The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-05-10 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 ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Monday, May 10, 2021 Special Meeting 5:00 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. ***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. 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. 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 Special Orders of the Day 5:00-5:15 PM 1. Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission, Public Art Commission, Stormwater Management Oversight Committee, and the Utilities Advisory Commission 2 May 10, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Oral Communications 5:15-5:30 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 5:30-5:35 PM 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the April 19, 2021 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar 5:35-5:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Approve the Macias Gini & O’Connell’s Single Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020 4.Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the City Auditor’s Quarterly Status Report (Q3 of Fiscal Year 2021), and Approve Additional Task Orders for Approved Audit Activities 5.Approval of the Acceptance and Appropriation of State of California Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds; and Approval of a Budget Amendment (Requires 2/3 Approval) in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund 6.Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff Recommend the City Council: 1) Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule to Include Foothills Nature Preserve Daily Vehicle Entrance Fees Based on Passenger Capacity and Free Vehicle Entrance for Certain Students and on Certain Days; 2) Prohibit the use of Certain Entrances to Foothills by Horse and Bicycle Users; and 3) Direct Staff to Permanently Remove Nine Hillside Barbecues at Foothills to Improve Fire Safety 7.Adoption of a Resolution to Extend the Temporary Closures of Portions of California Avenue, University Avenue, and Certain Downtown Streets Intersecting University Avenue; and Extending the Pilot Parklet Program as First Authorized by Resolution Number 9099 City Manager Comments 5:40-5:50 PM Memo 3 May 10, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:50-8:30 PM 8.Joint City Council/Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting , Followed by Council Action to Kick Off the Housing Element Update; and Provide City Council Endorsement of the City's Approach to Fulfill State Housing Element Certification Requirements and Approval 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. Closed Session 8:30-9:30 PM 9.Conference With the City’s Cybersecurity Operations Managers (City Manager and IT Operations Management Staff) – Regarding Current Cyberthreat Environment and City Cybersecurity Programs Authority: Government Code Section 54957(a) Public Comment Presentation 4 May 10, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Additional Information Informational Reports Peninsula Bikeway Wayfinding, Safety, and Feasibility Study Affordable Housing Month Proclamation Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week - May 9-15, 2021 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day - May 15, 2021 Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Finance Committee Meeting May 11, 2021 9:00 AM BUDGET HEARINGS Policy and Services Committee Meeting May 11, 2021 7:00 PM Sp. Finance Committee Meeting May 12, 2021 9:00 AM BUDGET HEARINGS Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Public Letters to Council Set 1 5 May 10, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “rais e hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 10, 2021 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission, Public Art Commission, Storm Water Management Oversight Committee, and the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation Staff recommends City Council vote to appoint candidates to the following positions: Human Relations Commission Three (3) positions with three-year terms ending May 31, 2024 Public Art Commission Three (3) positions with three-year terms ending May 31, 2024 Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Four (4) positions with four-year terms ending May 31, 2025 Utilities Advisory Commission Two (2) positions with three-year terms ending May 31, 2024 Discussion On March 2, 2021, the City Clerk’s Office opened the recruitment for the HRC, PAC, SWMOC, and UAC with an application deadline of Tuesday, April 6, 2021. This recruitment was advertised on the City’s website, social media, and inclusion in the weekly Council Packet GovDelivery e-mail notifications. On April 19, 2021, the Council selected to interview all applicants. Interviews were held on April 28, 2021. Human Relations Commission Vote to appoint three candidates to the HRC with three-year terms ending May 31, 2024. The first three candidates to receive at least four votes (required) will be appointed. 1. Sunita de Tourreil (Incumbent) 2. Adriana Eberle 3. Michelle Kraus 4. Kaloma Smith (Incumbent) Public Art Commission Vote to appoint three candidates to the PAC with three-year terms ending May 31, 2024. The first three candidates to receive at least four votes (required) will be appointed. 1. Shiraaz Bhabha Page 2 2. Loren Gordon (Incumbent) 3. Mette Huberman 4. Emily Meyer 5. Ben Miyaji (Incumbent) 6. Cleia Muggler 7. Harriet Stern 8. Lisa Waltuch 9. Mark Weiss Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Vote to appoint four candidates to the SWMOC with four-year terms ending May 31, 2025. The first four candidates to receive at least four votes (required) will be appointed. 1. Stephanie MacDonald 2. Hal Mickelson (Incumbent) 3. Dena Mossar (Incumbent) 4. Catherine Perman 5. Bob Wenzlau (Incumbent) Utilities Advisory Commission Vote to appoint two candidates to the UAC with three-year terms ending May 31, 2024. The first two candidates to receive at least four votes (required) will be appointed. 1. John Bowie 2. Carol Guthrie 3. Don Jackson (Incumbent) 4. Phil Metz 5. Rajmohan Rajagopalan Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 10, 2021 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the April 19, 2021 City Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 04-19-21 CCM DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting April 19, 2021 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 5:00 P.M. Participating Remotely: Burt, Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, Stone, Tanaka Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. NO ACTION TAKEN 1A. Proclamations Honoring Stanford's NCAA National Champion Women's Basketball Team and Head Coach Tara Vanderveer. NO ACTION TAKEN 2. Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Human Relations Commission, Public Art Commission, Storm Water Management Oversight Committee, and the Utilities Advisory Commission. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to interview all candidates. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 5, 2021 City Council Meeting. MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve the Action Minutes for the April 5, 2021 City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 04/19/2021 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4 and 5. 4. Approval of: 1) Professional Services Agreement With Blue Rhino Studio, Inc. in the Amount of $214,706 for Dinosaur Exhibits for the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ); 2) Accept a $14,325 Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation Grant for Adult Changing Tables at the JMZ; 3) Approve a Budget Amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund; 4) Resolution 9949 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for the Final Naming Recognition for the JMZ”; and 5) Approve a License Agreement With Stanford University for Research Space at the JMZ. 5. Ordinance 5520 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for Renovations at Ramos Park (FIRST READING: March 22, 2021 PASSED 7-0).” MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Action Items 6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 640 Fairmede Avenue [20PLN- 00203]: Request for Council Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions to Divide an Existing 23,000 Square Foot Parcel Into two Approximately 11,500 Square Foot Lots, Larger Than the Maximum Allowed by the Zoning Code, to Facilitate Construction of two new Single-family Residences. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15303 and 15061(b)(3). Zoning District: R-1 (Single Family Residential). Public Hearing opened at 5:57 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 5:58 P.M. Council took a break at 5:58 P.M. and returned at 6:10 P.M. MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to adopt a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) approving the request for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, and as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 04/19/2021 7. City Council Review of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update Report; Provide Feedback on Policy Tools; and Direction to Staff to Implement an S/CAP Engagement Strategy for Three S/CAP Engagement Tracks That Includes Outreach to Council, Commissions, and the Community. MOTION: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Mayor DuBois to: A. Direct the Mayor to appoint two or more Council Members to lead a community stakeholder group of domain experts and community activists; B. Support the policy framework in Attachment A and ask Staff to further develop and return to Council as needed with the following changes: i. A plan for an earlier adoption of commercial electrification retrofits; ii. Evaluation of the sale of gasoline within the city limits as a key metric; iii. Evaluation of a best practice standard for low carbon construction materials; iv. A proposal for a Palo Alto Green equivalent voluntary surcharge program to help fund electrification initiatives; v. An evaluation of public health and public safety risk and benefits from climate protection; vi. Move forward with an on-bill financing program for residential building electrification; vii. Evaluate a supplemental carbon neutrality goal; and viii. Return with recommended electric utility capital and personnel investments required to enhance reliability and staffing resources necessary for the Climate Action Plan. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change Motion Part B to “Support the policy framework in Attachment A and ask Staff to pursue the actions that are listed from 2021-2024 and further develop and return to Council as needed”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the Motion Part A to “…an ad hoc climate DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 04/19/2021 action committee that would engage with community stakeholders, domain experts, and community activists…”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part B ix “evaluate income qualified incentives to support low-income households”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B iv “…on power utilities…”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part B x “evaluate land use, zoning, and development changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B x “…and development changes”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part B xi “integrate urban forestry into the S/CAP policy framework”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A “and that the committee would periodically report back to Council”. MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Mayor DuBois to: A. Direct the Mayor to appoint two or more Council Members to an ad hoc climate action committee that would engage with community stakeholders, domain experts, and community activists; and that the committee would periodically report back to Council; B. Support the policy framework in Attachment A and ask Staff to pursue the actions that are listed from 2021-2024 and further develop and return to Council as needed with the following changes: i. A plan for an earlier adoption of commercial electrification retrofits; ii. Evaluation of the sale of gasoline within the city limits as a key metric; DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 04/19/2021 iii. Evaluation of a best practice standard for low carbon construction materials; iv. A proposal for a Palo Alto Green equivalent voluntary surcharge program on power utilities to help fund electrification initiatives; v. An evaluation of public health and public safety risk and benefits from climate protection; vi. Move forward with an on-bill financing program for residential building electrification; vii. Evaluate a supplemental carbon neutrality goal; viii. Return with recommended electric utility capital and personnel investments required to enhance reliability and staffing resources necessary for the Climate Action Plan; ix. Evaluate income qualified incentives to support low-income households; x. Evaluate land use, zoning, and development changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and xi. Integrate urban forestry into the S/CAP policy framework. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Council took a break at 9:43 P.M. and returned at 9:55 P.M. 8. Consideration of Actions and Direction to Support Community and Economic Recovery by: 1) Adoption of a Resolution to Extend the City Manager's Authority to Close Portions of University Avenue, California Avenue, and Surrounding Streets for the Uplift Local Streets Program Until September 7, 2021; and 2) Provide Direction to Staff on the Extension, Discontinuance, or Efforts to Develop a Permanent Parklet Program. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Burt to: A. Extend the City Manager’s authority to close portions of University Avenue and certain intersecting streets, and to close portions of California Avenue and certain intersecting streets as part of Uplift Local to October 31, 2021; i. Consider providing performance space; DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 04/19/2021 B. Direct Staff to return with a Resolution extending temporary parklets to December 31, 2021; C. Develop a permanent parklet program with the input of the Architectural Review Board; and D. Request Staff to review and pursue additional measures to suppor t business negatively impacted under the current program. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part E “Request Staff to coordinate impacts of construction projects in the California Avenue and Downtown areas with street closures, and continue communicating with residents and businesses”. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff to gather census data from businesses Downtown and on California Avenue. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Burt to: A. Extend the City Manager’s authority to close portions of University Avenue and certain intersecting streets, and to close portions of California Avenue and certain intersecting streets as part of Uplift Local to October 31, 2021; i. Consider providing performance space; B. Direct Staff to return with a Resolution extending temporary parklets to December 31, 2021; C. Develop a permanent parklet program with the input of the Architectural Review Board; D. Direct Staff to review and pursue additional measures to support businesses negatively impacted by the current program; and E. Request Staff to coordinate impacts of construction projects in the California Avenue and Downtown areas with street closures, an continue communicating with residents and businesses. MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 04/19/2021 MOTION PARTS A-B PASSED: 5-2 DuBois, Kou no MOTION PART C PASSED: 5-2 DuBois, Kou no MOTION PARTS D-E PASSED: 6-1 Filseth no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. in honor of Bill Busse. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12108) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of FY 2020 Single Audit Report Title: Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Approve the Macias Gini & O’Connell’s Single Audit Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020 From: City Manager Lead Department: City Auditor RECOMMENDATION The Finance Committee, Office of the City Auditor, and Staff recommend that the City Council approve the following audit reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020 prepared by Macias Gini & O’Connell (“MGO”). These reports are collectively referred to as the Single Audit. 1. Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards. 2. Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance. SUMMARY At the January 11, 2021 City Council Meeting, the City Council approved the following audit reports prepared by MGO: a) Report to the City Council (the “Management Letter”) b) Cable TV Franchise, Independent Auditor’s Report and Statements of Franchise Revenues and Expenses for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 c) Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (a component unit of the City of Palo Alto) Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2020 d) Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Independent Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2020 e) Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures related to the Article XIII-B Appropriations (GANN) Limit for the year ended June 30, 2020 f) The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Annual Report) included in CMR #1171 that is available here. City of Palo Alto Page 2 At that time, guidance necessary for the completion of the Single Audit had not yet been released by Federal Office of Management and Budget. The Single Audit report has since been completed, thus the recommended action within this report. MGO reports the following within the Single Audit Report: - Unmodified opinions as it pertains to both the Financial Statements and to Federal Awards - No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting or over major programs - No findings or questioned costs The Office of the City Auditor and Staff presented this recommendation to the Finance Committee on April 6, 2021, and the motion was unanimously approved after a presentation by MGO. Stakeholder Engagement This report has been prepared by the Administrative Service Department Accounting division and coordinated with the Office of the City Auditor and the Office of Management and Budget. Environmental Review This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: • City of Palo Alto - Single Audit Report FY2020 • MGO Presentation to Palo Alto - Single Audit FY2020 /dzK&W>K>dK ^ŝŶŐůĞƵĚŝƚZĞƉŽƌƚƐ zĞĂƌŶĚĞĚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϬ /dzK&W>K>dK ^ŝŶŐůĞƵĚŝƚZĞƉŽƌƚƐ zĞĂƌŶĚĞĚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϬ dĂďůĞŽĨŽŶƚĞŶƚƐ WĂŐĞ /ŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐZĞƉŽƌƚŽŶ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůŽŶƚƌŽůKǀĞƌ&ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶ ŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞĂŶĚKƚŚĞƌDĂƚƚĞƌƐĂƐĞĚŽŶĂŶƵĚŝƚŽĨ&ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚŝŶĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞtŝƚŚ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƵĚŝƚŝŶŐ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ /ŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐZĞƉŽƌƚŽŶŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞĨŽƌĂĐŚDĂũŽƌ&ĞĚĞƌĂůWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͖ ZĞƉŽƌƚŽŶ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůŽŶƚƌŽůKǀĞƌŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͖ĂŶĚZĞƉŽƌƚŽŶƚŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨ ǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞhŶŝĨŽƌŵ'ƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯ ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱ EŽƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲ ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶĞĚŽƐƚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳ ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨWƌŝŽƌƵĚŝƚ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴ www.mgocpa.com Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP 2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 750 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ,QGHSHQGHQW$XGLWRU¶V5HSRUWRQ,QWHUQDO&RQWURO2YHU)LQDQFLDO5HSRUWLQJ DQGRQ&RPSOLDQFHDQG2WKHU0DWWHUV%DVHGRQDQ$XGLWRI)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV 3HUIRUPHGLQ$FFRUGDQFH:LWKGovernment Auditing Standards +RQRUDEOH0D\RUDQGWKH0HPEHUV RIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR 3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD :HKDYHDXGLWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHDXGLWLQJVWDQGDUGVJHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI $PHULFDDQGWKHVWDQGDUGVDSSOLFDEOHWRILQDQFLDODXGLWVFRQWDLQHGLQGovernment Auditing Standards LVVXHGE\WKH&RPSWUROOHU*HQHUDORIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVRIWKHJRYHUQPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHVWKHEXVLQHVVW\SHDFWLYLWLHVHDFKPDMRUIXQGDQGWKHDJJUHJDWHUHPDLQLQJIXQGLQIRUPDWLRQRI WKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD&LW\DVRIDQGIRUWKH\HDUHQGHG-XQHDQGWKHUHODWHGQRWHV WRWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVZKLFKFROOHFWLYHO\FRPSULVHWKH&LW\¶VEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDQGKDYH LVVXHGRXUUHSRUWWKHUHRQGDWHG2FWREHU ,QWHUQDO&RQWURO2YHU)LQDQFLDO5HSRUWLQJ ,QSODQQLQJDQGSHUIRUPLQJRXUDXGLWRIWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVZHFRQVLGHUHGWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURO RYHUILQDQFLDOUHSRUWLQJLQWHUQDOFRQWURODVDEDVLVIRUGHVLJQLQJDXGLWSURFHGXUHVWKDWDUHDSSURSULDWHLQ WKHFLUFXPVWDQFHVIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIH[SUHVVLQJRXURSLQLRQVRQWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVEXWQRWIRUWKH SXUSRVHRIH[SUHVVLQJDQRSLQLRQRQWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURO$FFRUGLQJO\ZHGR QRWH[SUHVVDQRSLQLRQRQWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURO $deficiency in internal control H[LVWV ZKHQ WKH GHVLJQ RU RSHUDWLRQ RI D FRQWURO GRHV QRW DOORZ PDQDJHPHQWRUHPSOR\HHVLQWKHQRUPDOFRXUVHRISHUIRUPLQJWKHLUDVVLJQHGIXQFWLRQVWRSUHYHQWRU GHWHFWDQGFRUUHFWPLVVWDWHPHQWVRQDWLPHO\EDVLV$material weaknessLVDGHILFLHQF\RUDFRPELQDWLRQ RIGHILFLHQFLHVLQLQWHUQDOFRQWUROVXFKWKDWWKHUHLVDUHDVRQDEOHSRVVLELOLW\WKDWDPDWHULDOPLVVWDWHPHQW RIWKHHQWLW\¶VILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVZLOOQRWEHSUHYHQWHGRUGHWHFWHGDQGFRUUHFWHGRQDWLPHO\EDVLV$ significant deficiency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¶VILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDUHIUHHIURP PDWHULDOPLVVWDWHPHQWZHSHUIRUPHGWHVWVRILWVFRPSOLDQFHZLWKFHUWDLQSURYLVLRQVRIODZVUHJXODWLRQV FRQWUDFWVDQGJUDQWDJUHHPHQWVQRQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKZKLFKFRXOGKDYHDGLUHFWDQGPDWHULDOHIIHFWRQWKH ILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV+RZHYHUSURYLGLQJDQRSLQLRQRQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKRVHSURYLVLRQVZDVQRWDQ REMHFWLYHRIRXUDXGLWDQGDFFRUGLQJO\ZHGRQRWH[SUHVVVXFKDQRSLQLRQ7KHUHVXOWVRIRXUWHVWV GLVFORVHG QR LQVWDQFHV RI QRQFRPSOLDQFH RU RWKHU PDWWHUV WKDW DUH UHTXLUHG WR EH UHSRUWHG XQGHU Government Auditing Standards 3XUSRVHRIWKLV5HSRUW 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVUHSRUWLVVROHO\WRGHVFULEHWKHVFRSHRIRXUWHVWLQJRILQWHUQDOFRQWURODQGFRPSOLDQFH DQGWKHUHVXOWVRIWKDWWHVWLQJDQGQRWWRSURYLGHDQRSLQLRQRQWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDO FRQWURO RU RQ FRPSOLDQFH 7KLV UHSRUW LV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI DQ DXGLW SHUIRUPHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK