 3712 and 3714 Carlson Circle, are shown on the attached location map (Attachment B) and located to the rear of the subject property. Background The subject application was filed in July 2017 and a tentative decision issued in May 2018. Following two director hearings, an appeal was filed, and the matter is now scheduled before Council. A chronology of this project is provided in Attachment E. There have been a number of project revisions in response to staff input regarding the IR Guidelines and feedback received from neighbors. An example of the types of changes made to the project are illustrated below. July 2017 (original submittal) May 2018 (tentative approval) Director Hearings 2018 August 2018 Director Approved Elevation The subject property is located on the outer edge of one of three circles of the Fairmeadow Tract, an original Eichler Homes tract. The location of the subject property is shown below and in Attachment B. The adjacent photo is taken from one of the appellant’s backyard looking in the direction of the subject property as it exists today. The landscaping shown in the photo is proposed to remain and be supplemented with additional evergreen trees. 1 The prior City Council staff report is available in Attachment G without attachments and online with attachments: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59181.56&BlobID=67357 City of Palo Alto Page 3 The appellants object to the distance of the new second story’s rear wall from the rear property line and request the City: • impose a 40 foot rear setback (twice the minimum rear setback requirement and increase by eleven feet from the approximate 29-foot second floor setback in the approved plans), • require re-positioning of the second floor such that it is more centrally located above the first floor, • relocate three egress windows at second floor rear elevation to the side elevations, and • require opaque glass on a 1’8” wide, right side window (Note: since this appeal was filed the project plans have been updated and this request has been incorporated into the design) Discussion A summary of the appellants issues is provided below: (1) Provide a Forty Foot Setback The appellants have requested that the rear setback of the second floor be increased from The 28’-11” currently proposed to 40’ in order to mimic the rear setback of the adjacent two- story house and to provide additional privacy for their properties. The subject R-1 Zoning District provides two development standards that affect the placement of second stories, a 20’ rear setback, as well as a rear daylight plane. Additionally, the Individual Review Guidelines provide that second floor volumes should be designed to mitigate perceived mass and scale from the street, which is often accomplished by stepping the second story back and placing more of the volume in the rear. The project’s second story exceeds the required rear setback by over 8 feet, and is far under the required daylight plane. While the appellants’ concerns are understood, staff believes that the privacy issues raised have been sufficiently addressed City of Palo Alto Page 4 through a combination of high and obscured rear-facing windows, the elimination of a previously-proposed rear balcony and rear-facing bay windows, and the addition of required trees along the rear property line. Moreover, an increase in the rear setback would push the second floor volume forward, and potentially impact the project’s compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines. (2) Center the Second Floor Volume The appellants have requested that the volume of the second story be centered on the site in order to reduce the perceived scale and privacy impacts of the volume from the Raisinghani’s property. The second floor is roughly centered from side to side, with a slight difference of two feet. The right side second floor setback is approximately 31 feet and the left side second floor setback is approximately 29 feet. Adjusting the second floor to provide an equal setback across the entire rear wall would not improve privacy for the rear neighbors, but would actually decrease the setback from the right side of the rear wall to the Raisinghani’s property. (3) No Egress Windows on Second Floor Rear Wall The appellants have requested that the required egress windows on the second floor rear wall be relocated to the side elevations in order to protect the rear neighbor’s privacy. Typically, it is best practice to have the bedroom egress windows placed on the rear elevation rather than on the side elevations due to the large expanse of space enabled by back-to-back rear yard setbacks. For example, the rear setback from the proposed second story to the adjacent rear property is 28’-11” feet, while the side setbacks on either side are 6 feet. Staff explored this option for the subject site and found that relocating the egress windows to the sides would potentially result in a privacy issue for the side neighbors. In response to the appellants concern, the City has required additional mitigations for the rear-facing windows, including obscured glazing up to 5’ feet above the floor (this is a mitigation usually reserved for windows on the side of a home with 6 foot setbacks), the elimination of window seats on the rear to prevent casual viewing, and three pittosporum trees at the rear property line to fill in gaps in the existing landscaping. With these structural and landscaping measures, as well as the existing trees and shrubs at the rear, which are substantial, staff believes that the privacy concerns of the neighbor have been sufficiently addressed. (4) Opaque Glass Use on Side Window The appellants have requested that a narrow (1’8”) side window on the right elevation be obscured. The plans have since been modified to accommodate this request, and the change is included in the project plans. The below image shows the approved opaque glass window located at the far right. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Council adopted the Eichler Design Guidelines in April 2018. Unlike the Individual Review Guidelines, adherence to the Eichler Guidelines is voluntary and not required by the Municipal Code. Nevertheless, staff did provide Eichler Guideline 4.2.2 regarding new construction to the applicant. Eichler Guideline 4.2.2 begins as follows: “Place as much interior living space on the first floor of a home as possible, using a footprint that spreads across the lot.” While the project does not maximize the amount of floor area that can be placed on the ground floor, it is within 125 square feet of that allowance (1,979 proposed where 2,101 is permitted). Other bulleted items under Eichler Design Guideline 4.2.2 are summarized as follows: • employ simple massing techniques with a unified form for the mass rather than diverse attached components (such as corbels or other decorative features), • floor level heights to conform to those of surrounding Eichler homes, and • include an even façade plane at the front façade rather than projections toward the street that complicate the massing and roof form, and The proposed home has multiple sloped roofs and a flat roof, as seen at the front elevation below. With somewhat simple massing, there are no diverse attached components. The floor level heights are similar to the adjacent homes’ floor level heights as demonstrated in the streetscape drawing below. The first floor wall is an even façade plane with a recessed entry, like many original Eichler homes. The second floor jogs and steps back on the property in accordance with a technique outlined in the IR streetscape guideline; it is not aligned in an even façade plane in a parallel configuration with the first floor front wall. City of Palo Alto Page 6 While not required to comply with Eichler Guidelines, staff believes the design, on balance, is consistent with the design objectives in that document. Policy Implications The subject appeal raises policy concerns about what neighbors should expect through the Individual Review process and reasonable concessions homeowners may have to make beyond compliance with the R1 zoning standards. Application of the IR Guidelines results in homes being approved at heights far lower than established in the zoning code and often well below daylight plane requirements. Incorporating greater setbacks from the rear