Government Auditing StandardsLQFRQVLGHULQJWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURODQGFRPSOLDQFH$FFRUGLQJO\ WKLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQLVQRWVXLWDEOHIRUDQ\RWKHUSXUSRVH :DOQXW&UHHN&DOLIRUQLD 2FWREHU www.mgocpa.com Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP 2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 750 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ,QGHSHQGHQW$XGLWRU¶V5HSRUWRQ&RPSOLDQFHIRU(DFK0DMRU)HGHUDO3URJUDP 5HSRUWRQ,QWHUQDO&RQWURO2YHU&RPSOLDQFHDQG5HSRUWRQ6FKHGXOHRI ([SHQGLWXUHVRI)HGHUDO$ZDUGV5HTXLUHGE\WKH8QLIRUP*XLGDQFH +RQRUDEOH0D\RUDQGWKH0HPEHUV RIWKH&LW\&RXQFLORIWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR 3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD 5HSRUWRQ&RPSOLDQFHIRU(DFK0DMRU)HGHUDO3URJUDP :HKDYHDXGLWHGWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD¶V&LW\FRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHW\SHVRIFRPSOLDQFH UHTXLUHPHQWVGHVFULEHGLQWKHOMB Compliance SupplementWKDWFRXOGKDYHDGLUHFWDQGPDWHULDOHIIHFW RQHDFKRIWKH&LW\¶VPDMRUIHGHUDOSURJUDPVIRUWKH\HDUHQGHG-XQH7KH&LW\¶VPDMRUIHGHUDO SURJUDPVDUHLGHQWLILHGLQWKHVXPPDU\RIDXGLWRU¶VUHVXOWVVHFWLRQRIWKHDFFRPSDQ\LQJVFKHGXOHRI ILQGLQJVDQGTXHVWLRQHGFRVWV Management’s Responsibility 0DQDJHPHQWLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWKIHGHUDOVWDWXWHVUHJXODWLRQVDQGWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQV RILWVIHGHUDODZDUGVDSSOLFDEOHWRLWVIHGHUDOSURJUDPV Auditor’s Responsibility 2XUUHVSRQVLELOLW\LVWRH[SUHVVDQRSLQLRQRQFRPSOLDQFHIRUHDFKRIWKH&LW\¶VPDMRUIHGHUDOSURJUDPV EDVHGRQRXUDXGLWRIWKHW\SHVRIFRPSOLDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVUHIHUUHGWRDERYH:HFRQGXFWHGRXUDXGLWRI FRPSOLDQFHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDXGLWLQJVWDQGDUGVJHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFDWKH VWDQGDUGV DSSOLFDEOH WR ILQDQFLDO DXGLWV FRQWDLQHG LQGovernment Auditing Standards LVVXHG E\ WKH &RPSWUROOHU*HQHUDORIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGWKHDXGLWUHTXLUHPHQWVRI7LWOH86&RGHRI)HGHUDO 5HJXODWLRQV3DUWUniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 8QLIRUP*XLGDQFH.7KRVHVWDQGDUGVDQGWKH8QLIRUP*XLGDQFHUHTXLUHWKDWZHSODQ DQGSHUIRUPWKHDXGLWWRREWDLQUHDVRQDEOHDVVXUDQFHDERXWZKHWKHUQRQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHW\SHVRI FRPSOLDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVUHIHUUHGWRDERYHWKDWFRXOGKDYHDGLUHFWDQGPDWHULDOHIIHFWRQDPDMRUIHGHUDO SURJUDPRFFXUUHG$QDXGLWLQFOXGHVH[DPLQLQJRQDWHVWEDVLVHYLGHQFHDERXWWKH&LW\¶VFRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKRVH UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG SHUIRUPLQJ VXFK RWKHU SURFHGXUHV DV ZH FRQVLGHUHG QHFHVVDU\ LQ WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV :HEHOLHYHWKDWRXUDXGLWSURYLGHVDUHDVRQDEOHEDVLVIRURXURSLQLRQRQFRPSOLDQFHIRUHDFKPDMRU IHGHUDOSURJUDP+RZHYHURXUDXGLWGRHVQRWSURYLGHDOHJDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKH&LW\¶VFRPSOLDQFH Opinion on Each Major Federal Program ,QRXURSLQLRQWKH&LW\FRPSOLHGLQDOOPDWHULDOUHVSHFWVZLWKWKHW\SHVRIFRPSOLDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWV UHIHUUHGWRDERYHWKDWFRXOGKDYHDGLUHFWDQGPDWHULDOHIIHFWRQHDFKRILWVPDMRUIHGHUDOSURJUDPVIRUWKH \HDUHQGHG-XQH 5HSRUWRQ,QWHUQDO&RQWURO2YHU&RPSOLDQFH 0DQDJHPHQWRIWKH&LW\LVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUHVWDEOLVKLQJDQGPDLQWDLQLQJHIIHFWLYHLQWHUQDOFRQWURORYHU FRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHW\SHVRIFRPSOLDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVUHIHUUHGWRDERYH,QSODQQLQJDQGSHUIRUPLQJRXU DXGLW RI FRPSOLDQFH ZH FRQVLGHUHG WKH &LW\¶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¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURORYHUFRPSOLDQFH $deficiency in internal control over complianceH[LVWVZKHQWKHGHVLJQRURSHUDWLRQRIDFRQWURORYHU FRPSOLDQFHGRHVQRWDOORZPDQDJHPHQWRUHPSOR\HHVLQWKHQRUPDOFRXUVHRISHUIRUPLQJWKHLUDVVLJQHG IXQFWLRQVWRSUHYHQWRUGHWHFWDQGFRUUHFWQRQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDW\SHRIFRPSOLDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWRID IHGHUDO SURJUDP RQ D WLPHO\ EDVLV $material weakness in internal control over complianceLVD GHILFLHQF\RUDFRPELQDWLRQRIGHILFLHQFLHVLQLQWHUQDOFRQWURORYHUFRPSOLDQFHVXFKWKDWWKHUHLVD UHDVRQDEOHSRVVLELOLW\WKDWPDWHULDOQRQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDW\SHRIFRPSOLDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWRIDIHGHUDO SURJUDPZLOOQRWEHSUHYHQWHGRUGHWHFWHGDQGFRUUHFWHGRQDWLPHO\EDVLV$significant deficiency in internal control over compliance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¶V EDVLF ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV :H LVVXHG RXU UHSRUW WKHUHRQ GDWHG 2FWREHU ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG XQPRGLILHGRSLQLRQVRQWKRVHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV2XUDXGLWZDVFRQGXFWHGIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIIRUPLQJ RSLQLRQVRQWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVWKDWFROOHFWLYHO\FRPSULVHWKH&LW\¶VEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV7KH DFFRPSDQ\LQJVFKHGXOHRIH[SHQGLWXUHVRIIHGHUDODZDUGVLVSUHVHQWHGIRUSXUSRVHVRIDGGLWLRQDODQDO\VLV DVUHTXLUHGE\WKH8QLIRUP*XLGDQFHDQGLVQRWDUHTXLUHGSDUWRIWKHEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV6XFK LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI PDQDJHPHQW DQG ZDV GHULYHG IURP DQG UHODWHV GLUHFWO\ WR WKH XQGHUO\LQJDFFRXQWLQJDQGRWKHUUHFRUGVXVHGWRSUHSDUHWKHEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV7KHLQIRUPDWLRQ KDVEHHQVXEMHFWHGWRWKHDXGLWLQJSURFHGXUHVDSSOLHGLQWKHDXGLWRIWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDQGFHUWDLQ DGGLWLRQDOSURFHGXUHVLQFOXGLQJFRPSDULQJDQGUHFRQFLOLQJVXFKLQIRUPDWLRQGLUHFWO\WRWKHXQGHUO\LQJ DFFRXQWLQJDQGRWKHUUHFRUGVXVHGWRSUHSDUHWKH EDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVRUWRWKHEDVLFILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWVWKHPVHOYHVDQGRWKHUDGGLWLRQDOSURFHGXUHVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDXGLWLQJVWDQGDUGVJHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD,QRXURSLQLRQWKHVFKHGXOHRIH[SHQGLWXUHVRIIHGHUDODZDUGV LVIDLUO\VWDWHGLQDOOPDWHULDOUHVSHFWVLQUHODWLRQWRWKHEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDVDZKROH :DOQXW&UHHN&DOLIRUQLD 0DUFK 'ƌĂŶƚŽƌ &ĞĚĞƌĂů /ĚĞŶƚŝĨǇŝŶŐ &^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐ 'ƌĂŶƚŽƌͬWĂƐƐͲdŚƌŽƵŐŚ'ƌĂŶƚŽƌͬWƌŽŐƌĂŵdŝƚůĞ EƵŵďĞƌ EƵŵďĞƌ ǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ ǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ h͘^ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚhƌďĂŶĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŝƌĞĐƚ 'ͲŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚ'ƌĂŶƚƐůƵƐƚĞƌ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚůŽĐŬ'ƌĂŶƚƐͬŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚ'ƌĂŶƚƐ ŶͬĂ ϭϰ͘Ϯϭϴ ϲϬϲ͕ϬϲϮΨ ϱϭϲ͕ϴϭϵΨ h͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ ŝƌĞĐƚ ƵůůĞƚƉƌŽŽĨsĞƐƚWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ ŶͬĂ ϭϲ͘ϲϬϳ ϭ͕ϴϮϴ Ͳ h͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƌĞĐƚ WƵďůŝĐdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ ͲϮϬϭϳͲϬϮϬͲϬϬ ϮϬ͘ϱϭϰ ϱϴϲ͕ϯϳϴ Ͳ ŝƌƉŽƌƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ϯͲϬϲͲϬϭϴϮͲϬϭϰͲϮϬϭϴ ϮϬ͘ϭϬϲ ϱ͕ϰϴϭ͕ϰϱϬ Ͳ ^ƵďƚŽƚĂůͲŝƌĞĐƚǁĂƌĚƐ ϲ͕Ϭϲϳ͕ϴϮϴ Ͳ WĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĨƌŽŵ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ Z>^ͲϱϭϬϬ;ϬϭϳͿ ϮϬ͘ϮϬϱ ϰϯ͕ϭϯϵ Ͳ ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ D>ͲϱϭϬϬ;ϬϮϳͿ ϮϬ͘ϮϬϱ ϲϬϴ͕ϴϰϲ Ͳ WĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĨƌŽŵ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂsĂůůĞǇdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶƵƚŚŽƌŝƚǇ ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ^>ϭϳϬϬϮϭ ϮϬ͘ϮϬϱ ϮϬϳ͕ϵϳϲ Ͳ ^ƵďƚŽƚĂůͲ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶϴϱϵ͕ϵϲϭ Ͳ dŽƚĂůh͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ϲ͕ϵϮϳ͕ϳϴϵ Ͳ EĂƚŝŽŶĂůŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ,ƵŵĂŶŝƚŝĞƐ ŝƌĞĐƚ DƵƐĞƵŵƐĨŽƌŵĞƌŝĐĂ DͲϭϬͲϭϳͲϬϯϮϳͲϭϳ ϰϱ͘ϯϬϭ ϲϵ͕ϰϬϱ Ͳ WĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĨƌŽŵĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ^ƚĂƚĞ>ŝďƌĂƌǇ 'ƌĂŶƚƐƚŽ^ƚĂƚĞƐ DͲϭϭͲϭϱͲϬϭϬϰͲϭϱ ϰϱ͘ϯϭϬ ϭϳ͕ϭϲϬ Ͳ dŽƚĂůEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŶĚŽǁŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ,ƵŵĂŶŝƚŝĞƐ ϴϲ͕ϱϲϱ Ͳ dKd>&Z>&/EE/>tZ^ϳ͕ϲϮϮ͕ϮϰϰΨ ϱϭϲ͕ϴϭϵΨ /dzK&W>K>dK ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐ &ŽƌƚŚĞzĞĂƌŶĚĞĚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĞĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇŝŶŐŶŽƚĞƐƚŽWKH6FKHGXOHRI([SHQGLWXUHVRI)HGHUDO$ZDUGV /dzK&W>K>dK EŽƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐ zĞĂƌŶĚĞĚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϬ EKdϭʹZWKZd/E'Ed/dz dŚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƐ;ƚŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞͿŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƐ ĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ;ŝƚǇͿ͕ĂŶĚŝƚƐĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƵŶŝƚĂƐĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŶŽƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞďĂƐŝĐ ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ EKdϮʹ^/^K&KhEd/E' ĂƐŝƐ ŽĨ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐ ƌĞĨĞƌƐ ƚŽ ǁŚĞŶ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ Žƌ ĞǆƉĞŶƐĞƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚƐĂŶĚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƌĞŐĂƌĚůĞƐƐŽĨ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ ĨŽĐƵƐ ĂƉƉůŝĞĚ͘ ůů ŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂůĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĞĚĨŽƌƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚĂĐĐƌƵĂůďĂƐŝƐŽĨĂĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐ͘ůůƉƌŽƉƌŝĞƚĂƌǇ ĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĞĚĨŽƌƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĂĐĐƌƵĂůďĂƐŝƐŽĨĂĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐ͘ǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ ŝŶƚŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂƌĞƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞĚǁŚĞŶŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚĂŶĚĂůůĞůŝŐŝďŝůŝƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŵĞƚ͘^ƵĐŚ ĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞĚ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƐƚ ƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐ ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ ŝŶ Ϯ &Z ϮϬϬ͕ ^ƵďƉĂƌƚ ;ŽƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐͿ͕ǁŚĞƌĞŝŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚǇƉĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĂůůŽǁĂďůĞŽƌĂƌĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚĂƐƚŽƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚĞŝƚǇĚŝĚŶŽƚĞůĞĐƚƚŽƵƐĞƚŚĞϭϬйĚĞŵŝŶŝŵŝƐĐŽƐƚƌĂƚĞĂƐĐŽǀĞƌĞĚŝŶϮ&ZϮϬϬ͘ϰϭϰ;&ΘͿĐŽƐƚƐ͘ EKdϯʹ/ZdE/E/Zd;W^^Ͳd,ZKh',Ϳ&Z>tZ^ &ĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƐŵĂǇďĞŐƌĂŶƚĞĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇďǇĂĨĞĚĞƌĂůŐƌĂŶƚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐǇŽƌŵĂǇďĞŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŽ ŽƚŚĞƌŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐǁŚŝĐŚƉĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇ͘dŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐďŽƚŚ ŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƚǇƉĞƐŽĨĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐǁŚĞŶƚŚĞǇŽĐĐƵƌ͘ EKdϰʹZ>d/KE^,/WdK&Z>&/EE/>ZWKZd^ ŵŽƵŶƚƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂŐƌĞĞƚŽŽƌĐĂŶďĞƌĞĐŽŶĐŝůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͘ EKdϱʹZ>d/KE^,/WdK^/&/EE/>^ddDEd^ &ĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƐĂŶĚĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐĂŐƌĞĞƚŽŽƌĐĂŶďĞƌĞĐŽŶĐŝůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇ͛Ɛ ďĂƐŝĐĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ /dzK&W>K>dK ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶĞĚŽƐƚƐ zĞĂƌŶĚĞĚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ/ ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐZĞƐƵůƚƐ &ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͗ dǇƉĞŽĨĂƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŝƐƐƵĞĚ͗hŶŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽǀĞƌĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ͗ xDĂƚĞƌŝĂůǁĞĂŬŶĞƐƐĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͍EŽ x^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂƌĞ ŶŽƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŽďĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůǁĞĂŬŶĞƐƐĞƐ͍EŽŶĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ EŽŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƚŽƚŚĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐŶŽƚĞĚ͍ EŽ &ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐ͗ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽǀĞƌŵĂũŽƌƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͗ xDĂƚĞƌŝĂůǁĞĂŬŶĞƐƐĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ͍EŽ x^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂƌĞ ŶŽƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŽďĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůǁĞĂŬŶĞƐƐĞƐ͍EŽŶĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ dǇƉĞŽĨĂƵĚŝƚŽƌ͛ƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŝƐƐƵĞĚŽŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚŵĂũŽƌ ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͗hŶŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚ ŶǇĂƵĚŝƚĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚϮ&ZϮϬϬ͘ϱϭϲ;ĂͿ͍EŽ DĂũŽƌƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͗ &EƵŵďĞƌ EĂŵĞŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂůWƌŽŐƌĂŵŽƌůƵƐƚĞƌ ϮϬ͘ϭϬϲ ŝƌƉŽƌƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ϮϬ͘ϱϭϰ WƵďůŝĐdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ͕ĂŶĚ dƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ ŽůůĂƌƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƵƐĞĚƚŽĚŝƐƚŝŶŐƵŝƐŚďĞƚǁĞĞŶ dǇƉĞĂŶĚdǇƉĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐΨϳϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ƵĚŝƚĞĞƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞƐĂƐĂůŽǁͲƌŝƐŬĂƵĚŝƚĞĞ͍zĞƐ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ// &ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ EŽŶĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ͘ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ/// &ĞĚĞƌĂůǁĂƌĚƐ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶĞĚŽƐƚƐ EŽŶĞƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ͘ /dzK&W>K>dK ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŽĨWƌŝŽƌƵĚŝƚ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ zĞĂƌŶĚĞĚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϬ WƌŝŽƌĂƵĚŝƚĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐǁĞƌĞŶŽƚƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ͘ The following presentation was prepared as part of our audit of the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2020, is limited in its overall information, and is intended solely for the information and use by those charged with governance, management and as necessary, those charged with financial reporting oversight role of the City. This communication is not intended and should not be used by any other party, committee or person other than these specified parties. 2 MGO Presentation to the City of Palo Alto Deliverable Repor ts •Independent Auditor ’s Re por t on Internal Control Over Financial Re por ting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards •Independent Auditor ’s Re por t on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Repor t on Internal Control Over Compliance and Repor t on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance Re por ts Issued 3 MGO Presentation to the City of Palo Alto Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) •To tal FY 2020 SEFA Expenditure: $7.6 million for 7 federal programs •2 Major federal programs totaled to $6.1 million (80% coverage) –CFDA No. 20.106 Airpor t Improvement Program –CFDA No. 20.514 Public Tr anspor tation Research, Technical Assistance, and Training Summar y of Audit Results 4 MGO Presentation to the City of Palo Alto Financial Statements •Unmodified opinion •No repor ted significant deficiencies or material weaknesses over financial repor ting •No noncompliance significant to the financial statements Federal Awards •Unmodified opinion on each major federal program •No repor ted significant deficiencies or material weaknesses over compliance •No repor ted instances of noncompliance or other matters •SEFA is fairly stated in relation to the basic financial statements Summar y of Audit Results Government Audit & Oversight Committee Questions? www.mgocpa.com The presentation was prepared as part of our audit of the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2020, is limited in its overall information, and is intended solely for the information and use by those charged with governance, management and as necessary, those charged with financial reporting oversight role of the City. This communication is not intended and should not be used by any other party, committee or person other than these specified parties. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12110) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: City Auditor's Quarterly Status Report - January through March 2021 Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the City Auditor’s Quarterly Status Report (Q3 of Fiscal Year 2021), and Approve Additional Task Orde rs for Approved Audit Activities From: City Manager Lead Department: City Auditor Recommended Motion The Policy & Services Committee and City Auditor recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Accept the Office of the City Auditor’s Quarterly Status Report covering January – March 2021 2) Approve the following Task Orders, identified in the Audit Plan Report: o Building Permitting Process Review o Non-Profit Agreement Risk Review Discussion Quarterly Status Report – January – March 2021 In accordance with Task 5 of our agreement with the City, Baker Tilly is required to report quarterly on a variety of topics, generally including progress to plan. Our presentation includes the following high level status updates organized by task within our agreement with the City: • Task 1 – Citywide Risk Assessment o Presented to and Approved by P&S on February 9, 2021 o Presented to and Approved by City Council on March 1, 2021 • Task 2 – Annual Audit Plan o Presented to and Approved by P&S on February 9, 2021 o Presented to and Approved by City Council on March 1, 2021 • Task 3 – Financial Audit City of Palo Alto Page 2 o Finalized the FY20 Single Audit Report and Prepared to Present at the April 6, 2021 Finance Committee Meeting o Developed an Amendment to Extend the Financial Auditor Contract for 1 - year and Sought Staff Approval Through the Exception for Competitive Solicitation Process o Prepared to Obtain City Council Approval of the Contract Extension at an April Meeting • Task 4 – Execute Audit Plan o Conducted Kick-offs of All Projects Approved by City Council on March 1, 2021 • Task 5 – Periodic Reporting and Hotline Monitoring o Closed Two (of two) Hotline Reports Received in CY21 • Task 6 – City Auditor evaluation o N/A Approval of Task Orders In its capacity serving as the City Auditor, and in accordance with Baker Tilly’s agreement with the City, Baker Tilly performed a citywide risk assessment. The purpose of the assessment was to identify and prioritize risks in order to develop the annual audit plan. Baker Tilly presented the assessment to the P&S Committee in February and subsequently presented to City Council in March. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 2.08.130) requires the City Auditor prepare and submit an annual audit plan to the City Council for review and approval. Baker Tilly presented the Audit Plan to the P&S Committee in February and subsequently presented to City Council in March. The Audit Plan was approved at the March 1, 2021 Council Meeting. At that time, the City Auditor noted that it would subsequently seek approval of certain Task Orders included within the plan. Today, the City Auditor is seeking P&S Committee approval of the following Task Orders, identified within the approved Audit Plan Report: 1) Building Permitting Process Review 2) Non-Profit Agreement Risk Review The City Auditor presented this recommendation to the Policy & Services Committee at the April 13, 2021 meeting. The Committee unanimously approved the recommended action items. Resource Impact The budget for each Task Order noted above aligns to the previously approved budget for the Office of the City Auditor, the agreement with Baker Tilly, and the approved Audit Plan. Thus, there is no additional resource impact associated with this item. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachments: • City Auditor - Quarterly Status & Audit Task Order Review (May 10 2021) • Office of the City Auditor - Task Orders for May Approval City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor Quarterly Status Report April 13, 2021 •Quarterly status report •Task order review/approval •Questions & discussion Agenda 2 Quarterly Status Report January –March 2021 Task 1: Citywide risk assessment Task 2: Preparation of the annual audit plan Task 3: Financial audit tasks Task 4: Execute the annual plan Task 5: Preparation of quarterly reports and annual status report Task 6: Evaluation and benchmarking Scope of work overview 4 Task Key activities 1.Citywide risk assessment •Approved by City Council –March 1, 2021 2.Annual audit plan •Approved by City Council –March 1, 2021 3.Financial audit •The final FY20 audit report (the Single Audit) was presented to and approved by the Finance Committee on April 6, 2021 •Single Audit report to be on Consent Agenda in May •One-year contract extension approved by City Council on April 12, 2021 due to extraordinary circumstances Progress to date 5 Task Key activities 4.Execute audit plan •Ten (10)total task orders are approved or pending approval •Seven (7) audit activities are currently in progress •Requesting approval of two (2) task orders today 5.Periodic reporting, hotline monitoring, admin tasks •Reviewed and Fraud/Waste/Abuse Hotline reports •Delivering the FY21 Q3 quarterly report today 6.City Auditor evaluation •Preliminary planning for initial peer review Progress to date 6 Reports issued –FY21 Reports Issued Audit Activities in Progress 2 7 The City Auditor has delivered two reports, including the Risk Assessment Report and Annual Audit Plan. Seven (7) projects are currently in progress. If the task orders on today’s agenda are approved, a total of three (3) additional projects will be pending kick-off. 7 •Task 4.1 –Construction Project Controls •Task 4.2 –Asset Capitalization •Task 4.3 –Assessment of SAP Functions & Internal Controls •Task 4.4 –IT Risk Management •Task 4.5 –Investment Management •Task 4.6 –Power Purchase Agreement Review •Task 4.7 –Economic Recovery Advisory •Task 4.8 –Public Safety Building •Task 4.9 –Building Permit Process (requesting approval) •Task 4.10 –Non-Profit Agreement Risk Management (requesting approval) Audit activities (bold in progress) 8 The City Auditor, in conjunction with the City Manager and City Attorney, reviewed and closed two (2) Hotline reports filed in the prior two quarters. Fraud, waste & abuse Hotline Reports & Updates Quarter Received Closed Prior Period(s)1 1 January –March 2021 1 1 9 Task Order Approval Audit plan –overview of phases Q3 –FY21 Q4 –FY21 Q1 –FY22 Q2 –FY22 Q3 –FY22 Q4 –FY22 Phase I Activities Phase II Activities Phase III Activities 11 Audit Activities –Phase II Project Title Audit Objectives X Building Permit & Inspection Process Identify highest impact area to focus the assessment (e.g., specific permit type(s), specific sub- processes, etc.). Document corresponding process(es) and evaluate for efficiency and effectiveness. Benchmark operational performance against industry practices and established standards. X Nonprofit Agreements Risk Management Evaluate controls in place to ensure that nonprofit organizations are properly vetted prior to selection and monitored through the life of an agreement. Assess the performance monitoring process against the best practice. Follow up on relevant audit findings from past audit work. 12 The City Auditor recommends that the Policy & Services Committee take the following actions and forward the corresponding report to City Council for consent: 1.Accept the Office of the City Auditor’s Quarterly Status Report covering January –March 2021 2.Approve the following Task Orders, identified in the Audit Plan Report: •Building Permitting Process •Non-Profit Agreement Risk Management Policy & Services Committee action 13 Questions & discussion 3 Thank you! Kyle O’Rourke, City Auditor city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2667 15 FY2021/2022 Audit Plan 10 Task Orders *Note that certain items are subject to change pending Council discussion and approval. Budget Status FY21 FY22 FY21 – FY22 Total in Contract $550,000 $750,000 $1,300,000 Total Invoiced Amount $76,854 - $76,854 Total Contract Remaining $473,146 $750,000 $1,223,146 Total in Contract for tasks under Task Orders (Task 4) $390,000 $600,000 $990,000 Audit Activity 4.9 – Building Permitting Process Review PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER TASK ORDER 1 – FY21 Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE) 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): 1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY21-009 2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: May 1, 2021 COMPLETION: December 31, 2021 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $83,500 BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $1,235,000 5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT: Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A) MUST INCLUDE:  SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED  SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE  MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)  REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A I hereby authorize the performance of the work described in this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ Attachment A DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES Introduction Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements: • Services and Deliverables To Be Provided • Schedule of Performance • Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable) • Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount) Services & Deliverables Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting the Building Permitting and Inspection Process Review involves three (3) primary steps: • Step 1: Audit Planning • Step 2: Business Process Analysis • Step 3: Reporting Step 1 – Audit Planning This step consists of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall audit objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the audit scope, objectives, review process, and timing between stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include: • Gather information to understand the environment under review o Understand the organizational objectives, structure, staffing and business processes of the functions assigned to the Chief Building Official o Review applicable ordinances, building codes, regulations, policies, and other standards and expectations with respect to building permitting and inspection o Review prior audit results, if applicable o Review additional documentation and conduct interviews as necessary to perform preliminary risk analysis for the purpose of identifying permit types or sub-processes to be reviewed • Secure agreement on the audit objectives. Preliminary audit objectives are to: (1) Identify highest impact area to focus the assessment (e.g., specific permit type(s), specific sub-processes, customer segments, etc.); (2) Assess permitting and inspections process efficiency and effectiveness, (3) Benchmark building permitting and inspections performance against best practices, industry standards, and a selected sample of comparable local government jurisdictions • Assess the audit risk • Write an audit planning memo and audit program o Refine audit objectives and scope o Identify the audit procedures to be performed and the evidence to be obtained and examined • Announce the initiation of the audit and conduct a kick-off meeting with key participants o Discuss audit objectives, scope, audit process, timing, resources, and expectations o Discuss documentation requests, interview participants and stakeholder engagement for the review Step 2 – Organizational and Business Process Analysis This step involves executing the procedures in the audit program to gather information, interview individual process owners and participants, survey appropriate industry stakeholders, conduct focus groups and field observations, and analyze the data and information gathered in order to obtain sufficient evidence to address the agreed-upon audit objectives. Audit procedures will include, but are not limited to: • Interview the appropriate internal and external stakeholders and process owners to understand the process, the information system used, and the internal controls related to building permitting and inspections. • Narrow focus to one (1) to two (2) high risk permitting categories/types as determined through the planning process. • Administer a confidential survey of external building permit and inspections process stakeholders (residential and commercial contractors and design professionals) and complete follow-up building industry focus groups for selected permit types. • Review the building codes, state statutes, and other applicable policies, practices, procedures, regulations and standards to identify the criteria to be used for analysis of the organizational structure, performance and results, staffing levels, business processes, and supporting technologies utilized by the permitting and inspections unit. • Perform test procedures including observation of controls (such as application controls) and review of selected documents (such as supporting documents for the receipt and processing of permit applications, collection of permit and inspection fees, key performance indicators, etc.) • Benchmark operational performance against industry best practices and established standards Step 3 – Reporting In Step 3, the project team will perform tasks necessary to finalize audit working papers, prepare and review a draft report with the stakeholders, and submit a final audit report. Tasks include: • Develop findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence gathered • Validate findings with the appropriate individuals and discuss the root cause of the identified findings • Complete supervisory review of working papers and a draft audit report • Distribute a draft audit report and conduct a closing meeting with key stakeholders o Discuss the audit results, finings, conclusions, and recommendations o Discuss management responses • Obtain written management responses and finalize a report • Review report with members of City Council and/or the appropriate Council Committee • Present the final report to the City Council and/or appropriate Council Committee Deliverables: The following deliverable will be prepared as part of this engagement: • Audit Report Schedule of Performance Anticipated Start Date: May 1, 2021 Anticipated End Date: December 31, 2021 Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $83,500. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 360 total project hours, of which 40 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor. Reimbursable Expenses If circumstances allow, Baker Tilly anticipates planning one on-site fieldwork week. Given this possibility, Baker Tilly could incur reimbursable expenses for this Task. The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $5,600. The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses (three trips): • Round-trip Airfare – $1,800 • Rental Car - $500 • Hotel accommodation - $2,600 (6 nights) • Food and incidentals – $700 Note that if current restrictions associated with COVID-19 continue, an on-site visit may not be possible. The project team will work with the City to consider circumstances at the time. Audit Activity 4.10 – Nonprofit Agreement Risk Management PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER TASK ORDER 1 – FY21 Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE) 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): 1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY21-010 2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly US, LLP 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: May 1, 2021 COMPLETION: December 31, 2021 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $82,875 BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $1,235,000 5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT: Alison Cormack, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A) MUST INCLUDE:  SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED  SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE  MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)  REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A I hereby authorize the performance of the work described in this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ Attachment A DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES Introduction Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements: • Services and Deliverables To Be Provided • Schedule of Performance • Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable) • Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount) Services & Deliverables Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting a Nonprofit Agreements Risk Management Review involves three (3) primary steps: • Step 1: Audit Planning • Step 2: Process and Control Review • Step 3: Reporting Step 1 – Audit Planning This step consists of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall audit objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the audit scope, objectives, audit process, and timing between stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include: • Gather information to understand the environment under review o Understand the organizational structure and objectives o Review the City code, regulations, and other standards and expectations o Review prior audit results, as applicable o Review additional documentation and conduct interviews as necessary • Assess the audit risk • Write an audit planning memo and audit program o Refine audit objectives and scope o Identify the audit procedures to be performed and the evidence to be obtained and examined • Announce the initiation of the audit and conduct kick-off meeting with key stakeholders o Discuss audit objectives, scope, audit process, timing, resources, and expectations o Discuss documentation and interview requests for the audit Step 2 – Process and Control Review This step involves executing the procedures in the audit program to gather information, interview individuals, and analyze the data and information to obtain sufficient evidence to address the audit objectives. The preliminary audit objective is to: (1) Determine whether adequate controls are in place and working effectively to ensure that nonprofit organizations are properly selected and monitored for successful partnership; (2) Assess the selection and monitoring process against the best practices. Procedures include: • Interview the appropriate individuals to understand the process, the information system used, and internal controls related to selection and approval of nonprofit organizations, contracting process, and performance monitoring activities • Review policies and procedures as well as the regulations and standards to identify the criteria to be used for evaluation of control design and effectiveness • Review the documents (such as contracts and related procurement files, payments, and performance reviews) for the selected nonprofit organizations • Compare the process and controls against best practices Step 3 – Reporting In Step 3, the project team will perform tasks necessary to finalize audit working papers, prepare and review a draft report with the stakeholders, and submit a final audit report. Tasks include: • Develop findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence gathered • Validate findings with the appropriate individuals and discuss the root cause of the identified findings • Complete supervisory review of working papers and a draft audit report • Distribute a draft audit report and conduct a closing meeting with key stakeholders o Discuss the audit results, finings, conclusions, and recommendations o Discuss management responses • Obtain written management responses and finalize a report • Review report with members of City Council and/or the appropriate Council Committee • Present the final report to the City Council and/or appropriate Council Committee Deliverables: The following deliverable will be prepared as part of this engagement: • Audit Report Schedule of Performance Anticipated Start Date: May 1, 2021 Anticipated End Date: December 31, 2021 Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $82,875. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 400 total project hours, of which 20 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor. Reimbursable Expenses If circumstances allow, Baker Tilly anticipates planning one on-site fieldwork week. Given this possibility, Baker Tilly could incur reimbursable expenses for this Task. The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $5,200. The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses (for three team members): • Round-trip Airfare – $1,500 • Rental Car - $400 • Hotel accommodation - $2,500 (6 nights) • Food and incidentals – $800 Note that, if current restrictions associated with COVID-19 continue, an on-site visit may not be possible. The project team will work with the City to consider circumstances at the time. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12158) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of State COPS Funds Title: Approval of the Acceptance and Appropriation of State of California Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds and Approval of a Budget Amendment (Requires 2/3 Approval) in the Sup plemental Law Enforcement Services Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the acceptance and expenditure of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds from the State of California; and 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Appropriation Ordinance (requires 2/3 approval) for the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) by: a. Increasing the estimate for Revenue from the State of California by $105,160; and, b. Increasing the Police Department Facilities and Equipment expense appropriation by $105,160. Background Since 1997, the California State Budget Act has included allocations to counties and cities for the COPS program. This funding is intended to fill the need for additio nal resources at the local level to ensure public safety. Under the provisions of Government Code Section 30061, a percentage of the funds are allocated to counties and cities, based upon population, for law enforcement services. Funds must supplement existing services and are prohibited from supplanting (replacing) state, local, or funds that otherwise would be made available, for the purposes of this grant, as applicable. Each city is also required to deposit the funds into a separate fund so that these funds are not intermingled with General Fund dollars. The funds must be used to benefit front-line law enforcement efforts. Previous uses of COPS funds have included re-starting the Community Service Officer (CSO) program, purchasing an E-Citation system, rifle magnifiers and range safety equipment and upgrades to the patrol vehicle and traffic motorcycle programs, upgraded tools and technology. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion Staff proposes to use the COPS funds in the following manner: Police Officer Training ($65,000) Training police officers is divided between mandatory and non-mandatory training. Mandatory training is established by the state board and currently is approximately 12 hours a year , per officer, in subjects like firearms, arrest control and driving. Mandatory training is funded through the general fund. Non-mandatory training funding is for categories such as critical incident training (CIT), de-escalation tactics, interpersonal skills and implicit bias. This funding will support training in these areas. Officer Wellness ($20,000) Police Officers experience stress in a number of ways due to the extreme emotional and physical demands of the profession, irregular shift work, and regular exposure to vicarious trauma. As a result, officers' relationships with their friends, families, agencies and the public they serve can be adversely affected. Funding of this category will enable the department to add resources, including testing and therapies, during a difficult period in law enforcement. Communication Equipment ($20,000) The purchase of the front-line communication technology to improve organizational communication. Resource Impact The Police Department has received funds each year under this program since its inception in 1998. Annual allocations have averaged approximately $100,000 over the last few years. The City received the official notice from the California Department of Finance in September 2020 that the City's COPS allocation for Fiscal Year 2021 is $105,160. Revenues of $105,160 are recommended to be recognized in the City's Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund. A total of $105,160 of expenditures are anticipated as described previously in the memorandum, which will be funded by the COPS grant funding appropriated in FY 2021 ($105,160). There will be no impact to the General Fund as ongoing maintenance costs for the items purchased by the SLESF will be absorbed in the Department 's existing non-salary budget. Policy Implications Expenditures of funds associated with COPS funds are consistent with City Policy. Environmental Assessment Acceptance of COPS funding and the proposed expenditures for public safety equipment are not projects subject to CEQA requirements. 1 of 1 TO: HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 10, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5-ACCEPTANCE OF STATE APPROPRIATION OF COPS FUNDS AND BUDGET AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 248 In advance of the City Council’s consideration of Item 5 on the May 10, 2021, City Council Agenda titled “Approval of the Acceptance and Appropriation of State of California Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds and Approval of a Budget Amendment (Requires 2/3 Approval) in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund”, staff wanted to provide some additional information for the last discussion item titled “Communication Equipment” for $20,000. The recent changes implemented to ensure protection of personally identifiable information has altered the availability of the general public ability to monitor radio communications. The Department is planning to use these funds to explore the potenti al development of capabilities that would allow the relaying of real-time police calls while maintaining compliance with the current regulations. At minimum, this would potentially be allowed to authorized users, or at best, to the general public in a met hod acceptable to regulators. _______________________ _________________________ Robert A. Jonsen Ed Shikada Chief of Police City Manager 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 06F70D5E-1742-4D43-A1EE-2DC394581EFE City of Palo Alto (ID # 12205) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Foothills Nature Preserve: Vehicle Fees, Removal of Nine BBQ Pits, and Code Cleanup Title: Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff Recommend the City Council: 1) Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule to Include Foothills Nature Preserve Daily Vehicle Entrance Fees Based on Passenger Capacity and Free Vehicle Entrance for Certain Students and on Certain Days; 2) Prohibit the use of Certain Entrances to Foothills by Horse and Bicycle Users; and 3) Direct Staff to Permanently Remove Nine Hillside Barbecues at Foothills to Improve Fire Safety From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council: A. Adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) to: 1. Amend the FY 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule to include several new vehicle entry fees and discounts for Foothills Nature Preserve, including new fees for medium and large vehicles/buses, free entry on six specified days per year, free passes to be distributed at libraries; and free entry for student field trips and all fourth-grade students; and 2. Prohibit bicycles and horses from using the Gate D and Page Mill Trail entrances to Foothills Nature Preserve (this provision was inadvertently removed in a previous ordinance cleanup in 2020). B. Direct staff to permanently remove the nine hillside BBQs at Foothills Nature Preserve to help improve fire safety. This includes all BBQs at Pine Gulch, Encinal, Shady Cove, and Lakeside picnic areas. Background On November 2, 2020, City Council passed the following motion regarding Foothills Nature Preserve (Minutes): A. Open Foothills Park to the general public by removing limits on non-residents, City of Palo Alto Page 2 while maintaining the maximum capacity of 1,000 persons and providing residents first access to reservations for all facilities. B. Amend or delete outdated and duplicative code language. C. For the first 90 days, temporarily limit the capacity to 750 people at any one time. D. Return to Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission with proposals for fee, capacity, and park management/environmental integrity studies; and E. Direct staff to use the renaming process to consider renaming Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve. Foothills Nature Preserve opened to the general public on December 17, 2020. On January 26, 2021 (Minutes), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) discussed several items related to Foothills Nature Preserve that were referred to them by City Council (fees, discounts, rules, and enforcement policies). Included in this discussion was a concern that the pending ordinance and emergency ordinance scheduled for February 1, 2021 City Council Consent Calendar (attached to Agenda Item Number 3) did not include an option for an annual pass, which could limit frequent park users from visiting the park if they must pay a daily entrance fee each time they visit. The PRC also discussed the limitation on number of visitors allowed in the park at one time, which the emergency ordinance limited to 400 people, not to exceed a maximum of 500 people. On February 1, 2021 (Minutes), City Council approved the ordinance and emergency ordinance for a $6 vehicle entry fee and visitor limit of 400 people at one time, not to exceed 500 people for Foothills Nature Preserve. On February 11, 2021, the PRC held a special meeting to discuss an annual pass option and the visitor capacity limit for Foothills Nature Preserve (Minutes). On February 22 (Staff Report and Minutes), City Council adopted an ordinance to change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve, established an annual pass including several discounts and fee waivers for entry to Foothills Nature Preserve, adjusted the visitor limit to Foothills Nature Preserve, and identified groups (e.g. visitors with reservations in Towle Campground) who do not count toward the visitor limit. Staff began collecting vehicle entrance fees for weekends and holidays beginning Saturday, February 27, 2021. On February 23, 2021 (Minutes), the PRC reviewed and discussed a range of Foothills Nature Preserve Daily/Annual Entrance Fee and Visitor Limit policy considerations. This included some policy guidelines that had been recently adopted by City C ouncil but had not previously been commented on by the PRC. The PRC agreed to support some guidelines, while referring additional details back to the Ad Hoc Committee for additional assessment and follow-up recommendation. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 3 On March 23, 2021 (Staff Report and Minutes), the PRC discussed several Foothills Nature Preserve policies and voted unanimously (6-0, 1 absent) to recommend that Council adopt an ordinance to: A. Amend the FY 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule to include: 1. Foothills Nature Preserve daily vehicle entrance fee based on passenger capacity, as follows: a. $6 for vehicles with up to 9 passenger capacity (Note: This is the existing fee with discounts/free entry as already adopted) b. $30 for vehicles with 10-24 passenger capacity (small buses). No discounts or free entry other than student groups with a reservation or part of a City permitted event. c. $60 for vehicles with 25+ passenger capacity (large buses) only with a valid permit, obtained in advance: i. Gathering Permit (required for groups of 25+), available on weekdays only. ii. Oak Grove Group Picnic Area Permit, available every day iii. No discounts or free entry other than student groups with a reservation or part of a City permitted event. 2. Free vehicle (9-person capacity or fewer) entrance to Foothills Nature Preserve on the following days, subject to visitor capacity limits: a. First Saturday in December b. Third Monday in January (Martin Luther King Jr. Day) c. First Tuesday in March d. Last Wednesday in April e. Third Thursday in June f. First Friday in October 3. Free vehicle entrance to Foothills Nature Preserve on weekdays for student groups (Kindergarten through 12th grade) with a valid Student Field Trip Reservation. 4. Up to 10 free vehicle entrance passes to Foothills Nature Preserve per day: a. Passes are available from designated Palo Alto City Libraries (no library card is required) b. Passes are valid for one specific date for one passenger vehicle (9- person capacity or fewer) c. Entry is subject to visitor capacity limits. 5. Free Foothills Nature Preserve Annual Pass for 4th Grade Students, as follows: a. Passes are available to U.S. 4th grade students (or home school equivalent), beginning each August. b. Passes are valid for free entry of one passenger vehicle (9-person capacity or fewer) if the 4th grader is present in the vehicle when entering, and passes are not transferrable. City of Palo Alto Page 4 c. Passes are valid for one school year, ending on August 31st, following the student’s 4th grade year. d. Passes must be procured in advance. B. Direct staff to: 1. Permanently remove the 9 hillside BBQs at Foothills Nature Preserve to help improve fire safety. This includes all BBQs at Pine Gulch, Encinal, Shady Cove, and Lakeside picnic areas. C. The Parks and Recreation Commission confirms its support for the following interim policies that have already been adopted either explicitly or implicitly: 1. $6 daily entrance fee for vehicles with up to 9 passenger capacity 2. The daily fee is specifically a “vehicle entrance fee”, and not a “parking fee”. 3. Free daily entry for vehicles with a disabled person license plate or placard. 4. Pedestrians and bicyclists entering Foothills Nature Preserve main entrance are not counted toward the visitor capacity limit or charged an entrance fee. D. The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the following policies and does not currently recommend making changes, but recommends that investigation and further review continue during calendar year 2021 (along with consideration of other existing policies): 1. Visitor Reservation System 2. Dog Policy 3. Daily Entry Fee Waivers E. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that Council direct the Commission and staff to review the following Parks & Open Space policies, and return to Council with considerations: 1. Photography and Videography Policy 2. Special Event Permits (weddings, etc.) 3. Gathering Permits for Groups 25+ (picnic groups, hiking groups, docent- led walks, etc.) 4. Groups of 24 or Fewer (no reservation or permit required) 5. Special Request Interpretive Programs (canoe rentals, ranger talks, Campfires, etc.) F. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that Council prioritize funding to: 1. Fill the vacant Foothills Nature Preserve Supervising Ranger position 2. Implement a capital project to create a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Foothills Nature Preserve Among the items above, this staff report deals with only sections A (Foothills entry fees) and B (Hillside BBQ pits). The other items will be addressed in the PRC’s workplan for City of Palo Alto Page 5 the coming year or as otherwise appropriate. The following provides a summary and description of the Commission’s recommendations. New Vehicle Entry Fee Categories, Free Days, Free Passes at Libraries, and Student Access • Large Vehicles (over 9-person capacity) • Free Days • Free Vehicle Entry for Student Groups with a Reservation • Free passes available at Palo Alto City Libraries • Free Foothills Nature Preserve Annual Pass for 4th Grade Students • Removal of the 9 Hillside BBQs for Fire Safety Large Vehicles (over 9-person capacity) The PRC recommends that the fee structure for larger vehicles should be modeled on the California State Parks fees, which include $30 for vehicles with 10 -24 passenger capacity (small buses) and $60 for vehicles with 25+ passenger capacity (large buses). Due to concerns of pedestrian and bicyclist safety and the parking and space limitatio ns in the preserve, large buses would only be allowed entry on weekdays with a valid permit, obtained in advance. No discounted fees or free entry would be allowed to small or large buses, unless affiliated with a student group with a Student Field Trip Reservation. Free Days The PRC recommends the following as free vehicle entry days: 1. First Saturday in December 2. Third Monday in January (MLK Day) 3. First Tuesday in March 4. Last Wednesday in April 5. Third Thursday in June 6. First Friday in October The free days are loosely modeled on the National Park Free Park Days, which include six free days. These six days provide free access to passenger vehicles (nine-person capacity or fewer) on different days of the week, including one holiday. The days are spread out throughout the year to avoid some of the busier times of the summer so that people are less likely to find the preserve at capacity when they visit. Free Vehicle Entry for Student Groups with a Reservation The PRC recommends that Kindergarten through 12th grade student groups with a valid Student Field Trip Reservation be allowed free entry into Foothills Nature Preserve. The Ad Hoc Committee noted that supporting student access to nature is something the PRC strongly supports. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Free passes available at Palo Alto City Libraries The PRC recommends that up to 10 free passenger vehicle entrance passes to Foothills Nature Preserve per day be made available from designated Palo Alto City Libraries. No library card is required for pick up of the passes. The passes are valid for one vehicle (9-person capacity or fewer) on one specific date and would not need to be returned to the library. Entry with the library pass is subject to visitor capacity, just like an annual pass. Free Foothills Nature Preserve Annual Pass for 4th Grade Students The National Parks has a program called “Every Kid Outdoors”, which is an initiative to get all 4th graders and their families to experience nature throughout the school year. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends a similar initiative for Foothills Nature Preserve, which would help engage and create our next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates. Annual passes would be free for U.S. 4th grade (or home school equivalent) students. Passes are valid for one vehicle (9-person capacity or fewer) if the 4th grader is present in the vehicle when entering and passes are not transferrable. Passes are valid for one school year, ending on August 31st, following the student’s 4th grade year. Passes must be procured in advance of visiting the preserve. Removal of Nine Hillside BBQs for Fire Safety The PRC recommends removing the nine hillside BBQs at Foothills Nature Preserve to help improve fire safety in the preserve (Foothills Park BBQ Analysis). There are 39 BBQs in the preserve. Nine of the BBQs are located on hillsides. While the surrounding vegetation is cleared for fire safety, there is leaf litter and duff on the ground around the BBQs and thick vegetation and trees a short distance away. The picnic tables adjacent to these hillside BBQs will remain. Given how seldomly the BBQs on the hillsides are used, removing them from these areas will have a negligible impact on the visitor experience and make Foothills safer from wildfires. Reinstatement of the Prohibition of Horses and Bicycles from Using Gate D and the Page Mill Trail Entrances to Foothills Nature Preserve Staff recommend reinstating the City’s previous prohibition on horses and bicycles using Gate D and the Page Mill Trail entrances to Foothills Nature Preserve. Horses and bicycles have been prohibited from using these entrances since at least 2005 (See Ordinance 4865). However, staff recently identified that this provision was inadvertently removed in a previous code amendment and clean-up in 2020. The ordinance also clarifies the specific entrance locations and removes duplicative language without making any substantive changes. Timeline If City Council approves the attached ordinance, this would be the first reading of the ordinance, and it would become effective 31 days after the second reading. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Resource Impact The fee changes recommended in this report are estimated to result in a net increase of $7,000 in annual revenue, although revenue impacts are challenging to predict due to uncertainty about future visitation trends and the number of free entrance options. If City Council adopts the recommended large vehicle fees and free entry options, staff will bring forward appropriate budgetary action to recognize this revenue estimate adjustment during the annual budget process. Cost recovery levels would align with a Low (0 to 30%) cost recovery level group per the City’s User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (Policy 1-57). The approximate cost to maintain Foothills Nature Preserve (staff, vehicles, equipment, supplies and materials, utilities, and maintenance contracts) is $1,530,000. Staff will evaluate the revenue collected in FY 2021 and once more data is available, additional revenue and expense adjustments may be brought forward to Council as part of future budget cycles. Stakeholder Engagement • On February 11, 2021, the PRC held a special meeting to discuss an annual pass option and the visitor capacity limit for Foothills Nature Preserve (Minutes). • On February 22, 2021 City Council adopted an ordinance to change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve, established an annual pass including several discounts and fee waivers for entry to Foothills Nature Preserve, adjusted the visitor limit to Foothills Nature Preserve, and identified groups (e.g. visitors with reservations in Towle Campground) who do not count toward the visitor limit (Minutes). • On February 23, the PRC reviewed and discussed a range of Foothills Nature Preserve policy considerations. • On March 23, the PRC discussed and passed a recommendation to City Council regarding Foothills Nature Preserve policies. Environmental Review The City, acting as the lead agency, finds the actions exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15323 (Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings). Other than the removal of the nine hillside BBQs, there are no physical changes or improvements to Foothills Nature Preserve proposed as part of this project. Attachments: • Attachment A – Ordinance to Approve New Vehicle Entry Fees for Foothills Nature Preserve and Reinstate the Prohibition of Horses and Bicycles from Using Two Ent rances to Foothills *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0227_20210428_ts24 Ordinance No. ___ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.150(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reinstate Preexisting Restrictions on Horses and Bicycles Using Certain Entrances to Foothills Nature Preserve; and Amending the Fiscal Year 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule to Add New Vehicle Entry Fee Categories and Free Passes for Foothills Nature Preserve. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The City’s Foothills Nature Preserve is reserved for park, playground, recreation, or conservation purposes by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 22.08.090 et seq.; B. The preexisting restrictions for bicycles and horses at Gate D and the Page Mill Trail entrances to Foothills Nature Preserve were inadvertently left out when PAMC section 22.04.150 was amended and cleaned up in 2020, and the City Council desires to reinstate this provision; C. Based on recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council desires to add new vehicle categories and fees for entry to Foothills Nature Preserve, to offer free entry days on six specific days, and offer free passes at libraries, free vehicle entrance on weekdays for student groups (Kindergarten through 12th grade) with a valid Student Field Trip Reservation, and to fourth grade students. SECTION 2. Subsection (b) of section 22.04.150 (Foothills Nature Preserve) of Chapter 22.04 (Parks and Recreation Building Use and Regulations) of Title 22 (Parks) is hereby amended as follows (new text in underline, deleted text in strikethrough): (b) No person shall enter or exit Foothills Nature Preserve except at: (1) The main gate on Page Mill Road (Gate 1); (2) Designated entry and exit locations on the park boundaries shared with the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve (Gate D) and the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve (Page Mill Trail). These entry and exit locations shall not be used by bicycles or horses; or (3) The Bay‐To‐Foothills Ridge trails; or (4) (3) As authorized by the director. Violations of this subsection shall be a misdemeanor. SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto amends the Fiscal Year 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule by adopting the new fees for Foothills Nature Preserve as set forth in Exhibit “A” of this ordinance and incorporated here by reference. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0227_20210428_ts24 The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The fees in this Ordinance are for voluntary entrance and/or use of government property. Pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section I(e)(4) of the California Constitution, these fees are not a tax. SECTION 6. The Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15323 (Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings). SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0227_20210428_ts24 Attachment A Fiscal Year 2021 Municipal Fee Schedule Community Services Fees Open Space, Parks, & Golf Park Activities – Foothills Nature Preserve (formerly Foothills Park) Foothills Nature Preserve – daily entry for vehicles that have up to 9 person capacity $6 per vehicle per day; Free for City‐designated preserve volunteers, active military, veterans, students with ID who are driving, and vehicles with a valid disabled person parking placard or license plate. Free on the following days: First Saturday in December Third Monday in January (MLK Day) First Tuesday in March Last Wednesday in April Third Thursday in June First Friday in October Foothills Nature Preserve – daily entry for vehicles that have 10‐24 person capacity $30 per vehicle per day Foothills Nature Preserve – daily entry for vehicles that have 25 person or more capacity (Only available in conjunction with group permit) $60 per vehicle per day Foothills Nature Preserve – annual pass for vehicles with a capacity of up to 9 persons $65 per year for non‐residents; $50 per year for Palo Alto residents and City employees; 25% discount for seniors (65+); Free for active military, veterans, and low‐ income visitors; (Discount/free pass can be applied to non‐ resident and resident pass). Foothills Nature Preserve – weekday entry for vehicles in conjunction with a City‐ permitted student field trip Free Foothills Nature Preserve – library free pass program Free regular vehicle (up to 9 person capacity) entry with pass. Passes available at Palo Alto libraries, subject to conditions on pass, including any date restrictions. Up to 10 *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0227_20210428_ts24 passes may be distributed for free admission for any given day. Foothills Nature Preserve – fourth grade annual pass program Free for fourth grade students. Pass valid for one year, beginning in August of the year the student begins fourth grade and ending the following August 31. Pass allows entry of one regular vehicle (up to 9 person capacity) when the fourth grader is present. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12241) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution to Extend Street Closure Authority and Pilot Parklet Program Title: Adoption of a Resolution to Extend the Temporary Closures of Portions of California Avenue and University Avenue and Certain Downtown Streets Intersecting Univers ity Avenue, and Extending the Pilot Parklet Program as First Authorized by Resolution Number 9099 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation As directed by Council on April 19, 2021, staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution to extend the City Manager’s authority to close portions of University Avenue, California Avenue, and certain intersecting streets for the Uplift Local Streets Program until October 31, 2021; and to extend the pilot parklet program until December 31, 2021. Background and Discussion On April 19, 2021, the City Council directed staff to return with a resolution extending the Uplift Local Streets program and the pilot parklet program (Staff Report #12041). The motion as it appears in the draft minutes is: A. Extend the City Manager’s authority to close portions of University Avenue and certain intersecting streets, and to close portions of California Avenue and certain intersecting streets as part of Uplift Local to October 31, 2021; i. Consider providing performance space; B. Direct staff to return with a Resolution extending temporary parklets to December 31, 2021; C. Develop a permanent parklet program with the input of the Architectural Review Board D. Direct staff to review and pursue additional measures to support businesses negatively impacted by the current program; City of Palo Alto Page 2 E. Request staff to coordinate impacts of construction projects in the California Avenue and Downtown areas with street closures, and continue communicating with residents and businesses. Staff have updated the resolution accordingly and recommend adopting the resolution as attached. The attached resolution references the state of emergency, with the City of Palo Alto’s emergency linked to the State’s Declaration of Emergency. When the State ends the emergency, adjustments may be needed and some programs may not be able to continue in their current form. The situation continues to evolve and staff will respond accordingly. Environmental Review This resolution is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20180(b)(4) (specific actions necessary to mitigate or prevent an emergency) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution to Extend the Temporary Closures of Portions of California Ave and University Ave and Certain Downtown St Intersecting University Ave and Extending the Pilot Parklet Program (PDF) *NOT YET APPROVED* 0226_20210422_ts24 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating Resolution No. 9933 to Extend the Temporary Closures of Portions of California Avenue and University Avenue and Certain Downtown Streets Intersecting University Avenue Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21101 and to Extend the Effective Date of Resolution No. 9909 to Extend the Pilot Parklet Program, All Pursuant to the Local Emergency Declaration, to Facilitate Outdoor Dining, Retail, and Other Uses R E C I T A L S A. On June 23, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9909 approving the temporary closure of portions of California Avenue, University Avenue and certain other Downtown streets through Labor Day 2020 to allow for outdoor dining and retail on those streets, consistent with the Santa Clara County Public Health Order in effect. The street closures were part of a Summer Streets Program initiated by the City to accommodate outdoor uses at a time when indoor dining remained prohibited in the County and the growing scientific evidence showed a lower risk of COVID-19 transmission outdoors compared to indoors. At that time, the City anticipated that indoor dining would be allowed to resume in the County, as had been allowed in neighboring counties, and sought to address the immediate needs of the community including residents, workers and businesses that had been severely impacted by loss of business activity and revenue. B. Through Resolution No. 9909 the Council also approved a temporary pilot parklet program to allow parklets to be installed in on-street parking spaces on an expedited and temporary basis to provide more space for outdoor dining. C. On July 2, 2020, the County Public Health Officer issued a revised Shelter in Place Order, to become effective on July 13, 2020, that allowed certain additional activities to resume if specified strict across-the-board risk reduction measures were followed. The objective was to allow activities that were already allowed in surrounding jurisdictions, which had reopened more quickly than Santa Clara County, so long as the prescribed risk reduction measures were followed. D. On July 7, 2020, the State approved Santa Clara County’s requested variance that allowed the revised Shelter in Place Order to go into effect on July 13, 2020. E. However, with the number of COVID-19 cases dramatically increasing again in the State, on July 13, 2020, the Governor announced a sweeping roll back of the reopening that the State had allowed. The State mandated that all counties close certain indoor operations, including in-restaurant dining. For counties on the State’s monitoring list for 3 consecutive days (and thus placed on the State “watchlist”), the State required the closure of additional industries or activities unless they could be modified to operate outside or by pick-up; these included gyms *NOT YET APPROVED* 0226_20210422_ts24 2 and fitness centers, places of worship and cultural ceremonies, personal care services, hair salons