property line – particularly at the distances proposed by the appellants – has the potential to add further uncertainty to the IR process and introduces another development standard that may be out of sync with community expectations for new home development. Regardless of the final determination on the subject application, at some point in the future, Council may want to consider prioritizing refinements to the R1 development standards so they are more aligned with what typically gets approved. While some in the community may object to changes to the R1 standards, it is anticipated that modest adjustments may improve application processing times and potentially save homeowners money by making the zoning standards more consistent with the objectives of the IR Guidelines. Such zoning adjustments would likely relate to height, daylight plane requirements and privacy, and could also explore incentives to encourage more floor area on the ground floor as opposed to the second level. The last two appeals of IR approvals were also new homes in Eichler tracts. The most recent appeals, in 2014, were for a new home at 1066 Metro Circle (Council staff report viewable at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44873) and a new home at 808 Richardson (Council staff report viewable at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43228). These appeals led to Council’s adoption of several Single Story Overlay Zones in Eichler tracts, and the creation of voluntary-use Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. In April 2018, Council directed staff to return with concepts for an Eichler Zone Combining District so that Eichler tract homeowners could “opt in” similar to Single Story Overlay zones. At this time, however, work on this assignment has not been prioritized. Timeline The attached chronology (Attachment E) provides a timeline for processing this project. Correspondence received prior to October 29, 2018, was included with the Council staff report (and viewable online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59181.56&BlobID=67357) Any additional correspondence received between staff reports is provided as Attachment H to City of Palo Alto Page 7 this report. Environmental Review This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new residence. A single family residence is a type of exempt project provided as an example in Guidelines Section 15301(a). Alternative Recommendations In addition to the recommended action, the City Council may: • deny the appeal and approve the current application with additional conditions of approval. • uphold the appeal and deny the project. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC) Attachment B: Location Map (PDF) Attachment C: Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment E: Chronology of the Process and Plan Revisions (DOCX) Attachment F: Approval letter dated August 31, 2018 (PDF) Attachment G: October 29, 2018 CMR without attachments (DOC) 1 APPROVAL NO. 2018-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3743 REDWOOD CIRCLE: INDIVIDUAL REVIEW, 17PLN-00272 On January 14, 2019, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) held a duly noticed public hearing and, after considering all of the evidence presented, upheld/overturned/modified the Director’s approval of the Individual Review application for a new two-story house, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On July 26, 2017, the applicant (Ket Le on behalf of Ming Li) submitted a Single Family Individual Review application for a new two story home (“The Project”) on the subject property at 3743 Redwood Circle. B. Following staff review and several plan revisions, revised plans submitted May 2, 2018 were conditionally approved by the Manager of Current Planning on May 15, 2018. The appellants, the Raisinghanis and Mr. Perkins, requested a Director’s Hearing citing their concerns about solar access and privacy. C. The project was reviewed in two Director’s Hearings on August 2, 2018 and August 23, 2018, after which the Hearing Officer/Chief Planning Official approved revised plans dated August 31, 2018, on behalf of the Director. This decision, reflected in the August 31, 2018 approval letter, was based upon the information contained in the file (17PLN-00272), a site visit by the Hearing Officer, testimony and plan revisions received during and between the Director’s Hearings, and final revised plans intended to improve privacy in response to the appellants’ concerns. D. The appellants submitted an appeal of the Director’s approval on date, and the appeal was placed on Council Consent Calendar of October 29, 2018, for Council approval of the project; however, three Councilmembers removed the item from the consent agenda and scheduled the matter for a public hearing, on January 14, 2019. E. On January 14, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The single-family home is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines section 15303(a). The proposal includes the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new residence. A single family residence is a type of exempt project provided as an example in Guidelines Section 15301(a). SECTION 3. Individual Review Findings 2 The project conforms to the R-1 district regulations and meets all five of the IR guidelines: 1. Basic site planning: The driveway, garage and house are placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s existing site patterns and the garage and driveway are subordinate to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. The house is somewhat more compact than adjacent homes but aligns the street with one-story forms similar to adjacent homes and sets the upper floor back from the street and in from the sides to adapt to existing neighborhood conditions. Space has been maintained under the daylight plane to reduce impacts on adjacent homes and to reduce the perceived size of the upper floor. The garage has been blended with façade roof edges, materials, and colors to appear subordinate to the house, landscape and entry. Landscape exists on all sides of the house, which will be retained, and additional landscape has been added along the rear lot line. Overall, the site planning is considerate of the existing condition of mostly one-story patio style homes and places most of the upper floor closer to the adjacent two-story home. For these reasons the proposal is found to be consistent with this guideline. 2. Neighborhood compatibility for height, mass and scale: The scale, mass and height of the new home is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern, adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. The proposed 23’-7” maximum height of the house is moderated by lower rooflines at the sides and front of the house. The first floor is set 1 foot above grade and wall plate heights at both levels have been kept to 9’ or lower to manage height, mass, and scale including the first floor roof edge height adjacent to the lower homes on the street. Ideas contained in guideline key points 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 have been used in varying degrees to manage height, mass, and scale so the house will respond reasonably to the existing neighborhood pattern. The similarity of building forms to neighborhood conditions also help regulate the perception of height, mass, and scale, so that contrasts with neighborhood patterns are reduced. The use of materials and neutral to dark colors (i.e. wood siding over stucco) also help reduce the visual mass of the upper floor and create more horizontal proportions that reduce perceived scale. For these reasons the proposal is found to be consistent with this guideline. 3. Resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines: The architectural form and massing have been carefully crafted to reduce visual mass and distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles enhance the form, scale and proportion of primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to principal building forms. The design uses shed roof forms mixed with some flat roof forms and deep overhangs to create a modern architectural composition. The rooflines have been well composed to both distinguish the home’s architectural lines and to reduce visual mass. The size and spacing of the forms and alternating use of shed and flat roof forms help distinguish primary and second forms within the 3 overall composition, and draw reference to existing nearby homes. Deep overhangs would provide shadows on the wall faces. The garage would be integrated with the home’s form (i.e. not a separate form) and the entry would be recessed behind the front wall of the house. The garage and entry would, therefore, be subordinate to the principal home forms. For these reasons the proposal is found to be consistent with this guideline. 