and barbershops, and shopping malls. F. Through the summer, the United States including “hot spots” like California continued to hit new highs in confirmed cases and deaths, as the loosening of shelter-in-place restrictions had precipitated a resurgence of the virus in many states, including California. As of July 27, 2020, the State was averaging nearly 10,000 new COVID-19 cases per day, and hospitals and their intensive care units were filling up. Thirty-seven counties representing 93% of the State’s population were on the State’s watchlist, and California had 460,550 confirmed cases of COVID-19, resulting in 8,445 deaths. G. On August 10, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9911, which amended Resolution 9909, to extend until December 31, 2020 the temporary closure of portions of California Avenue and University Avenue and certain intersecting streets to allow for continued use of these areas in the heart of the City’s commercial districts to allow for outdoor dining and potentially other activities as may be allowed by State and County Public Health Orders. Resolution No. 9911 also extended the temporary parklet program to September 7, 2021. H. Since August 2020, the County Public Health Officer issued a Risk Reduction Order on October 5, 2020, which coincided with the County moving into the orange tier under the State’s “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” tiered restriction system. I. However, on November 16, 2020, the State moved Santa Clara County two steps from the orange/moderate tier to the purple/widespread tier (the highest risk tier) due to a sharp increase in COVID-19 cases statewide. On that date, the County reported 388 new cases of COVID-19, bringing the cumulative total to 28,686. As of November 17, 2020, California reported 1,029,235 confirmed cases of COVID-19, resulting in 18,263 deaths, and 94.1% of the State’s population was now in the purple tier (according to the Governor’s Office). The State’s rules for the purple/widespread tier mandate that restaurants and gyms cannot have indoor service and retail stores may only have 25% capacity indoors. J. On December 14, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution 9933, which amended Resolution 9099, to extend until May 31, 2021 the temporary closure of portions of California Avenue and University Avenue and certain intersecting streets to allow for continued use of these areas in the heart of the City’s commercial districts to allow for outdoor dining and potentially other activities as may be allowed by State and County Public Health Orders. K. On March 3, 2021, the State moved Santa Clara County one step down from the purple/widespread tier to the red/substantial tier. As of March 16, 2021, the County reported a cumulative total of 112,909 COVID cases and 1,867 deaths. L. In the midst of this continued COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Palo Alto has continued to take measured steps to allow businesses to resume activities in outdoor settings. As a key part of those efforts, the Uplift Local Program (formerly known as the Summer Streets *NOT YET APPROVED* 0226_20210422_ts24 3 Program) has created an attractive pedestrian environment on the closed streets resulting in increased foot traffic. A number of restaurants have taken advantage of the program and created outdoor seating in the streets, on sidewalks, and on parklets. Residents and visitors who have come to University Avenue and California Avenue have expressed delight and reported having a highly enjoyable experience. M. The current pace of re-opening across the State and the high likelihood that the pandemic will continue into 2021 increase the chances that outdoor dining is a key tool to reduce the risk from the spread of COVID-19 while allowing restaurants to continue some operations. Even if indoor dining is allowed, patrons may be unwilling to participate, or the opportunity may be rescinded if the County exceeds the COVID indicator thresholds issued by the State. N. The Council desires to extend the street closures through October 31, 2021 to allow for the continued use of the main thoroughfares in the heart of its commercial districts for outdoor dining, and potentially other activities as may be allowed by the State and County Public Health Orders. O. The Council also desires to extend the temporary Pilot Parklet Program to December 31, 2021 as first authorized in Resolution 9099 and extended by subsequent resolutions. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The Council hereby adopts the above Recitals as findings of the Council. SECTION 2. Extension of Temporary Street Closures. The Temporary Street Closures approved and authorized in Section 2 (Temporary Street Closures) of Resolution No. 9909 and extended by Resolutions 9911 and 9933 are hereby extended through October 31, 2021. Section 2 of Resolution No. 9909 is amended to read as follows: Temporary Street Closures A. The following streets are hereby closed to any and all vehicular traffic through October 31, 2021, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 21101(e), to facilitate the temporary uses of outdoor dining, retail, and other permitted uses: 1. California Avenue from Birch Street to El Camino Real; and 2. University Avenue from High Street to Cowper Street, with continued vehicular access across University Avenue at each of the intersecting streets. *NOT YET APPROVED* 0226_20210422_ts24 4 B. The City Manager is authorized to determine the days, hours and duration of the temporary street closure(s) within the period specified in Section A, with reasonable notice provided, and whether exceptions to the closure shall be made for municipal purposes. SECTION 3. Sunset of Resolution No. 9909. Resolution No. 9909 shall remain in effect until December 31, 2021 unless rescinded or extended by resolution or ordinance of the City Council. SECTION 4. Supersedes Resolutions 9911 and 9933. This Resolution shall supersede Resolutions No. 9911 and 9933. Should any conflict arise between this Resolution and Resolutions No. 9911 and 9933, this Resolution shall control. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this Resolution is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20180(b)(4) (specific actions necessary to mitigate or prevent an emergency) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). // // // // // // // // // // // // *NOT YET APPROVED* 0226_20210422_ts24 5 SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Public Works _____________________________ Chief Transportation Official _____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 12116) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Housing Element Kick Off Meeting (PTC/CC) Title: Joint City Council/Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Followed by Council Action to Kick Off the Housing Element Update, and Provide City Council Endorsement of the City's Approac h to Fulfill State Housing Element Certification Requirements and Approval From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Conduct a joint meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to receive a presentation and discuss the 2023 -31 Housing Element Update. 2. Close the joint meeting and accept, or modify as appropriate, the overall project schedule and approach, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the Ho using Element Working Group, Council Ad Hoc Committee and PTC, as detailed in this report. Executive Summary: The joint meeting serves two purposes. First, this meeting serves as the Housing Element Update “kick-off” meeting as the City launches an intensive 20-month work plan. It will provide the City Council and PTC information about the Housing Element. The City’s consultant, Rincon Consultants, will provide an overview of the Housing Element, with a focus on state requirements and will provide a project schedule. Second the meeting serves as an opportunity for the community to learn about the Housing Element Update process. The meeting will help inform the community about Housing Element Update activities and how they can participate in the process. The City is kicking off a series of community engagement activities, including an interactive mapping tools and an online survey. City of Palo Alto Page 2 California State law requires each jurisdiction to update its Housing Element and have it certified by the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) department every eight years. The City’s current Housing Element is for the 2015-23 period. By January 2023, the City must have a certified Housing Element. Council is requested to hold the joint meeting and then formally end orse the proposed process of the 2023-31 Housing Element update, including the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in preparing the update, the project approach, and general project schedule. Staff is interested in establishing basic expectations to guide the work effort and individuals participating. Background: Since 1969, the State has required all local jurisdictions to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. Local jurisdictions meet this requirement by a dopting housing elements as part of their “general plan” or in the City’s case, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan serves as the City’s "blueprint" for how the City will grow and develop. The Housing Element is one of the eight mandated elements1 in the Comprehensive Plan and the only element that requires certification by the State. The Housing Element covers a period of eight years. The City’s current Housing Element lasts through the year 2023. California’s housing-element law requires that local governments adopt plans and regulatory systems providing opportunities for housing development. A housing supportive regulatory environment helps the private housing market to address housing needs of Californians. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and in particular, local housing elements. Housing Element Content There are several requirements that must be met in order for a Housing Element to be certified by the State; the main requirements are summarized below: 1. Housing Needs Housing-element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). 1 State law mandates inclusion of eight elements in general plans: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, housing, and most recently, environmental justice. Jurisdictions may elect to include additional elements. City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Site Inventory and Analysis Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development to accommodate its RHNA. 3. Constraints The housing element must identify and analyze potenti al and actual governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. 4. Program Requirements The City must identify specific programs in its housing element that will allow it to implement the stated policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives. Programs must include specific action steps the City will take as part of this implementation. 5. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing As of January 1, 2019, all housing elements must include a program that promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities throughout the community. Under state law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregatio n and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board approved the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology and “Final” RHNA Sub -Regional Shares in February 2021. The City has actively commented on ABAG’s RHNA methodology. For more information about RHNA and ABAG’s methodology, please see the January 11, 2021 CMR: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/current-year/2021/id-11866.pdf. ABAG has formally submitted its RHNA methodology and Bay Area housing allocation for review by the state Housing and Community Development department (HCD). Once endorsed by HCD, jurisdictions will have up to 45 days to appeal their allocation, or the allocation of another jurisdiction’s numbers, to ABAG where it is anticipated to be acted upon by the Executive Board or a yet to be determined appeals board. A report has been prepared for May 18, 2021 that provides the Council a separate opportunity to comment on any potential RHNA appeal and provide staff guidance. Recent Staff Progress City of Palo Alto Page 4 Staff is engaged in a variety of efforts to initiate this Housing Element update. Some of the major milestones and activities are provided in Table 1 but there is a significant amount of other support work taking place in the background. TABLE 1: Housing Element Completed Tasks Task Date Issuance of Housing Element Consultant Request for Proposal November 30, 2020 Establishment of Housing Element Working Group February 1, 2021 Selection of Working Group Members April 5, 2021 Selection of Housing Element Consultant April 12, 2021 First Working Group Meeting May 6, 2021 Kick-Off Meeting with CC/PTC May 10, 2021 Preparation for Community Meeting May 15, 2021 Advisory Body Roles The Working Group, Ad Hoc Committee, along with the Planning and Transportation Commission, as advisory bodies to the City Council, all have a role in the preparation and review of the Housing Element Update before final review by the Council. Given that the Housing Element must be certified by January 2023, and with three separate advisory bodies providing input in the update process to the City Council, clear roles and responsibilities are needed for each body in order to efficiently develop the Housing Element update in a timely fashion. In addition, the PTC and Council will need to formally review the Housing Element as part of the update process. Because of the new State requirements, this update will b e much more complex than the previous update. Therefore, providing the PTC and Council sufficient opportunities to review the Housing Element is key in the process. More information is provided later in this report regarding respective roles and responsib ilities. Discussion: As mentioned, a jurisdiction must demonstrate how it will accommodate its RHNA in the Housing Element. A jurisdiction can do so by identifying sites that can accommodate the housing units allocated to the jurisdiction. These sites ar e called “Housing Opportunity Sites.” For Palo Alto, the draft allocation is anticipated to be 6,086 housing units; the City’s Housing Element Update must identify sites to accommodate these homes. For the current Housing Element, the City was able to me et its RHNA requirement by identifying 176 sites, utilizing the following methods: 1. Underutilized sites City of Palo Alto Page 5 The City is essentially built out with very few vacant sites available. The City relied heavily on underutilized sites to meet its current RHNA requirem ent. Approximately 94% (165 of 176 total sites) of the City’s Housing Opportunity Sites from the current Housing Element are on underutilized sites. 2. Previous Element sites Jurisdictions were able to use or transfer their “unused” sites from the previous h ousing element to the current element. Many jurisdictions were able to meet their RHNA through the reuse of previous Element sites. 100% of the current Housing Element sites were also identified in the 2007-14 Housing Element. 3. Use of smaller sites A large number of Housing Opportunity Sites in the current Housing Element are less than half an acre. Approximately 51% (89 of 176 total sites) of the sites are smaller than 0.5 acres with a large percentage of those sites smaller than a third of an acre. In addition to identifying suitable sites, the City was required to include a number of policies and programs that required implementation following state certification. The City reports annually its efforts to implement the Housing Element and other Comprehen sive Plan policies, most recently on February 24, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2021/ptc-2.24-comp-plan.pdf. Recent Housing Element Legislation The aforementioned approaches used for the current Housing Element are referenced becau se the State has recently passed legislation that add more restrictive requirements on each of these approaches. Thus, site selection will be more difficult, as the City determines which sites to include on the inventory of housing sites for the upcoming Housing Element. Below is a summary of the new requirements. AB 1397 (2017) AB 1397 significantly changes eligibility requirements for Housing Opportunity Sites, making the update process more complex. Sites in the inventory must now be both “suitable” an d “available.” Non-vacant sites must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment.” To demonstrate availability, if a local government uses non -vacant sites to accommodate most of its lower income housing need2, as it is in the City’s case, existing uses are presumed impediments. The exception to this is when the City can make substantial findings that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and thereby show 2 An explanation about “lower income housing need”. As part of RHNA, the City must provide housing for the lower income population. The State requires a minimum density on a site to consider it appropriate to accommodate lower income housing. For the City, the State has determined that 20 units per acre be the minimum density for lower income housing. City of Palo Alto Page 6 that the site is available. Therefore, the City must show how the site will become available during the planning period (i.e. expiration of lease, existing redevelopment plans, redevelopment trends, etc.). For illustrative purposes, a vacant site would be an undeveloped and unimproved parcel. A non - vacant site has improvements, for example a parking lot or an older existing building. Unless the City has substantial evidence suggesting that the existing use is a realistic candidate for redevelopment during the Housing Element Update period, the City cannot utilize that parcel as a Housing Opportunity site since it is not available for development. Sites smaller than half-acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered suitable for lower income housing unless the jurisdiction provides examples of “realistic capacity.” The City must demonstrate sites of equivalent size that were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or other supporting evidence. Staff is currently compiling that supportin g evidence of higher density projects developed on sites less than half-acre. Lastly, AB 1397 tightened the conditions for re-using sites that had been listed as a Housing Opportunity site in the previous housing elements. Sites identified in prior housin g elements may only be included in a new element to accommodate the lower income RHNA if they are 1) zoned for a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre; and 2) rezoned to allow by‐right development of projects with at least 20% units affordable to l ower income households. SB 166 (2017) SB 166 adds a “no net loss” provision for Housing Opportunity site inventories. If an approved project on a Housing Opportunity site has fewer units than what was identified in the City’s prior cycle housing element, the jurisdiction must be able to shift those “unmet need” to the remaining sites in the housing element. If the jurisdiction is not able to show that existing sites have adequate capacity for these units, it is required to identify and rezone additional s ites to fully accommodate the unmet need within 180 days. So generally, jurisdictions plan for a certain number of units over its RHNA to create a “surplus” of units for this type of scenario. In the current Housing Element, a surplus of approximately 200 more units over its RHNA was added to the inventory (roughly 10%). For example, if a site included in the City’s current 2015 -23 Housing Element and identified as capable of accommodating 100 units was developed with only 75 units, the City would need to reallocate 25 units to a different site or show that it has a “surplus” to mitigate the deficit of 25 units. AB 686 (2018) AB 686 adds an affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) requirement for housing elements that includes: • A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity. City of Palo Alto Page 7 • An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk. • An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved. • Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging develo pment of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity. These include preservation of existing affordable housing and protecting existing residents from displacement. AB 725 (2020) AB 725 seeks to develop “missing middle housing.” Missing middle housing considers both the form of the housing and cost of renting and/or owning the housing. The form reflects moderate density and scale, aimed at middle income households. AB 725 requires that cities designate sites to meet at least 25% of a jurisdiction's shar e of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing, and at least 25% of a jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing. For these sites, zoning that allows at least four units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing, is required. SB 35 (2017) The provisions of SB 35 are tied to a jurisdiction’s sufficient progress towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. While the law does not change the requirements for the Housing Element or Opportun ity Sites, it does impact jurisdictions where housing development does not make sufficient progress. To encourage greater residential development, SB 35 provides a streamlined, ministerial planning process for those projects in jurisdictions that made insufficient progress towards their RHNA targets. Currently, SB 35 only applies to projects in Palo Alto that include 50% or more affordable units. The application of SB 35 to the City is assessed every 4 years. While the City is on pace to meet its market rate housing targets for the next review period, the next cycle with the greater market rate RHNA numbers will be more challenging for the City to meet without significant changes to the City’s land use and housing policies. Without these changes, staff anticipates the City would be subject to SB 35’s lowest threshold group starting four into the next housing cycle or around the end of 2026. Challenges for Site Selection It is anticipated the City will need to plan for approximately 6,000 housing units in the Housing Element Update. Applying a 10 percent surplus provision to address the no net loss requirement of SB 166 suggests the City will need to plan for approximately 6,600 units. Many of the sites the City might reasonably look toward to satisfy suffi cient housing sites were included in previous housing elements. To the extent applicable, to reuse these sites in the update, the City must be able to demonstrate the sites are: City of Palo Alto Page 8 • Suitable and available / demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the 2023-31 planning period; • Residentially Zoned for more than 20 units per acre; and • Allow by-right development of projects with at least 20% of the units affordable to lower income households. Moreover, many parcels that the City is likely to identify as being suitable for future housing development will likely fall below half an acre or will be greater than 10 acres in size trigg ering AB 1397’s additional requirement to provide evidence of equivalently sized sites being developed in the City. By way of comparison, the current Housing Element identified about 78% of the housing Opportunity sites as being below or above these thresholds that now require further analysis. While AB 686’s AFFH requirements may not directly affect site selection as much as the other requirements, the City must approach the site inventory with an AFFH lens. This will add more complexity to the work for the sixth cycle. Once again, the current cycle’s site inventory illustrates the challenge the City will face in achieving compliance in the upcoming cycle. While Palo Alto is comprised mostly of areas of high opportunity, our site selection must ensure the selected sites do not lead to further segregation or greater disparity in fair housing opportunities. Consequences of Non-Certification The potential consequences for failing to adopt a compliant Housing Element are severe. Litigation may be brought by any interested party (Gov. Code 65587(b)) or the office of the Attorney General (Gov. Code 65585). If a court finds that the ju risdiction’s Housing Element is inadequate, it must include one or more of the following remedies in its order: • Suspension of the jurisdiction’s authority to issue building permits or related permits while permits are outstanding for housing projects; • Suspension of the jurisdiction’s authority to grant zoning changes, variances, and map approvals; • Mandated approval of residential housing projects (Gov. Code 65755). In other words, until the jurisdiction adopts a compliant Housing Element, a c ourt is empowered – and to some extend required – to halt all development activity in the jurisdiction other than permits for housing projects. In addition, recent legislation expanded the authority of the Office of the Attorney General to enforce housing element law. In suits brought by the Office of the Attorney General, a court is required to impose fines on jurisdictions that consistently refuse to adopt a compliant Housing Element. The fines range from a minimum of $10,000 per month, up to $600,000 p er month. If a jurisdiction has not adopted a compliant Housing Element within 18 months following a court order, the court may appoint a receiver to take all governmental actions necessary to bring the jurisdiction’s Housing Element into compliance (Gov. Code 65585). City of Palo Alto Page 9 Roles and Responsibilities Understanding the scale and complexity of this project, it is important that all parties clearly comprehend their part as well as all recognizing the steps needed in the update process. Therefore, staff has outline d the follow areas for Council feedback and approval. These areas include: 1. The roles and responsibilities of each advisory body; 2. A project approach to allow for multiple opportunities for PTC and Council review; and 3. A project timeline to meet the January 2023 deadline. There are three advisory bodies responsible for the review and development of the draft Housing Element during the update process. Each of the advisory bodies will have different roles and responsibilities. The advisory bodies are as follo ws: 1. Housing Element Working Group 2. Council Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee 3. Planning and Transportation Commission Housing Element Working Group The City Council established this Housing Element (Working Group) of community stakeholders to assist the City in the update. Adhering to Brown Act requirements and meeting on a monthly basis, their main responsibility is to make the initial selection of potential housing sites and prepare programs to help spur housing production on those sites. They will also work on other areas of the Housing Element such as reviewing the required Housing Constraints and Needs Analysis chapters. Their work product will be reviewed by the Ad Hoc Committee and the PTC. The Ad Hoc Committee will provide general direction to Working Group and input their draft proposals. The Working Group, based on the Ad Hoc committee input, will prepare formal recommendations to the PTC for their review. PTC will, in turn, make a formal recommendation to the City Council. In addition to their work on the Housing Element document, they will also serve as community liaisons about the Housing Element update to the public. Council Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee The Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee (Ad Hoc Committee) is comprised of three Council members (DuBois, Filseth, Stone). Meeting every other month, they will discuss the Working Group’s work products and provide input. The Working Group will respond to this feedback and refine their work product and direction accordingly. The Ad Hoc Committee does not prepare a formal recommendation to the PTC or Council. The Ad Hoc Committee is intended to provide guidance that reflects the City Council’s policy interests given statutory requirements and constraints, and support efforts to ensure the Housing E lement meets requirements to enable its certification from HCD. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Planning and Transportation Commission Based on the proposed schedule, the PTC will consider site selection and housing programs of the Housing Element as they are developed. Therefore, the PTC will review the Working Group’s formal recommendation, which incorporates feedback from Ad Hoc Committee, and prepare their own recommendation to the Council. City Council The City Council is the ultimate authority for approving the Housing Element Update. The Working Group recommends to PTC that in turn recommends to the City Council. The Council will take up this item formally three times and may make changes to the PTC recommendations. Information reports will be prepared from time to time as nee ded to provide relevant updates. In the event staff receives conflicting information or needs policy guidance on one or more specific issues, staff will schedule a meeting before the City Council as appropriate. Project Schedule The City’s Housing Element must be certified by January 2023. As mentioned, efforts are already underway to establish the basic elements for the update process. These include selection of the consultant, formation of the Housing Element Working Group, and launching of the website. An initial significant action of the Update process will be the selection of housing sites. After completion of the sites selection, the Working Group and staff will focus on the preparation of housing policies and programs. To accommodate the City’s RHNA target, it is anticipated significant amendments to the zoning code and possibly the Comprehensive Plan will be required. Rezoning sites can be a lengthy process that begins with the selection of the sites, followed by associated environmental review, and reviews by the PTC and City Council. The research, coordination, and actions will require intensive staff and community efforts, including public hearings. Site selection will be the first major task of the update process to allow for sufficient time to perform environmental review and any rezoning of sites prior to submittal of the Housing Element for HCD certification. Here are the major milestones for the Housing Element Update: Time Task May 2021 - Working Group starts meeting - Community Meetings July 2021 - PTC update to review site selection work by Working Group January 2022 - Formal PTC review of Site Selection City of Palo Alto Page 11 March 2022 - Formal Council review of Site Selection - Formal PTC review of Housing Programs May 2022 - Formal Council Review of Housing Programs - Public Review of Draft Housing Element - Submit Draft HE for HCD initial review September 2022 - Formal PTC review of Housing Element November 2022 - Council Adoption of Housing Element January 2023 - HCD Certification Typically, the PTC and the Council formally review the Housing Element when the draft Housing Element is ready for adoption. To provide the PTC, Council, and community multiple opportunities to review the Housing Element, staff proposes that both the PTC and the Council do a formal review of Housing Element at the following three stages: a. Approval of Site Selection b. Approval of the Housing Policies and Programs c. Formal adoption of the Housing Element draft With this approach, both the PTC and the Council will have a minimum of three meetings to formally review the Housing Element. This is in addition to any Housing Element updates that staff may provide to the PTC and Council. Public Participation Resources Public participation is a key component to the Housing Element. The City will provide a number of public participation resources to continuously engage the public during the update process. Website The City has launched a new Housing Element update website, www.paloaltohousingelement.com. Some of the key features of the website include: • Housing Element Information and FAQs • A future online survey about site selection • An interactive mapping tool to help assist and inform the community about site selection • Information about other City-wide housing issues • Additional Housing Element resources Additional Community Meetings The following meeting are planned: • Community Kick Off Meeting – May15, 2021, 10 am -12 pm. This will be an interactive meeting where the community can learn and provide inp ut about the Housing Element process. City of Palo Alto Page 12 The City’s consultant and staff will also be engaged with the community in neighborhood meetings and other “pop-up” meetings. The pop-up materials will be prepared by the consultant. Aside from the stakeholders in the Working Group, staff will also reach out to City stakeholders to gain their input. Summary of Key Issues: As staff begins to escalate (launches) its Housing Element update activities, staff is requesting direction from the Council for the following items: 1. Approval of the roles and responsibilites of the Working Group, Council Ad Hoc Committee, and PTC as described in this report and previously summarized in the Housing Element Working Group selection report dated April 5, 2021 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city- manager-reports-cmrs/current-year/2021/id-12030.pdf); and 2. Approval of the proposed schedule that includes separating the review of the of site selection and housing programs to facilate early engagement and affirm project direction from appointed and elected officials. Policy Implications: The Housing Element is a mandated element and requires State certification. Council direction will inform the process on how the City will update its Housing Element and receive public input and participation. The City Council is encouraged to provide an y other direction it determines appropriate to guide this effort. On April 12, 2021, the City Council provided some initial direction for items to include in the Housing Element Update, including the following: 1. Review what affordable multi-family housing would be appropriate in large parcels occupied by faith institutions, depending on their context and current zoning; 2. Review zoning changes and incentives with the Stanford Research and greater Stanford Shopping Center area that would result in significant housing with supporting services; 3. Review whether any industrial zoned areas are appropriate for housing; and 4. Review no allowing high density housing east of Highway 101. Given the high RHNA anticipated for the City, it will be necessary for staff and the community to remain open minded as to where future housing can reasonably be built over the next eight year housing cycle in order to achieve state certification. It is anticipated increased opportunities for housing production will initially focus to the extent reasonable on commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and multifamily zones. Single family and low density zoning City of Palo Alto Page 13 already allow for up to three housing units per lot. The Housing Element Workgroup and Council Ad Hoc would initially consider if there is a need to further changes in these districts. Resource Impact: The active preparation and participation of staff and consultants with the selected Working Group and designated Council Ad Hoc Committee meetings will require dedicated time on a monthly basis for approximately 18 months. Additional costs for the consultant’s time have been included in the Housing Element update project budget. At this time, funding from State Local Early Action Planning (LEAP), SB2 Planning grants, and the General Fund is ava ilable to pay for a significant portion of the Housing Element. Staff is also tracking other funding sources if expenses exceed budgeted estimates. Environmental Review: The current action requested does not represent a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City anticipates that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2017) will be the appropriate level of environmental review for the Housing Element update and associated tasks. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12222) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Peninsula Bikeway Study Title: Peninsula Bikeway Wayfinding, Safety, and Feasibility Study From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Department Recommendation Attached as Attachment A is the Peninsula Bikeway Study 2020 for information only and requires no Council action. Executive Summary In 2016, city managers from Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View came together to form the Managers’ Mobility Partnership (MPP) to address transportation and mobility challenges in the southern Peninsula. Following the implementation of the MPP, the City Managers worked to advance the concept of a Peninsula Bikeway. Using the existing local bikeways, streets, and established bicycle routes/wayfinding, the MPP worked collaborativ ely to designate an interim route that would provide an interim low -stress bicycle connection between Redwood City and Mountain View. Supported by a $25,000 contribution from each city in 2019, the study focuses on assessing the feasibility of implementing a long-term, high-quality, bikeway suitable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. It also provides an assessment and recommendations for addressing safety and wayfinding issues throughout the interim route. The upcoming update of the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan will evaluate the recommendations of this report. Attachments: • Attachment A: Peninsula Bikeway Study Final Draft 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Wayfinding, Safety and Feasibility Study FINAL DRAFT | NOVEMBER 2020 B | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | C PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM City of Mountain View Nate Baird Ria Lo Aruna Bodduna City of Menlo Park Kevin Chen City of Palo Alto Sylvia Star-Lack Joanna Chan Redwood City Jessica Manzi CONSULTANT TEAM Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp Mauricio Hernandez Ryan Booth Molly McNally Lisa Schroer Nickolas Aguilera 'r ,z • t QA, • n 4• elk '✓ mss.'. Ni 114. �• tob • 031 e' 1 c Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | E TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F 1 A REGIONAL BIKEWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 The Need for a Regional Bikeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 2 INTERIM ROUTE - EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Safety at Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Wayfinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 3 LONG-TERM ALIGNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Long-term Route Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Feasibility Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Preferred Long-term Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 4 LONG-TERM VISION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 APPENDIX A- INTERIM ROUTE - EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 9 B - INTERIM ROUTE - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 C - INTERIM ROUTE - WAYFINDING IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 D - PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 F | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARYI STUDY PURPOSE In 2016, city managers from Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View came together to form the Managers’ Mobility Partnership (MPP) to address transportation and mobility challenges in the southern Peninsula. Following the implementation of the MPP, the City Managers worked to advance the concept of a Peninsula Bikeway. Using the existing local bikeways, streets, and established bicycle routes/wayfinding, the MPP worked collaboratively to designate an interim route (see map on pg G that would provide a interim low-stress bicycle connection between Redwood City and Mountain View. This Study focuses on assessing the feasibility of implementing a long-term, high-quality, bikeway suitable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. It also provides an assessment and recommendations for addressing safety and wayfinding issues throughout the interim route. STUDY CORRIDORS Three corridors were selected to be assessed for potential implementation of the long-term vision for the Peninsula Bikeway. These corridors included: •Middlefield Road •Alma Street/ Central Expressway/ Caltrain Right-of- Way / Evelyn Avenue •El Camino Real The three corridors were selected based on a number of characteristics including their i) direct north-south connectivity; ii) their potential to provide a long-distance continuous bicycle facility; iii) where each corridor is located within each jurisdiction; iv) the relatively flat topography for each corridor; and v) eachcorridor’s potential to connect to and from citywide bicycle facilities. PREFERRED LONG-TERM ALIGNMENT Al three corridors evaluated exhibit conditions that make the implementation of a long-term, high-quality bikeway for bicyclists of all ages and abilities beteen Peninsula communities difficult. However, El Camino Real represents the most cohesive, connected, and appropriate opportunity for implementing this vision . This recommendation is based on: •Increased interest and focused investments along the corridor. •Increased interest from regional partners including VTA and Caltrans to implement an enhanced bicycle facility along the corridor. •The corridor' strategic location providing connectivity to activity areas and improved links to existing bicycle networks. •Availability and consistency of the existing right-of- way •The corridor's direct and cohesive route. £101 £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University PA LO ALTO M E N LO PA R K MO U N TAIN V I E W RE DWO O D C IT Y PE NIN S ULA BIKEWAY ROU TE Peninsula B ikeway Ro utes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - M iddlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Interim Route Destin at ions + Boundaries Caltrain Station Landmark Park City Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | G INTERIM ATHERTON H | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study LONG-TERM CONSIDERATIONS The selection of a preferred bikeway route will require a balancing of community values and priorities, with engineering judgement, and agency collaboration working within relevant constraints for the project. The land use context should also be an important consideration when determining the need for and type of separation between users (i.e., icyclists, pedestrians, and motorists). To achieve this vision, local jurisdictions should: •Address potential impacts on parking: changing land use contexts along El Camino Real require that each city balance its needs for supplying on- street parking and its necessity to provide for safer environments for people to bike and walk. Community priorities and safety needs should be examined, and a comprehensive assessment of parking utilization and availability will be needed. Finally, extensive before and after data should be collected in order to assess the impacts and benefits of the project in the following areas: •Effect on cycling environment; •Effect on motoring environment; •Effect on curbside demands and parking; •Effect on local business; and •Public perception and level of support from residents and businesses •Provide for additional improvements along the interim route: While the full vision of the bikeway is achieved, MPP cities should continue to work collectively to provide safety and wayfinding improvements along the interim route. Implementation of quick-build projects focusing on improving safety at key intersections along the interim route should be considered. •Increase and improve regional collaboration: Peninsula communities should consider increasing collaboration with other local and regional entities including the Town of Atherton, City of Los Altos, Caltrans, Caltrain, VTA, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties to increase the viability of implementation. Long-term visions and concepts for El Camino Real include protected intersections, separated bike lanes, and improved crossings. Source: Redwood City Bike & Ped Improvement Study El Camino Real: Between Maple and Charter Street Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | I I 1l IF � t rl� I:: (.411111110. -. ,71911 10 :c or • r_ gip 1 INTRODUCTION 12 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study A REGIONAL BIKEWAY THE PENINSULA BIKEWAY Silicon Valley offers ideal bicycling conditions—a mild year-round climate and a relatively flat topography. In 2016, City Managers from the cities of Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View came together to form the Managers’ Mobility Partnership (MPP) to address transportation and mobility challenges in the southern Peninsula. The MPP became an opportunity to “implement locally but think regionally” about addressing the mobility issues for residents, visitors, and workforce in the area. Following the implementation of the MPP, the City Managers came together in 2018 to advance the concept of a Peninsula Bikeway. Using the existing local bikeways, streets, and established bicycle routes/wayfinding, the MPP worked collaboratively to designate an interim route (see map on pg 9) that would provide a interim low-stress bicycle connection between Redwood City and Mountain View. This interim route currently spans five cities (Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View) and two counties (San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) and includes a series of wayfinding and low- stress facilities including Class III Bike Boulevards. Note: While the route traverses the Town of Atherton, it was not part of the multi-jurisdictional group that participated in this study. 