4. Visual character of street facing facades and entries: Facades are composed with a clear and cohesive architectural expression, and include visual focal points and the supportive use of materials and detailing. The entry is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The garage design is consistent with the selected architectural style of the home. The forms, façade composition, materials, and detailing generally reflect qualities of mid-century modern design. The shed rooflines, seen at the rake side from the street with the irregular shaped windows that extend to the underside of the roof accentuate the modern design treatment. Also accentuating the façade composition are the large glazed areas of bay and corner windows, visually clean metal clad fascia, and use of alternating smooth stucco and horizontal wood siding. The wood garage door has a pattern similar to the front door and color and finish to match the wood siding. The entry is recessed, which is similar to homes on the street. The second floor roof edge at the left side elevation near the front corner (i.e. above the stair) looks incomplete. The overhang on the upper shed form should extend at least 3 or 4 feet past the front wall of the master suite (i.e. 3 or 4 feet past dimension line 4 as seen on the left side elevation) to appear as if the roof form is consistent from public view. For these reasons the proposal is found to be consistent with this guideline with a condition of approval. 5. Placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. Second floor windows at the side elevations have obscure glazing to five feet above the floor line. Rear-facing windows would have obscure glazing to five feet above the floor or five-foot high sills in order to prevent casual viewing. Rear-facing decks and bay windows have been eliminated from the approved iteration of the project plans. Existing dense landscape along the rear property line would be supplemented with three pittosporum trees. For these reasons the proposal is found to be consistent with this guideline. SECTION 4. Individual Review Approval Granted. Individual Review Approval is granted for the project by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.12, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Ket Le entitled “New Home for Ming Li, 3743 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, 4 California, 94306”, dated August 31, 2018. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "New Home for Ming Li, 3743 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, California, 94306” stamped as received by the City on May 2, 2018, as modified by sketches received August 31, 2018, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: A. Plan Modifications: i. Sheet A1 New Site Plan, Sheet A3 New Neighborhood Site Plan, and Sheet A12 Landscape Plan shall be modified to (a) indicate planting of an additional evergreen tree in the rear yard – located roughly between the two new pittosporum trees that were shown on the May 2018 plans and (b) show the proper tree protection fencing for all trees to remain on site including the street trees. Sheet A12 Landscape Plan shall be modified to clarify the botanical name and planting size of the pittosporum undulatum or similar shrubs on the building permit plans. The shrubs should be indicated as 24- inch sized box at planting and the height should be at least 8 feet at time of installation. ii. Sheets A1, A3 and A12 shall be modified to (a) show the location of the proposed accessory structure located at least 75 feet from the front property line, and to (b) adjust the location of the corner privacy landscaping (pittosporum) to be between the accessory structure and fence to provide optimal screening at the northeasterly corner. Given the need for adequate screen trees growing environment and the fact that the existing lot depth is less than 100 feet, the size, placement and orientation of the accessory structure may need further adjustment to not impact this screening. B. Elevations and Floor Plans Modifications: i. Sheet A7: Elevations shall be modified (as seen on the left side elevation) to extend the length of the eave (overhang) at the shed form adjacent the front-right corner of 5 the house so that it extends at least 3 feet past the front wall of the master suite (dimension line 4). ii. Sheet A7 Elevations and Sheet A-6 2nd Floor Plan shall be modified in accordance with the August 31, 2018 sketches, submitted to the Chief Planning Official for the planning file within two weeks, and with building permit plans, reflecting the following: a. There shall be no protruding window boxes on the rear wall (boxes deleted in sketches during the hearing process, prior to the Director’s Hearing of August 23, 2018) b. All rear-facing windows shall only be clear glass above a height of five feet from the finished floor of the second floor bedrooms (as shown on the August 31, 2018 sketch). Only obscured glass shall be used below a height of five feet on second floor windows (with the exception of the stair window facing the left side elevation) and the selected and installed product shall be further monitored as noted in condition of approval #5. c. The rear-facing 2nd floor bedrooms shall have only one egress “double hung” window at the rear wall with obscured glazing installed on the bottom half of the window (where the bottom panel of the window is openable in order to provide emergency egress). d. Both rear facing bedrooms shall have high clear “horizontal sliding” windows with the bottom of the windows at 5’-0” above the floor level for privacy. e. Below the rear-facing horizontal sliding window on the master bedroom, another “fixed”, obscured glass window below the 5’-0” level as measured from the finished second floor (as shown on August 31st sketch) is allowed. f. The master bedroom shall be allowed a new 1’-8” wide clear “fixed” window on the side wall in order to bring in more daylight. g. All second floor windows shown in building permit plans shall show the window operations and whether they are casements or vertical sliders. h. A new 1’8” wide clear window is allowed as indicated on the right side elevation in the second floor bedroom in the narrow return wall that is set back approximately 28’4” from the property at 3747 Redwood Circle. As this window would not face the rear, it may extend as a clear window below the five foot level, to a height of one foot above the finished floor level. 4. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING/TREES. The following landscaping is required to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. Trees shall be a minimum of 8 feet when planted. Privacy landscaping shall be planted prior to occupancy. A. Three (3) 24”-box evergreen privacy shrubs, including pittosporum or similar species, shall be planted and maintained along the rear yard property line to provide screening of the second floor of the proposed house from the rear neighbors. Plantings shall be located consistent with the approved Site Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The landscape plan shall specify the planting size as 24”-box. 6 B. The existing trees and shrubs along the rear property line as shown on Sheet A12 shall be maintained to provide privacy screening from the second floor of the proposed residence. If removed the plantings shall be replaced with equivalent screening prior to occupancy. 5. OBSCURED GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set and as modified per the August 31st submittal, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way. The actual window type with obscured glazing and manufacturer shall be provided to the Chief Planning Official for review and approval with the building permit plans; along with a sample of the obscured glass for verification the glass will be obscure. 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. REQUIRED PARKING: All single family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 8. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 9. BAY WINDOWS: Bay windows if at least 18 inches above the interior floor, projecting no more than two feet, and with more than 50% window surface shall not be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR). Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 10. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 7 11. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). The building permit plan set shall include a diagram demonstrating compliance. 12. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 13. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner at the number below to schedule this inspection. 14. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS: NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 1/1/17: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5383 and Green Building Ordinance 5393 for all new permit applications with an effective date for January 1st, 2017. To review the upcoming changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left-hand side under “EXPLORE”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance.” For information regarding the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. You may also email Green Building at GreenBuilding@cityofpaloalto.org for specific questions about your project. 15. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1, 2016) (1) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy 8 Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section of this letter. b) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO): The project is a residential new construction project with an aggregate landscape area of 500 square feet or more included in the project scope of work and therefore shall comply with the requirements of the Landscape Documentation Package (§492.3). Please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. (MWELO Title 23, Chapter 2.7) c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (80% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5393 §2, 2016) 16. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential there are two compliance options and one all-electric exception. i) Single-Family Residential Options: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects without a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building does not include a PV systems. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. 9 (2) OPTION 2: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least 20% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. b) All Electric Exemption: i) All- Electric Exception to the Local Energy Reach Code: New single-family residential construction that is designed and built to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3. Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. 17. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY CONDITIONS – Elizabeth Lanham 650-617-3173 PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 18. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 19. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full- sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) 10 b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Street Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. DURING CONSTRUCTION 20. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 21. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 22. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the project site arborist with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 23. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 24. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 25. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any 11 publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 26. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 27. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING CONDITIONS-Ajay Kumar 650-329-2209 28. EASEMENT: Indicate existing easements on proposed site plan. Accessory structure including roof overhangs and drainage features shall be kept clear out of the easement area. 29. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 30. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 31. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage 12 from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 32. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 33. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 34. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 35. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of- way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 36. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of- way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Include a scan copy of the site inspection directive obtained form site visit in the plan set. 37. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the 13 area on the Site Plan. 38. PAVEMENT: Redwood Circle was resurfaced in 2013, this street is under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Redwood Circle based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 39. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 40. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 41. This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan: • Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. • Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. • Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. • Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces 42. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the 14 public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” SECTION 7. Indemnity To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 8. Term of Approval This Individual Review approval will expire, if no building permits have been obtained, one year from the Council approval date, unless the applicant requests a one-year extension prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Ket Le titled “New Home for Ming Li, 3743 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, California, 94306”, received August 31, 2018. 57.5' 95.0' 71.2' 95.0' 60.0' 95.0' 71.5' 95.0' 60.0' 95.0' 71.5' 95.0' 60.0' 95.0' 71.5' 95.0' 95.0' 71.5' 95.0' 71.2' 57.5' 95.0' 71.2' 95.0' 95.0' 33.7' 30.6' 95.0' 24.7' 42.0' 48.5' 48.5' 37.1'62.2' 0' 95.0' 75.0' 95.0' 95.0' 80.8'54.0'95.0' 75.0'95.0' 95.0' 80.9' 95.0' 95.0' 75.0' 95.0' 54.0' 95.0' 75.0' 95.0' 54.0' 95.0' 75.0' 95.0' 54.0' 80.9' 95.0' 95.0' 2060.3' 95.0' 54.0' 95.0'75.0' 95.0' 80.9' 95.0' 95.0' 5 7.0' 95.0' 75.7' 75.7' 95.0' 57.0' 95.0' 95.0' 5 7.8' 95.0' 72.0' 72.0' 95.0' 57.8' 95.0' 72.0' 95.0' 57.8' 95.0' 95.0' 41.9' 18.2' 95.0' 15.2' 55.6' 68.5' 56.2' 59.3' 44.8' 95.0' 68.5' 95.0' 49.3'31.0' 77.1' 80.1' 101.0' 44.9' 101.0' 80.1' 101.0' 44.9' 101.0' 80.1' 101.0' 44.9' 101.0' 101.0' 44.9' 101.0' 80.1' 101.0' 44.9' 101.0' 80.1' 44.9'80.1' 101.0' 89.0' 89.0' 162.9'1 23.7' 89.0' 44.7' 89.0' 144.1' 44.7' 89.0' 144.1' 89.0' 53.1'64.2' 29.0' 96.0' 73.0' 56.0' 96.0' 76.7' 94.8' 49.9' 21.2' 94.8' 57.2' 97.0' 96.4' 73.0' 91.6' 61.2' 73.6' 73.0' 96.2'18.8' 48.2' 27.3' 60.0' 96.2' 58.5' 18.7'91.6' 5 4.2' 93.0'74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2'93.0' 74.9' 101.0'44.9' 101.0'80.1' 9 5.0' 75.0' 95.0' 54.0' ' 95.0' 75.0' 95.0' 4.0' 95.0' 75.0' 9 5.0'54.0' 95.0' 80.8' 95.0' 68.6' 97.0' 68.6' 97.0' 55.2' 97.0' 69.3' 97.0'58.0' 97.0' 69.3' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0' 69.3' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0' 69.3' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0' 68.6' 97.0' 55.2' 97.0' 68.6' 97.0' 55.2' 97.0' 68.6' 97.0' 55.2' 97.0' 68.6' 97.0' 55.2' 97.0' 6 9.3' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0' 69.3' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0' 97.0' 68.6' 97.0' 55.2' 97.0'55.2' 97.0'6 8.6' 53.4' 57.8' 63.0' 46.0' 97.0' 67.8' 97.0' 59.0' 97.0' 67.8' 97.0' 59.0' 97.0' 6 7.8' 97.0'59.0' 97.0' 6 5.8' 97.0'58.3' 9 7.0' 65.8' 97.0' 58.3' 97.0' 67.8' 97.0'59.0' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0'30.8' 38.6' 96.4' 67.8' 97.0' 59.0' 97.0'97.0' 59.0' 97.0' 58.3' 65.8' 9 7.0'58.3' 97.0' 97.0' 58.0' 97.0'97.0' 58.0' 9 80.1' 1 01.0' 44.9' 101.0' 80.1' 101.0' 44.9' 101.0' 101.0' 2387' 47.0' 113.1' 60.3' 112.3' 47.0' 121.2' 61.4' 113.1' 47.0' 137.1' 64.3' 121.2' 112.3' 52.6' 78.6' 59.3'35.6'108.4' 68.6' 137.1' 47.6' 5 5.0' 108.4' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93 .0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 93.0' 83.4'93.0' 51.5' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 93. 