1 Bicycle facilities should be comfortable for all ages and abilities. STUDY PURPOSE This Study focuses on assessing the feasibility of implementing a long-term, high-quality bikeway that is suitable for bicyclists of all ages and abilities and serves as an artery linking all four partner jurisdictions. The analysis is the first phase of implementing a high- impact bicycle superhighway network in the Bay Area helping residents and workers increase connectivity and safety to jobs and activity centers. It is anticipated that future connections for the long-term Peninsula Bikeway may include links to cross-county bikeways, which at the time of the writing of this report are being explored by the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) and Caltrans Bay Area (District 4). To complement the analysis, the study team conducted a high-level assessment of existing wayfinding and safety features along the interim route and at a number of intersections. A summary of proposed safety and wayfinding improvements can be found in the Appendix. £101 £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University PA LO ALTO M E N LO PA R K MO U N TAIN V I E W RE DWO O D C IT Y PE NIN S ULA BIKEWAY ROU TE Peninsula B ikeway Ro utes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - M iddlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Interim Route Destin at ions + Boundaries Caltrain Station Landmark Park City Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 13 INTERIM ATHERTON ENTHUSED & CONFIDENT Very comfortable riding but prefer streets with designated bike lanes 5% NO WAY, Physically unable or very uncomfortable biking even on streets with separated bikeways 37 % STRONG & FEARLESS Very comfortable and willing to ride on streets with no designated bike facilities 7% INTERESTED, BUT CONCERNED Comfortable on trails & streets with buered or separated bikeways and interested in biking more 51 % ENTHUSED & CONFIDENT Very comfortable riding but prefer streets with designated bike lanes 5% NO WAY, Physically unable or very uncomfortable biking even on streets with separated bikeways 37 % STRONG & FEARLESS Very comfortable and willing to ride on streets with no designated bike facilities 7% INTERESTED, BUT CONCERNED Comfortable on trails & streets with buered or separated bikeways and interested in biking more 51 % ENTHUSED & CONFIDENT Very comfortable riding but prefer streets with designated bike lanes 5% NO WAY, Physically unable or very uncomfortable biking even on streets with separated bikeways 37% STRONG & FEARLESS Very comfortable and willing to ride on streets with no designated bike facilities 7 % INTERESTED, BUT CONCERNED Comfortable on trails & streets with buered or separated bikeways and interested in biking more 51 % ENTHUSED & CONFIDENT Very comfortable riding but prefer streets with designated bike lanes 5% NO WAY, Physically unable or very uncomfortable biking even on streets with separated bikeways 37 % STRONG & FEARLESS Very comfortable and willing to ride on streets with no designated bike facilities 7% INTERESTED, BUT CONCERNED Comfortable on trails & streets with buered or separated bikeways and interested in biking more 51 % 14 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study While neighborhood streets with low traffic volumes can be comfortable without significant infrastructure for many bicyclists, as motor vehicle speeds and volumes increase, different types of bicyclists (see figure to the right) will require greater separation from cars to achieve acceptable levels of comfort. Additional improvements and separation addressing safety at intersections may also be needed. Difficult crossing conditions for bicyclists in Palo Alto TYPES OF BICYCLISTS* Representing percentage of population * Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587: 90-99, 2016. Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 15 Following the implementation of the interim Peninsula Bikeway, the general public was asked about constraints and opportunities for people biking around the South Bay. Feedback received via online survey noted the need for better north-south connections, particularly along the central areas of the cities, better access to the county’s excellent bike paths, low-stress bikeways where people can ride separated from motor vehicles, better wayfinding signage, and easier connections across barriers like freeways. In response to this need, a long-term vision for the Peninsula Bikeway was developed. The Peninsula Bikeway would provide a separated, connected, and efficient north-south route for long-distance bicycle travel, making bicycling a comfortable option for commuting and other utilitarian purposes for users of all ages and abilities. As envisioned this Bikeway would also include features typical of a bicycle superhighway including: •separation from vehicles with well-maintained pavement and ample width, •separation for users including those on faster mobility vehicles (ex. scooters, e-bikes), •enhanced crossings. The successful implementation of the Bikeway will address the following areas of concern: •Climate Change: as there is a long-term need to provide for a mode shift to more sustainable transportation modes in order to achieve the regional greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and requirements, the Bikeway would have the potential to help decrease the number of single-occupancy trips in the region especially those trips that happen between Redwood City and Mountain View. •Resiliency: This new bicycle superhighway would offer an opportunity to highlight bicycling as a key mode of transportation in the region, one that is a critical bridge in response and recovery to major disruptions such as pandemics and floods, which are expected to become more frequent with climate change. The Bikeway also has the potential to prioritize bicycle travel, by providing a direct, convenient, low-stress regional facility for people biking and connections to existing businesses, services, and amenities throughout the region. •Equity: implementation of comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle infrastructure is critical for the region especially for the most vulnerable communities and people including children and low- income populations. THE NEED FOR A REGIONAL BIKEWAY The concept of a regional bicycle superhighway was also explored in the Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Master Plan and the VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan, which called for the implementation of separated cross- county bicycle corridors (see plan review section) that would increase safety and connectivity for people biking throughout the region. Although anecdotal data supported the notion that the interim route increased regional bicycle connectivity along the South Bay, in 2019, the MPP commissioned a study to help improve the circuitous nature of the route. This study would also address the lack of separation of the existing facilities, and improve overall safety for the “Interested and Concerned” bicyclists. 16 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study DOCUMENT CHAPTERS Chapter 1 of this Study provides an introduction to the concept of the Peninsula Bikeway and the need to provide a low-stress bicycle facility along peninsula communities. Chapter 2 summarizes existing conditions along the interim route with particular focus on bicycle infrastructure and existing wayfinding. An assessment of specific intersections representing obstacles for people biking along the interim route is also provided. To improve short-term connectivity and wayfinding throughout the area, Chapter 3 and 4 provide general recommendations on signage, complementary wayfinding, and intersection improvements along the interim route. Chapter 5 focuses on evaluating three corridors for potential bikeway implementation. Chapter 6 provides long- term considerations for achieving the vision for the Peninsula Bikeway. At the request of city staff, short-term design concepts were developed to improve safety at specific intersections in each of the four MPP jurisdictions and are found in the Appendix. Please note that each design concept has been developed for illustrative purposes only. Each concept will require additional field assessment and engineering review, as well as extensive public engagement prior to implementation. STUDY CORRIDORS As part of this study, three corridors were selected to be assessed for potential implementation of a long- term low-stress bikeway. These corridors included: i. Middlefield Road ii. Alma Street/ Central Expressway/ Caltrain Right- of-Way/ Evelyn Avenue iii. El Camino Real The three corridors were selected based on a number of characteristics including their i) direct north- south connectivity; ii) their potential to provide a long-distance continuous bicycle facility; iii) where each corridor is located within each jurisdiction; iv) the relatively flat topography for each corridor; and v) the corridor’s potential to connect to and from citywide bicycle facilities. Following the review of the corridors, Chapters 5 and 6 provide recommendations on the preferred route and proposed next steps for implementing the long-term Peninsula Bikeway vision. £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University PA LO A LTO M E NLO PAR K M O UN TA IN V IE W R E DWO O D CIT Y PE NI NS U L A BIKEWAY RO UT E Pe n ins ula Bikeway Ro u tes Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destina tio ns + Bo undar ie s Caltrain Station Landmark Park City Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIO NAL CONTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 ATHERTON Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 17 LONG-TERM STUDY CORRIDORS ATHERTON 4, „ ▪ r_ 1 • Ir r" ► rft f , 141 tarp IP' IA 4 • spairp- vir 10:4' .v • I i i 1 2 INTERIM ROUTE - EXISTING CONDITIONS 20 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study INTERIM ROUTE - EXISTING CONDITIONS An interim Peninsula Bikeway route was implemented along local streets in 2019 to provide a suggested inter- city bike route using signage and basic traffic calming improvements. This chapter provides a summary and inventory of existing wayfinding along the interim Peninsula Bikeway route. Existing bicycle facilities connecting to the interim route were also documented and are presented in a set of maps. This chapter also includes a summary of general issues found at specific intersections along the interim route. To document existing conditions, field observations were conducted in January 2020 and city-specific maps were developed. Findings and maps are organized by jurisdictions starting in the north with Redwood City and ending with the City of Mountain View. 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE The following maps and tables provide a summary of existing bicycle facilities within each jurisdiction. A large proportion of existing facilities within each jurisdiction are in the form of Class II Conventional Bike Lanes (52 percent), followed by Class I Shared- Use Path (24 percent), and Class III Bike Routes and Bike Boulevards (24 percent combined). At the regional level, current facilities are disjointed and have challenging transitions and crossings. 24% BIKE ROUTES AND BIKE BOULEVARDS 24% SHARED-USE PATHS 52% CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANES PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EXISTING BIKEWAYS REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATIONSTANFORD STADIUM STATION £101 £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REGIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IV Separated Bikeway Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 21 REGIONAL BICYCLE NETWORK ATHERTON REDWOOD CITY MENLO PARK PALO ALTO MOUNTAIN VIEW Table 1 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Redwood City and Redwood Shores Facility Existing (Miles)Proposed (Miles) Class I Shared-Use Path 11.8 7.9 Class II Bike Lanes 21.4 5.3 Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes ------1.1* Class III Bike Route 14.7 1.7 Class IIIB Bike Boulevard 5.0 7.8 Class IV Separated Bikeway -----8.2 Source: Redwood City Existing Bikeways Layer, Redwood City Proposed Bike Lanes Layer; *Caltrans D4 Bike Plan 22 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study RE D W O O D C I T Y REDWOOD CITY CONTEXT The following table provides a summary of existing and proposed bicycle facilities within Redwood City. Bike route on Whipple Ave Bike route on Broadway Shared-use path adjacent to Bair Island Rd Bike lanes on Hopkins Rd REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Mezes Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park Andrew Spinas Park Stafford Park Rocketship Redwood City Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy Summit Preparatory Charter High Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R A V E C H E L SEAWAY 3 R D A V E H Y DEST 4 T H A V E LARK AVE PECAN CT 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST M A DRO NE ST L I NDEN ST F ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A A V E 1 7 T H A V E R O S E A V E D O D GE D R P E N O B S C O T D R H E S S R D DURL S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I TA S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E V A A V E C E D A R S T L E A H Y ST VERA AVE M A R S H R D H O R G A N AV E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E A V E W I L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A A V E W A RWICK ST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A LL L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLV D ALDEN ST A ST S E A P O R T B L V D F L O R E N C E S T HOWLAND ST P I N E S T E A T O N A V E B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOO D B L VD C E N T R AL AVE LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 1 5 T H A V E C ST BIRCH ST C A R L O S A V E ATHERWOOD A VE O DD S T A D D RBAIRISLAND RD I N NER CIR FINGER AV E C H A R T E R S T AVE DE L O R A PA R K S T JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I L T O N S T E ST 2 N D A V E R O L I S O N R D 8 T H A V E B ST P A L M A V E H A V E N A V E WOODSWORTH AVE D ST ARCH ST C Y P RE SS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N A V E G ST 1 0 T H A V E B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T S C O T T AV E JACKSON AVE C E NT E R ST W I N S L O W S T R E G E N T S T RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIALWAY O R C H A R D A V E CON V E N T I O N WAY OXFORD ST BLAN D F O R D BLVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST HILLVI E W AVE S A I N T F R A NCIS ST H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U I S T S T B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST 5 T H A V E POPLAR AVE LINCOLN AVE NEVADA ST HARRISON AVE G O R D O N S T KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S TA M B A U G H S T CLINTONST ARLINGTON RD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST ALAMEDAALAMEDADELASPULGAS VETERANS BLVD C H E S T N U T S TMARSHALLST IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD M A P L E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE M I D D L E F I E L D R D HOPKINS AVE JE F F E RS O N AV E BREWSTER AVE HUDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W Y U S H W Y 1 0 1 B A Y R D B R O A D W A Y S T W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REDWOOD CITY RE GIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 23 ATHERTON REDWOOD CITYSAN CARLOS Table 2 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Menlo Park Facility Existing (Miles)Proposed (Miles) Class I Shared-Use Path 12.5 4.3 Class II Bike Lanes 23.7 2.9 Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes -----2.0 Class III Bike Route 7.4 5.4 Class IIIB Bike Boulevard -----4.8 Class IV Separated Bikeway 1.0 2.2 Source: Menlo Park Existing Bikeways Later, Menlo Park Proposed Bikeways Layer; D4 Accounted for in MP proposal layer 24 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study ME N L O P A R K MENLO PARK CONTEXT The following table provides a summary of existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the City of Menlo Park. Bike route and high visibility crosswalk on Menlo Ave Eastbound bike lane and shared-use path with green infrastructure on Chico St Shared-use path and bridge on San Mateo Dr Bike lanes and conflict striping on Santa Cruz Ave ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Heritage Park Burgess Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park Rinconada Park The Oval Park Eleanor Pardee Park Andrew Spinas Park Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Scott Park Stanford University Hillview Middle Taft Elementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST L N 21 PA LO RD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R T I N A V E A S H S T M E D I C A L L N F I F E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VI N E Y A R D L N L E L A ND AV E FULTON ST W A L NUTD R H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST H A R R I E T S T MARIPOSA AVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBAN LN NORTHAMPTOND R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E G R E E N W O O D A V E O A K CREEKD R BYRON ST STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E N TE R PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY RD COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STA NF O R D AV E P A S T E U R D R NEWELL RD LYTTON AVE M E L V I L L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L T OA V E CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST STATE RTE 82 W H E E L E R A V E C H E L SEAWAY 3 R D A V E OA K L N C L A I R E P L 4 T H A V E D O D GE D R 1 5 T H A V E G AR DENL N 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E EV E LY N ST S U RV E Y LN CO RIN E L N AM B A R WAY S P R U C E AV E PO P P Y AVE HO LLY AV E R O S E A V E 3 R D S T H O O V E R S T T R E N T ON W A Y S P R I N G S T H A V E N A V E E N C I N A AV E ALMA LN O R C H A R D A V E ALTO L N MERRILL ST P I N E S T NOEL DRMILLS ST H A N NA W A Y HO OV ER S T STATE RTE 82 1 0 T H A V E F L O R E N C E S T OA K W O O D D R H E SKET H DR S T A T E R T E 8 4 STA NF O R D AV E R O B L E A V E LAU R E L AVE A R D E N RD L E NN O X A V E E OAKWOOD BLV D GL E N W O O D AV E OAK D E L L D R W OA KWOOD B L VD 8 T H A V E STONEP I N E L N K E N T F I E L DAV E OAK AV E W H I T E H A L L L N B R O A D W A Y S T P OPE S T LEXI N G T O N D R P R I NC ETO N R D W 4 T H S T ATHERWOOD A VE WALLE A D R C R A NE S T JO HN S O N ST EL DE R AV E HA R VA R D AV E 2 N D A V E P O L I TZ E R DR M C K E N D R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PA R TR I D G E AV E HI L LV I E W D R B U R G E S S D R M A R M O N A D R ME N LO AVE L I V E OA K AVE R O B L E AV E YAL E R D C O N C O R D D R H O B AR T S T HE R M OS A WAY WIN D SO R D R F R E MO NT S T P A G E S T AR B O R RD WAVERLEY S T 5TH A V E VAL PA R A I S O AV E G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E E N C I N A L AV E E C R E E K D R S A N T A M O N I C A A V E B A Y L A U R E L D R C A MB R I D G E AVE CO LL E G E AVE L I N F I E L D DR F E LTON DR CREEK DR O LIV E S T R AV E N S W O O D AV E S E MIN A R Y D R WOO DLA N D A V E UN I V E R S I T Y DR MIDDLEFIELD RD OA K G ROV E AV E B A Y R D COT TO N ST S A N M AT EO DR MI D D L E AV E WILLOWRD L A U R E L ST SA NTA C R U Z AV E M ORGA N L N G LOR I A CIR EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK RE GIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 25 ATHERTON MENLO PARK PALO ALTO Table 3 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Palo Alto Facility Existing (Miles)Proposed (Miles) Class I Shared-Use Path 16.3 4.5 Class II Bike Lanes 26.2 2.3 Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes 0.7 0.9 Class III Bike Route 13.6 0.3 Class IIIB Bike Boulevard 6.9 1.4 Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.7 6.6 Source: Palo Alto Existing Bikeways Layer, Palo Alto Proposed Bikeways Layer, Caltrans D4 Bike Plan 26 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PA L O A L T O PALO ALTO CONTEXT The following table provides a summary of existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the City of Palo Alto. Beginning of bicycle boulevard on Park Blvd Traffic calming on bicycle boulevard on Cowper St Shared-use path adjacent to El Camino Real Bike lanes on N California Ave PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Wallis Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W M AYF I E L D LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T O NIO C IR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 ELCAMINO W A Y UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST CLARA DR A SH B Y DR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR V I S TA AV E TASSO ST SI L VA AV E ENCINA AVE PA U L AV E B R UCE DR C E R E Z A D R LINCOLN AVE H E A T H E R L N PA G E MI L L R D A SHTONAVE M E D I C A L L N B I B B I TSDR EL C E N TR O ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE O R ME ST T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE E LSI NO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E TENNESSEE LN E L C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NT ST K E N DALL AV E SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLE R I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE DUNC A NPL WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE VE N T U R A AVE MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NATH A N W A Y NITAAVE C U RT N E R AV E HIGH ST B OWD O I N ST STA NF O R D S T CO LU M B I A S T W M E A DOW DR YA L E S T HA R VA R D S T O B ER LI N S T W I L LI AM S S T WILTO N AV E PR I NC E TO N S T CO R NE L L ST FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST E N CI NA G R A ND E D R S H E R I DA N AV E M A R GA R I TA AV E B I R CH ST F E R N A N DO AV E AC AC I A A V E W A L N U T DR W ILLMAR D R L O IS L N M AGNO L I ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO R A L E S D R L A MB E R T AV E DO N A L D D R O L I V E AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH RISTINE DR AM H E R ST ST MARDELL WAY H A R R I E T S T S UTH E R L A N D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX FO R D AV E G R A N T AV E BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR S H E R M A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LI N G DR RO RKE W AY EL CARMELO AVE BE NLOMON DDR KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AM A R AN TA AV E DELL AV E AMES AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST A S H S T W M I D DLEFIELDRD LA DON N A AVE URBAN LN S O UTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTO N DR EMEADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E L A PA R A AV E G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMI NO REAL MA RSHAL L DR ELYPL C A L I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL O A K CREEKD R C A M B R I DG E AV E STA N F O RD SHO P P I N G C E N TE R N ELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C H I M A LU S D R EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST RED W OODCIR RO O S E VELTCIR G E O R GIA A V E L AGU N A AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E M ATADE R O AV E S A N A N TO NI O WAY WELC H R D TRANSPORT S T QUARRY RD FERNE AVE M AY B E L L AV E LO S R OB L E S AV E HA N S E N WAY B A RRO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N CALIF ORNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S C A L I FO R N I A AV E LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE N E W E L L R D CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADO AVEPA L OA LTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT A R A S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO L L EG E AVE SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA NF O R D AV E EMBARCADERO RD H A N OV E R S T ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMILTON AVE PARK BLVD S A N A N T O N I O R D E CHARLESTON RD EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAV E RLEY ST EL C AM I N O R E A L ALMA ST STAT E R T E 8 2 STA R R KIN G CIR A R B O R R D ALMA ST ALTO L N YA L E R D T R E N T ON W A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFIELD RD C E N T R A L A V E LEXI N G T O N D R H A R VA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R C A M B R I DG E AV E C O N C O R D D R P O P E ST E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREEK DR WOODLAN D AVE WI LLOW R D EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO RE GIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 27 MOUNTAIN VIEWMENLO PARK PALO ALTO Table 4 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities in Mountain View Facility Existing (Miles)Proposed (Miles) Class I Shared-Use Path 16.31 4.46 Class II Bike Lanes 26.19 2.32 Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes 0.68 .094 Class III Bike Route 13.64 0.28 Class IIIB Bike Boulevard ---------- Class IV Separated Bikeway 0.65 6.55 Source: Mountain View Existing Bikeways Layer, Mountain View Proposed Bikeways Layer, Caltrans D4 Bike Plan. Updated per Mountain View City staff on 8/8/2020. 