0 ' 74.9' 93.0' 5 4.2' 54.2' 9 93. 0 ' 54.2' 40.2' 25.4'78.7' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5'93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 7 4.9' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 59.5' 123.5'48.0' 146.0' 77.4' 82.6'29.1' 31.0' 123.5' 86.2' 174.4' 47.0' 223.9' 62.4' 146.0' 48.0' 172.6' 37.2' 24.7' 172.6' 47.0' 16 9.6'1 69.6' 47.0' 149 48.0' 65.8' 97.0' 58.3' 97.0' 42.6' 29.0' 8 2.7' 76.3' 97.0' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 83.4' 93.0' 51.5' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 74.9' 93.0' 54.2' 93.0' 68 9 52.0' 114.8' 66.6' 114.8' 47.0' 139.2' 74.4' 139.2' 47.0' 174.4' 93.0' 40.2' 25.4'78.7' 93.0' 54.2' 37 23 1 4 3 7 3 1 3 7 3 7 1 2 3637 3633 87 91 93 9 1 1 3741 3745 37 53 3749 3757 10 8 6 2 4 3762 37 50 3 756 37 4 4 3738 2 3765 3750 3744 90 88 3 74 8 3 62 9 3 6 2 5 7 9 75 81 85 3 6 7 6 3 6 8 8 3 6 7 1 3 6 6 3 3696 36 80 3 6 7 0 3 6 5 8 3 6 4 8 3638 3624 82 8 0 7 8 76 74 8 4 86 3 688 3 3 6 6 8 3 6 5 7 3647 36 3618 3606 72 70 3 7 3782 3 78 0 3778 3774 780 3 7 7 6 3 7 7 2 3775 3766 3 7 8 7 37 83 3775 37733771 3767 3763 3 7 5 9 3 7 5 5 3732 3730 3 7 2 8 3726 3724 3722 3720 3 7 1 8 3779 36 79 3 68 7 37 30 36 94 3 6 8 1 3 6 8 9 37 03 3 6 9 7 37 24 3751 3743 3739 3735 3 7 3 1 3 7 2 7 3723 3716 3714 3712 3 7 1 0 3708 3706 3 7 0 9 3733 3719 3747 3720 3718 3716 3714 3719 3 37113715 3702 3 7 0 0 3704 3776LINDERO D R I V E ST R E E T R O O S E V E L T C I R C L E C A R L S R E D W O O D R-1 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree 3743 Redwood Circle 0' 135' 3743 Redwood Circle CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-07-05 14:54:46 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment F Project Plans A hardcopy of the project plans will be available at the hearing. Prior to the hearing, these plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Project plans may also be viewed online by following these directions: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3743 Redwood Circle” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Approved Plans” Attachment E: Chronology 3743 Redwood Circle Initial Submittal On July 26, 2017, the applicant submitted plans showing a stucco and clay tile roof two-story home that was over 24 feet tall and included a second floor balcony set back 20 feet from the rear property line. The initial plans did not include any new screen trees in the rear yard. Images from the July 26, 2017 plans are provided below. Plan Revisions Prior to Tentative Approval Following staff’s comments on the initial plans, as well as public comments from several neighbors, the applicant submitted revised plans in January 2018 and again in May 2018. May 2, 2018 Tentatively Approved Plans The revised plans better addressed the IR guideline for streetscape; the streetscape guideline focuses on reducing the scale and height of the front massing to help the home fit with the neighborhood streetscape character. The revised plans showed: • the deletion of the rear second floor balcony, • an increase in the rear setback (to 23’10” at first floor and 26 feet to the second floor egress windows), • the addition of two new rear yard screen trees, and • change to the architectural style of the home as compatible with the Eichler neighborhood’s character. Given the owner’s desire to be able to view the backyard from the rear bedrooms, window seat egress windows were included in the May 2018 plans tentatively approved by the Manager of Current Planning on behalf of the PCE Director on May 15, 2018. Tentative Approval The Tentative Director’s Approval of May 2018 was based upon the project’s compliance with the Zoning Code and IR Guidelines, as noted in the Tentative Approval letter (Attachment C). Director’s Hearings The Chief Planning Official, as Hearing Officer, conducted two Director’s Hearings, visited the appellant’s home to view the subject property from that vantage point, and required modifications to the plans to increase the rear second floor window setback and impose additional privacy mitigations, as reflected in the Final Director’s Approval letter (Attachment A). May 26, 2018 Director’s Hearing Request and Process The Director’s Hearing was requested by Mr. and Mrs. Raisinghani (one of the appellant groups) on May 26, 2018. Staff had not received any comments from the Raisinghanis prior to receiving their hearing request after the Tentative Approval was issued. After receiving the hearing request, staff met with the Raisinghanis, and learned that their concerns were related to the impacts of the second story volume on privacy and solar access. These concerns were reiterated in verbal testimony at the Director’s hearing. The other appellant, Mr. Perkins, wrote emails to staff voicing concerns with the project, but did not attend the Director’s Hearings. Mr. Perkins concerns at that time were stated in the Director’s Hearing staff report viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66121. August 2, 2018 Director’s Hearing At the Director’s Hearing on August 2, 2018, the Hearing Officer reviewed the plans, heard testimony from the applicants and the Raisinghanis, and continued the hearing to a second hearing date certain of August 23, 2018. Following the first hearing, the Hearing Officer: (1) met with the applicant to discuss changing the rear elevation and increasing the number of trees in the rear yard, (2) visited the Raisinghani home mid-August in response to their invitation to view the subject property from the appellant’s living room and rear yard, (3) reviewed conceptual sketches of changes August 17, 2018 and requested information about dimensions not shown on the plans, (4) received sketches August 20, 2018, and emailed them to the Raisinghanis. The sketches showed: (a) removal of window seats and increased setback from the rear property line to the second floor windows (master bedroom window at 29’-4” and 31’-0” ), (b) reduction in the width of second floor windows but no use of obscured glazing, and (c) an additional rear yard tree. August 23, 2018 Director’s Hearing The applicants, hearing requestors, and the neighbor to the south (who supported the project) attended the second hearing. At the conclusion of the continued hearing, the Hearing Officer noted that: • there would not be a requirement for the applicant to move the second floor toward the street to provide a 40-foot rear yard setback to the second floor, and • there would be minor additional changes imposed to improve privacy, with respect to window sizes, placement and glazing, and tree plantings, with final approval of the project. Following the hearing, the Hearing Officer directed the applicant to provide a rear elevation sketch in line with staff direction proposing to: • only place clear glass above the five foot line above the second floor and • use obscure glazing on portions of the three egress windows below the five foot line. The submitted rear elevation sketch showed obscured glazing below five feet, and high sill windows, and thus became the basis for the Final Director’s Approval. August 31, 2018 Final Plans and Approval The Final Approval conditions included a requirement for a third new tree to be planted in the rear yard (for a total of three new 24” box sized trees) to enhance privacy screening for the rear neighbors, and reflected the window design changes made on the rear elevation leading up to and following the hearings; i.e.: • removal of window box seats, • only opaque glass used below five feet, • clear glass used only above five feet, • limitation of only one rear-wall egress window for each of two rear second floor bedrooms, and • allowance for a new 1’8” wide side window not facing the appellants’ homes, to compensate for loss of clear glazing and light given the other required window changes. The applicant has since provided a final rear elevation to reflect the changes shown on the sketch used for the Final approval. The rear elevation is shown below. Also, due to the appeal request for opaque glazing on the new side window, the applicant has chosen to use opaque glass for that window. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9671) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/29/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 3743 Redwood Circle: Appeal of IR Approval Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3743 Redwood Circle [17PLN-00272]: Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval of a new Two-story, Single Family Home. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of the Individual Review (IR) application (file #17PLN-00272) for a new two-story home at 3743 Redwood Circle, thereby upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval. Executive Summary The rear neighbors of the subject property request an appeal (Attachment B) of the director’s approval of a single family Individual Review (IR) application for the construction of a new two- story home. Three or more Council Members’ votes would be needed to remove this item off the consent calendar to set the matter for a future hearing. Not pulling the item of consent affirms the director’s decision. The property, located within the Fairmeadow Eichler Homes tract, is not subject to single story overlay zoning and is adjacent to one- and two-story homes. There are two two-story homes abutting the subject property. One is directly south of the subject property and the other is to the rear. The appellants are the two property owners to the immediate rear of the site, Manoj and Jasleen Raisinghani (3714 Carlson Circle), and Tim Perkins (3712 Carlson Circle). The Raisinghanis requested the initial director’s hearing on staff’s tentative approval of the house. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In response to the director’s hearing, plan modifications were required to address privacy concerns and are reflected on the attached plans. The director approved the project on August 31, 2018; a timely appeal was filed thereafter. The appellants object to the distance of the new second story’s rear wall from the rear property line and request the City: • impose a 40 foot rear setback (twice the minimum rear setback requirement and increase by eleven feet from the approximate 29-foot second floor setback in the approved plans), • require re-positioning of the second floor such that it is more centrally located above the first floor, • relocate three egress windows at second floor rear elevation to the side elevations, and • require opaque glass on a 1’8” wide window facing the two-story home on the right side. The subject application was filed on July 26, 2017, however the application was only determined complete for filing in May 2018. The project was controversial from the outset and during this period of time there was considerable conversation between the applicant, neighbors and the city staff. The request for a director’s hearing followed those conversations and issuance of tentative decision letter. Background The IR guidelines include criteria related to basic site planning; neighborhood compatibility for height, mass and scale; resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines; visual character of street facing facades and entries; and placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy. The Individual Review program applies to construction of new two story homes and second story additions, and is intended to mitigate the effects of that construction on neighboring single family homes (per PAMC Section 18.12.110(a)). Development applications subject to the IR regulations must be consistent with the IR guidelines (per PAMC Section 18.12.110(d)). Council Review Authority Individual Review applications are typically reviewed and approved through a staff-level process. Following a tentative decision, any adjacent property owner or occupant may request a director’s hearing. The director or designee then conducts a noticed public hearing on the project, receives testimony, and makes a final decision. Following this approval, owners and occupants of abutting properties may appeal the decision to Council. When this occurs, the appeal is placed on the Council consent calendar for final action on the project. The Council has two options. First, Council may approve the project on consent, after hearing any speakers who wish to comment on consent agenda items. Second, if three Council members vote to remove City of Palo Alto Page 3 the project from the consent calendar, the Council may determine whether to set a new hearing before the City Council. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a hearing is scheduled as soon as practical, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.075. Eichler’s Fairmeadow Tract The new two-story home is proposed on a property located on the outer edge of one of three circles of the Fairmeadow Tract, an original Eichler Homes tract. The location of the subject property is shown in the larger subdivision diagram below left (and on an attached location map, Attachment D). The view of the sky from the appellant’s property through the existing mature vegetation on the subject property (to be retained and supplemented with three additional evergreen trees) is shown in the image below right. Chronology On July 26, 2017 the applicant submitted plans showing a stucco and clay tile roof two-story home that was over 24 feet tall and included a second floor balcony set back 20 feet from the rear property line. Following staff’s comments on the initial plans, as well as public comments from several neighbors, the applicant submitted revised plans in early 2018, which received staff’s additional feedback. Plans submitted in May 2018 showing a deleted rear balcony, increased rear setback, rear yard screen trees and greater architectural compatibility (including lower overall height) with the neighborhood, were tentatively approved. Further detail is provided in the attached chronology (Attachment E). Redesign of Rear Elevation July 2017 May 2018 Between Hearings 2018 City of Palo Alto Page 4 August 31, 2018 Final elevation employing obscured glass The Raisinghanis shared their privacy concerns in their hearing request and these were reiterated in their verbal testimony at the Director’s hearing. The other appellant, Mr. Perkins, wrote emails to staff voicing concerns with the project prior to and after the hearings, but did not attend the Director’s Hearings. Mr. Perkins’ concerns at that time were stated in the Director’s Hearing staff report viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66121. Staff also met with the Raisinghanis at their property to learn of concerns related to impacts of the second story volume on privacy and solar access. Discussion As described in Attachment B, the appellants seek a greater second floor rear setback, second floor centering, the removal of rear wall bedroom egress windows, and additional opaque glass on a slim, tall window that does not face the appellants’ properties (now resolved as the plans indicate opaque glass on the slim, tall window). Staff has provided an analysis of each of the appellants’ requested changes below. (1) Provide a Forty Foot Setback The appellants have requested that the rear setback of the second floor be increased from The 28’-11” currently proposed to 40’ in order to mimic the rear setback of the adjacent two- story house and to provide additional privacy for their properties. The subject R-1 Zoning District provides two development standards that affect the placement of second stories, a 20’ rear setback, as well as a rear daylight plane. Additionally, the Individual Review Guidelines provide that second floor volumes should be designed to mitigate perceived mass and scale from the street, which is often accomplished by stepping the second story back and placing more of the volume in the rear. The project’s second story exceeds the required setback by over 8 feet, and is far under the required daylight plane. While staff understands the City of Palo Alto Page 5 appellants’ concerns, staff believes that the privacy issues raised have been sufficiently addressed through a combination of high and obscured rear-facing windows, the elimination of a previously-proposed rear balcony and rear-facing bay windows, and the addition of required trees along the rear property line. Moreover, an increase in the rear setback would push the second floor volume forward, and potentially impact the project’s compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines. (2) Center the Second Floor Volume The appellants have requested that the volume of the second story be centered on the site in order to reduce the perceived scale and privacy impacts of the volume from the Raisinghani’s property. The second floor is roughly centered from side to side, with a slight difference of two feet. The right side second floor setback is approximately 31 feet and the left side second floor setback is approximately 29 feet. Adjusting the second floor to provide an equal setback across the entire rear wall would not improve privacy for the rear neighbors, but would actually decrease the setback from the right side of the rear wall to the Raisinghani’s property. (3) No Egress Windows on Second Floor Rear Wall The appellants have requested that the required egress windows on the second floor rear wall be relocated to the side elevations in order to protect the rear neighbor’s privacy. Typically, it is best practice to have the bedroom egress windows placed on the rear elevation rather than on the side elevations due to the large expanse of space enabled by back-to-back rear yard setbacks. For example, the rear setback from the proposed second story to the adjacent rear property is 29 feet, while the side setbacks on either side are 6 feet. Staff explored this option for the subject site, and found that relocating the egress windows to the sides would potentially result in a privacy issue for the side neighbors. In response to the appellants concern, the City has required additional mitigations for the rear-facing windows, including obscured glazing up to 5’ feet above the floor, the elimination of window seats on the rear to prevent casual viewing, and three pittosporum trees at the rear property line to fill in gaps in the existing landscaping. With these structural and landscaping measures, as well as the existing trees and shrubs at the rear, which are substantial, staff believes that the privacy concerns of the neighbor have been sufficiently addressed. (4) Opaque Glass Use on Side Window The appellants have requested that a narrow (1’8”) side window on the right elevation be obscured. The plans have since been modified to accommodate this request, and the change is included in the project plans. The below image shows the approved opaque glass window located at the far right. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Council adopted the Eichler Design Guidelines in April 2018. Unlike the Individual Review Guidelines, adherence to the Eichler Guidelines is voluntary and not required by the Municipal Code. Nevertheless, staff did provide Eichler Guideline 4.2.2 regarding new construction to the applicant. Eichler Guideline 4.2.2 begins as follows: “Place as much interior living space on the first floor of a home as possible, using a footprint that spreads across the lot.” During the second Director’s hearing, it was noted the amount of available floor area for use at the first floor level was minimal, due to maximum lot coverage standard for a two story home (The project as currently designed proposes 1,979 square feet on the first floor, whereas 2,101 square feet is the maximum permitted). Given the minimal amount of space that could be added to the first floor, staff believes that the project adheres to this voluntary Guideline. Other bulleted items under Eichler Design Guideline 4.2.2 are summarized as follows: • employ simple massing techniques with a unified form for the mass rather than diverse attached components, • floor level heights to conform to those of surrounding Eichler homes, and. • include an even façade plane at the front façade rather than projections toward the street that complicate the massing and roof form, and The proposed home has multiple sloped roofs and a flat roof, as seen at the front elevation below. With somewhat simple massing, there are no diverse attached components. The floor level heights are similar to the adjacent homes’ floor level heights as demonstrated in the streetscape drawing below. The first floor wall is an even façade plane with a recessed entry, like many original Eichler homes. The second floor jogs and steps back on the property in accordance with a technique outlined in the IR streetscape guideline; it is not aligned in an even façade plane in a parallel City of Palo Alto Page 7 configuration with the first floor front wall. The below site plan shows the jogged and stepped back second floor as shaded and the first floor is shown in white. Alternative to Staff Recommendation The Council’s alternative to the staff recommendation, outlined in PAMC Section 18.77.075(g)(2), is to remove the recommendation from the consent calendar and set the application for a new hearing before the City Council. If the Council so directs, staff will identify a date for the hearing and will provide appropriate public notice in advance of the hearing. Policy Implications The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of the Individual Review Guidelines, and with the policies and intent of the Individual Review Process. The last two appeals of IR approvals were also new homes in Eichler tracts. The most recent appeals, in 2014, were for a new home at 1066 Metro (Council staff report viewable at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44873) and a new home at 808 Richardson (Council staff report viewable at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43228). These appeals led to Council’s adoption of several Single Story Overlay Zones in Eichler tracts, and the creation of voluntary-use Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. In 2016, staff brought forward a study of the IR program to the Planning and Transportation Commission in August 2016 (staff report viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53365). In April 2018, Council directed staff to return with concepts for an Eichler Zone Combining District so that Eichler tract homeowners could “opt in” similar to Single Story Overlay zones. At this time, however, there are insufficient resources to move this policy project forward. Timeline The attached chronology (Attachment E) provides a timeline for processing this project. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Environmental Review This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new residence. A single family residence is a type of exempt project provided as an example in Guidelines Section 15301(a). Attachments: Attachment A: Approval letter dated August 31, 2018 (PDF) Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment C: Tentative Approval Letter dated May 15, 2018 (PDF) Attachment D: Location Map (PDF) Attachment E: Chronology of the Process and Plan Revisions (DOCX) Attachment F: Correspondence (PDF) Attachment F: Correspondence part 2 (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Carnahan, David From:ket le <ketle1@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 8, 2019 12:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ming Li; Meng Long; Owen, Graham; French, Amy Subject:Proposed new two-story home at 3743 Redwood Circle, scheduled for council hearing on Monday January 14 Attachments:3743 Redwood Circle, letter to council by architect, 1-8-19.doc Dear Council Members, My name is Ket Le. I am the architectural designer for the proposed new two-story home located at 3743 Redwood Circle. I am writing this letter on behalf of the homeowners, Ming Li and Meng Long, who want to build the new home for their family. The homeowners first submitted this project in July of 2017. Since that time, the homeowners have been very diligent in following city staff’s directions on making major changes to the design in order to conform to the city’s residential rules and guidelines. In addition, they have been very open to hearing all reasonable concerns and comments from the neighbors and have made major changes to the design in order to gain their neighbor’s approval. City staff granted tentative approval in May of 2018. The rear neighbors (the Raisinghani at 3714 Carlson Circle) appealed this tentative approval and the homeowners made further changes to the house design. City staff granted a second tentative approval in August of 2018. Again, the rear neighbors appealed the second approval and this project is now to be heard at the council hearing scheduled for Monday January 14. At this point, the homeowners and I believe that the neighbors to the rear (the Raisinghani at 3714 Carlson Circle) have made unreasonable demands which will make the current house design no longer conform to the city rules and guidelines. The city planning staff has prepared a detailed staff report on this project which contains the project information, project history and lists the objections of the rear neighbors along with explanations on how those objections are resolved or answered. Based on that, the city staff report is recommending this project for approval. I would just like to add my input and explain why I believe this project should be approved. I would also like to respond to the objections by the rear neighbors and explain why I believe their objections have already either been addressed or are unreasonable. PROJECT HISTORY July 2017- project first submitted to city for a proposed new two-story home. Based on input provided by city staff and adjacent neighbors, the house design went through a long and an extensive redesign process in order to conform with the city’s residential rules and guidelines and to address concerns with all neighbors who provided their input on the design. Among the many changes made, the rear 2nd floor balcony was removed and the architectural style of the home was changed into an Eichler style home in order to better fit into the existing neighborhood. Please note that the Eichler Design guidelines was not in place during the redesign process since that document was not adopted until April of 2018. Nevertheless, the owners wanted to be good neighbors and so they changed the architectural style of their home to be an Eichler style home. Please also note that from July 2017 until May 2018, there were two public noticing of this project and there were no comments received in this time period from the rear neighbors (the Raisinghani at 3714 Carlson Circle) 2 May 2018 – Tentative Planning approval letter was issued by city staff After the approval letter was sent out, for the first time, the rear neighbors made their objections known and requested a Director’s hearing. They had made no comments prior to May 2018. From May 2018 until August 2018 – Director's hearings were held during this time. The owners and I worked with city staff (Amy French and Graham Owen) and also with the rear neighbors to try to address their comments. Changes were made to the plans in order to provide more privacy to the rear neighbors. There were two main objections to the design brought up by rear neighbors. One, the rear neighbors requested more privacy protection for their rear yard from the 2nd floor rear bedroom windows. In response to this request, the owners have removed the two large bay windows from the two 2nd floor rear bedrooms and have only provided windows that are required for emergency egress and windows that are at 5 feet above the floor level. Egress windows are required by the building code for bedrooms. The egress windows have also been revised so that obscured glazing is provided at up to a 5'-0" height so that no views are possible into the rear yard from the two 2nd floor bedrooms. The owners made this change even though city guidelines only require privacy windows on the side windows. The rear neighbors have also requested that the egress windows be placed on the side walls of the home but this would be more intrusive to the neighbors on the left and right side since the side yard setback distance is only about 10 feet. See below for the rear elevation showing the rear egress windows with obscured glazing up to 5 feet height. In addition, the owners have proposed to add even more privacy trees to the existing trees that are already there. Therefore, by use of obscured glazing on the rear windows and adding more privacy trees, the owners and I believe that there are no longer any privacy intrusions into the rear neighbor’s yard. The second item requested by the rear neighbors is that the entire 2nd floor area be moved forward so that the 2nd floor rear wall will be at 40 feet away from the rear property line. The current design shows a distance of 28 feet and 11 inches from the 2nd floor wall to the rear property line. The city zoning ordinance requires a minimum rear setback distance of 20 feet. This second request by the rear neighbor is unreasonable because the depth of the property is only 93 feet. If the 2nd floor area is moved forward in order to create a 40 feet rear setback, the result would be that the 2nd floor area would be placed more towards the front of the property. This would violate the city’s design guideline to place the 2nd floor area towards 3 the rear of the property in order to reduce the front massing of the front elevation. Also, moving the 2nd floor area forward would not affect the privacy issue and would require major changes in the house design. See site plan below showing the 40 feet setback line to illustrate the item noted above: August 2018 – Second tentative approval letter was issued as a result of the Director’s hearings. From May of 2018 until August of 2018, many meetings were held between the homeowners, myself, city staff, and the rear neighbors to try find a compromise that everyone could accept. City staff directed the homeowners to make further changes to the design which they felt was a good compromise that could be accepted by everyone. A second approval letter was issued in August 2018. However, the rear neighbors were still not satisfied with the changes made to the design and they have objected to the second approval letter and requested a council hearing. The rear neighbors have not compromised at all and still demand a 40 feet rear setback. And they still claim their rear yard privacy is intruded even though the rear facing 2nd floor egress windows have obscured glazing and many privacy trees already exists and more privacy trees are proposed. The homeowners cannot accommodate the 40 feet rear setback request since it would violate the city’s design guideline for placement of the 2nd floor area. On the rear privacy issue, the homeowners have compromised and removed the large 4 clear bay windows and have now only provided obscured glazing for the required bedroom egress windows even though that means they no longer have views into their own rear yard. At this point, the homeowners feel they have done as much as they can to try to satisfy the rear neighbors and cannot do any more. They have worked hard with city staff and neighbors who gave their input from July 2017 until May 2018 to obtain the first tentative approval. When the rear neighbors first made their objections known in May 2018, the homeowners again made further changes in order to gain the second approval in August 2018. In the homeowner’s opinion, they think their proposed 2-story home design has more privacy protection, more rear setback distance, and has an elevation design which fits into the existing neighborhood better than many other existing two-story homes in the neighborhood. There are already many existing two-story homes in the same neighborhood. And many of those two-story homes have rear setback distances less than 40 feet and many of those homes have large rear facing windows which allows the owner to look into their own rear yard. Please note that the rear neighbors themselves live in an existing two-story home. The homeowners are not asking for any special exceptions from the current city rules and guidelines. They just want to be treated fairly with respect to their rights as homeowners who have diligently followed the city’s design process that are in place. They believe they have followed all the city rules and requirements and that their proposed new home design meets and exceeds the city’s rules for privacy, setbacks, compatibility with the neighborhood. I am sorry for writing such a long letter but I feel strongly that the homeowners, Ming Li and Meng Long, have done everything they can to work with city staff and neighbors to obtain approval for their new home and hope you can approve their project. Thank you for your consideration Ket Le, architectural designer