28 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study MO U N T A I N V I E W MOUNTAIN VIEW CONTEXT The following table provides a summary of existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the City of Mountain View. Bike route and bike boxes on Montecito Ave Steven's Creek Trail (Source: Google images) Buffered bike lanes on Castro St Bike lanes on Showers Dr MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85 Ã82 Encinal Park Pioneer Memorial Park Slater School Park Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park Whisman School Park Eagle ParkCastro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park San Veron Park Cooper Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park Crittenden School Park Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital Independent Study Program Slater Special Education Preschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden Middle Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Herbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle MIRAMO N T E A V E W A L K E R D R C H E T W O O D D R CALIFORNIA 237 C A L D E R O N A V E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E SA N ANT O NIOCIR B AY S T A C C E SSRD Y UC C A D R L I D A D R W A L K WAY M U I R D R H U F F A V E P I A Z Z A D R SH A R Y A V E E L S I E A V E M O R A D R A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T R E I NE R T R D J E S SI E L N G E M I N I A VE S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE L N DAKE AVE B E NTLE Y SQ KI N G S R O W EICHL E R D R S A L A D O D R V I NCE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E R U S T I C L N SI L VA AV E O R M O N D E DR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L LE C T L A N E A V E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S W A Y W A S A TCH D R B E V E R L Y S T T H OM P S ONSQ E H R H O R N A V E KENT DR F A Y W A Y B I B B I TSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE S T A R RWA Y M C C A R T Y A VE J U D S O N D R P A RK DR M E A D O W L N P O M O N A A V E M A R I L Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D M O O N B E A M D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K L I N A V E V A Q U E R O D R OA K L N GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR E R N E S T I N E L N L O R E T O S T N W H I S M A N R D M ONTEL ENA C T T U L A N E DR S I E R R A AV E LA U R A L N K A R E N WA Y D UNCA N P L R AIN B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHIT NE Y D R MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D CHARLESTO N R D E L L I S S T YUBA DR G I L M O R E S T SO NI A WAY L O G U E A V E H A C K E T T A V E C O M M E R C I A L S T NITA AVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N S A N L U C A S A V E M A CON A V E STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O R D H A M W A Y TE RMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R L O U IS R D STATE RTE 82 M O R G A N S T J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L W AY S U N M O R A V E C E N T R E ST SA N M ARC O S C IR PARKSIDE DR S W H IS M A NRD ALVIN S T D OV E R TO N S Q S A N R A F A E L A V E A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C HD R F A R L E Y S T M O R T O N C T G L E N B ORO U G H D R A L T A A V E SUTH E R L A N D D R A L I S O NAV E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A N A S T LEONG DR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V EEMILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y T O W N EC I R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANN EDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDE DR MO N T R O S E A V E Y O S E M I T E AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMON DDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S T R E N G S T O R F F A V E C O L O N Y S T DELL AVE F A I R B R O O K D R P L Y M O U T H S T L E O N A LN S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E N B ERNARDOAVE VI L LA N U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y L I N D A V I S T A A V E P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R L I N R D C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E S A N P I E R R E W A Y ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C HE S L E Y A V E B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R Y A N T S T S A N L E A N DRO AVE N IL D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E M A R T E N S AV E SP R I NG ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSON DR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E M I D D L E F I E L D R D O A K S T P A U L A V E C U E S T A D RMONTALTO DR W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LIS A V E LAN D M ARK P K W Y L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALE DR C E N T R A L AV E C H I Q U I T A A V E EL CAMINO REAL B U R G O Y N E S T S A N A N T O N I O WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPO R T S T S L E E P E R A V E D I E R I C X D R S R E N G S T O R F F A V E F A B I A N W A Y E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE CONTIN E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E L Y N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY T Y R E L L A A V E ALMA ST V I E W S T I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S S H O R E L I N E B L V D TERR A B E L L A AVE B A R B A R A A V E S H O W ERS DR R O C K S T O L D M I D D L E F I E L D W A Y M ONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N R E N G S T O R F F A V E G R A N T R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L E A S Y S T E E V E L Y N A V E C H U R C H S T L ATHAM S T M O F F E T T B L V D C A S T R O S T SIE R R A VIS T A A V E E C H A R L E S T O N R D V I L L A S T N S H O R E LI N E B L V D E MIDDLEFIELDRD C A L I F O R N I A S T S A N A N T O N I O R D MOUNTAIN VIEW ALVISO RD STATERTE 237 W M I D D L E F I E L D R D BAYSHORE FWY US HWY 101 W E L C A M I N O R E A L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 C U E R N AV A C A C I R C U LO EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW RE GIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 29 MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS At the request of the city staff, 34 intersections were assessed as part of this Study (see map on next page). The intersections were selected based on their relative impacts on overall safety along the interim route. A collision analysis was also conducted using 2014-2018 TIMS data to corroborate the need for additional safety improvements (see maps on pages 27-30). A supplementary set of intersections were selected based on feedback from city staff interested in providing safer connections to local existing bicycle infrastructure from the interim route. Field assessments occurred in January 2020 during which the consultant staff traversed the interim route as well as the three potential long-term routes via bicycle. Field staff documented existing issues at each intersection and assessed the site for potential bicycle improvements. Among the most common issues documented were perceived speeding, lack of markings or crosswalks, wide curb radii, and deficient lighting. Generalized pedestrian issues were also documented and included outdated ramps and outdated pedestrian actuators. A summary of existing conditions is provided for each city along with supporting maps in the Appendix. NOTE: a number of intersections were also assessed within the City of Atherton based on their overall effect on bicycle safety while traversing the interim Peninsula Bikeway route. 30 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study Common Issue: unmarked crosswalk Common Issue: wide curb radii Common Issue: perceived speeding Common Issue: missing truncated domes £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University BICYC L E + PE DESTR IA N COL L IS IO N S Pe ninsu la Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Roa d Alt. C - El Camino Real De stinatio ns + Bo undar ies Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REGIONAL CONTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 Bicycl e and Ped e str ian C ollisio ns Pe r Hexagon (2 0 14 - 201 8) 1 - 2 Collisions 3 - 6 Collisions 7 - 11 Collisions Data Source: UC Berkeley TIMS Inte rsectio ns Evaluated Intersection 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 31 WAYFINDING Existing wayfinding along the interim Peninsula Bikeway route was documented through field observations in January 2020. The inventory team accounted for the existence of 1) bike route signage; 2) destinations plates; 3) directional arrows; and 4) Peninsula Bikeway branded plates. Field observations concluded that existing wayfinding signs are generally in good condition, correctly installed (based on the location and orientation of the signage), and are concentrated along existing interim route. The majority of the signs documented comply with size, color, and font standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). However, there are a variety of wayfinding sign designs between jurisdictions, making it difficult for new riders to orient themselves when crossing from jurisdictions to jurisdiction (see adjacent photos). Further, a lack of directional signage at some important decision points made it difficult to traverse the route, particularly within the Atherton city limits. A map of documented signage along the full interim route can be found on the next page. Specific findings related to each partner city can be found in the Appendix. 32 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study Redwood City Signage Menlo Park Signage Mountain ViewSignage Palo Alto Signage £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University Pe n insula Bikeway Ro utes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real De stina tio ns + Bo undar ies Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REGIONAL CONTE XT Map Produced: February 2020 Inte rsectio ns + Way findi n g #Existing Wayfinding Evaluated Intersection FIE L DWO RK : E XI ST I NG CON DI T ION S 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 33 I 1 f 3 LONG-TERM ALIGNMENTS 36 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study LONG-TERM ALIGNMENTS LONG-TERM ROUTE ANALYSIS Conventional urban highways and city arterials typically cross multiple jurisdictions and provide the most direct regional and local connections for motorists to jobs and activity centers. The same is true for existing railway corridors which can provide fast connectivity for transit users and freight. However, both urban highways and railway corridors tend to exhibit constrained or variable rights of way making it challenging to develop a consistent vision that meets the needs of all transportation users. Providing dedicated bikeways along these corridors therefore, requires design trade-offs with existing features, such as parking or traffic lanes and crossing locations, in addition to extensive coordination between local and regional stakeholders. 3 Within this context, three generally consistent north- south corridors were considered for this Study and the implementation of the long-term Peninsula Bikeway vision: 1. Alma Street /Central Expressway/ Caltrain ROW / Evelyn Avenue; 2. Middlefield Road; and, 3. El Camino Real. The three corridors were selected based on a number of characteristics including their: •Direct north-south connectivity •The potential to provide a long distance continuous bicycle facility •Geographic location of each corridor within each jurisdiction •The relatively flat topography for each corridor; and •Each corridor’s potential to connect to and from internal citywide bicycle facilities. £101 Ã109 Ã114 Ã237 Ã85 Ã84 Ã84 Ã82 Ã82 ¥280 ¥280 Stanford University PA LO A LTO M E NLO PAR K M O UN TA IN V IE W R E DWO O D CIT Y PE NI NS U L A BIKEWAY RO UT E Pe n ins ula Bikeway Ro u tes Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destina tio ns + Bo undar ie s Caltrain Station Landmark Park City Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIO NAL CONTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 ATHERTON Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 37 LONG-TERM 38 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PLAN REVIEW To understand previous planning and policy work conducted throughout the area in relation to each corridor, as well as to inform the efforts of this Study, a number of relevant planning documents were reviewed. •Bike and Ped Safety Improvement Study – El Camino Real Between Maple & Charter Street •Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan •El Camino Real Precise Plan •El Camino Real Corridor Study •Grand Boulevard Initiative •Grand Boulevard Palo Alto Safety Study – El Camino Real •Menlo Park Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan •Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan (DRAFT) •Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan •Mountain View El Camino Real Streetscape Plan •Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan •Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan •Redwood City Moves •Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan •VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan The table on the next page summarizes the types facility improvements recommended for each of the study or plan. As noted, much of the proposed development and improvements were focused along the El Camino Real corridor. The recommended facilities for the El Camino Real focused on providing a comprehensive separated bicycle facility (ex. Class I or Class IV). A comprehensive review of plans, can be found in the Appendix . Table 5 Recommendations along potential alignments Plan Year Jurisdiction El Camino Real Evelyn/ Central Expressway/ Caltrain Middlefield Road Bike and Ped Safety Improvement Study - El Camino Real Between Maple and Charter St 2019 Redwood City CLASS IV N/A N/A Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan 2017 Caltrans District 4 CLASS IV (Tier I project)None One intersection improvement El Camino Real Precise Plan 2014 Mountain View CLASS IIB or CLASS IV None None Grand Boulevard Initiative 2019 Multiple jurisdictions CLASS IV N/A N/A Grand Boulevard Palo Alto Safety Study - El Camino Real Between Lambert and Stanford 2016 Palo Alto CLASS IV N/A N/A Menlo Park Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan 2005 Menlo Park CLASS III NONE/ CLASS II NONE/ CLASS II Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan (DRAFT)2020 Menlo Park CLASS II NONE/ CLASS II NONE/ CLASS II Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan 2015 Mountain View CLASS IIB CLASS I CLASS II Mountain View El Camino Real Streetscape Plan 2019 Mountain View CLASS IV N/A N/A Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 Palo Alto CLASS II and CLASS III CLASS III CLASS II OR CLASS III Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan 2017 Redwood City CLASS IV N/A N/A Redwood City Moves 2018 Redwood City CLASS IV CLASS II CLASS IV VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan 2018 Santa Clara County CROSS COUNTY BICYCLE CORRIDOR CROSS COUNTY BICYCLE CORRIDOR CROSS COUNTY BICYCLE CORRIDOR Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 39 40 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT This section focuses on providing an evaluation of the potential for implementing a long-term vision of a more robust Peninsula Bikeway facility within one of three north-south corridors in the region. 1. Alma Street /Central Expressway/ Caltrain ROW / Evelyn Avenue; 2. Middlefield Road; and, 3. El Camino Real. A number of features were tracked and evaluated to assess the feasibility of each corridor. These features were selected based on their general impact on connectivity, ridership, and safety for people biking. These characteristics included: •Available ROW: existing curb-to-curb right of way which could potentially be reallocated for the implementation of a separated bicycle facility. •Parking Impacts: availability and potential impacts to existing parking, should it need to be reconfigured/eliminated to provide space for the bicycle facility. •Roadway Configuration: existing roadway layout including number of travel lanes. •Posted Speed: existing posted speed limits and speed transitions between jurisdictions. •Land Use Context: changes in the existing land use that may have an effect on the number and types of people biking. •Connectivity to Destinations: number of existing destinations (ex. jobs, schools, activity centers) in close proximity or directly served by the corridor. •Connectivity to Transit: linkages to high frequency transit and transit usage along the corridor. •Existing Bicycle Infrastructure: existence and configuration of bicycle facilities along the corridor. •Route Cohesion: general evaluation of how direct the route is. The following section has been organized based on the above-mentioned features. A table is presented at the end of this chapter to further summarize and compare the different conditions along each of the three corridors. Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 41 Middlefield Road (Menlo Park)Alma Street /Central Expressway/ Caltrain ROW / Evelyn Avenue (Palo Alto) El Camino Real (Redwood City) 42 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Middlefield Road is a regional north-south connection between Mountain View and Redwood City that extends over 12 miles within the study area. The road is owned and maintained by local jurisdictions and currently serves as an alternative route for El Camino Real with a variable speed limit between 25 and 35 mph depending on the location. As one of the few continuous north-south through streets between Mountain View and Redwood City, Middlefield Road also serves as an important bicycling route with variable types of facilities available for users. Existing roadway configuration varies between two-lane plus bike lanes, to four through lanes with parking lanes on both sides. The corridor serves as the easternmost local north-south connector between the jurisdictions and includes residential, commercial and industrial type uses. •Available ROW: Roadway characteristics vary between jurisdictions and the roadway exhibits difficult transitions for both motorists and bicyclists. Available ROW varies between 40 feet and 66 feet. •Roadway Configuration: Through its most constrained segments in the cities of Menlo Park and Atherton, the roadway includes one (1) lane of traffic and a bike lane in each direction and frontages through residential areas feel comfortable with large canopy trees and narrow lanes, however lacking bicycle facilities. Some portions of Middlefield Road lack continuous sidewalks thereby forcing pedestrians to use bicycle facilities when present. In wider portions of the corridor, two (2) through lanes and a parking lane are present for each direction. There is opportunity for restriping and adding bicycle facilities along wider areas of Middlefield Road, however, the corridor lacks frontages or destinations in northern parts of the corridor. Potential implementation of a separated bicycle facility along the corridor would need to consider potential consolidation/elimination of parking; elimination of through lanes; and/or additional procurement of available ROW. •Parking: because of the variable ROW availability, parking along Middlefield Road is also variable. Along residential portions of the corridor, parking lanes on each side were recorded. On more constrained parts of the corridor, Class II bike lanes are found in place of parking lanes. Changes to the configuration of Middlefield Road to implement a separated bicycle facility would have impacts on existing parking particularly around residential portions of the corridor. Impacts to parking along residential and commercial areas should be considered. •Posted Speed: Posted speed limits vary between jurisdictions. Field observations recorded speed limit signs between 25 and 35 mph. •Land Use Context: Middlefield Road experiences important changes in its land uses between jurisdictions. For example, the corridor includes industrial/heavy commercial land uses and zoning within Redwood City. The corridor also bisects fairly low-density residential areas within Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. The corridor includes some mixed-use development within Mountain View city limits. Implementation of a separated bicycle facility will need to consider the changing land use context between jurisdictions and its potential effects on the amount and types of traffic along the corridor. •Connectivity to Destinations: Middlefield Road experiences low-to-mid connectivity to existing destinations as many of the major regional activity centers are located west and east of the corridor. Connectivity to these centers is also curtailed by existing barriers in the form of railway tracks (i.e., Caltrain) and major state highways (Highway 101). Construction of a separated facility along the corridor should account for overcoming and traversing these barriers and difficulty in connecting to regional activity centers. •Connectivity to Transit: Transit routes serving the corridor include 296, 397, 79, 84, DB, 21, and C routes. A separated bikeway along the corridor would provide increased connectivity to transit and could have the potential to expand ridership. However, special consideration should be placed on mixing transit with separated bicycle facilities. Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 43 •Existing Bicycle Infrastructure: As previously noted, a large part of the corridor includes Class II bike lanes. In some parts of the corridor, there are part time bike lanes that operate as parking lanes from 7 p.m. until 2 a.m. on weekdays. However, existing bikeways are not continuous and make it difficult for less experienced riders to maneuver and mix with traffic. While a future Peninsula Bikeway along the corridor may improve safety and connectivity for all types of users, existing ROW would not allow for the implementation of a continuous and seamless separated bicycle facility. •Route Cohesion: the existing 12 + mile route within the study area provides a north-south connection between Redwood City and Mountain View. However, changes in existing land uses and ROW represent obstacles in the provision of a cohesive, comprehensive and safe separated bicycle facility along the corridor. Middlefield Rd & Everett Ave (Palo Alto) Middlefield Rd & Survey Ln (Menlo Park) 44 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study ALMA STREET/ CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY/ CALTRAIN ROW / EVELYN AVENUE The corridor formed by Alma Street, Central Expressway, Evelyn Avenue, and the Caltrain corridor is currently a disconnected 12 mile corridor between the cities of Mountain View and Redwood City. The corridor includes Caltrain stops at Redwood City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View which report some of the highest average weekday ridership boarding figures for the Caltrain corridor over the last two years (2018 and 2019). The corridor is set between the El Camino Real and Middlefield Road, and portions of the corridors include fences, experience high traffic volumes and speeds, as well as multiple travel lanes making it uncomfortable for cyclists to traverse. Some degree of variability in the land use context is found within the confines of this ‘corridor’. •Available ROW: available ROW varies along each of the corridors. For example, within Redwood City, no ROW is currently available to the jurisdiction to implement a separated bikeway facility. In other jurisdictions like Mountain View, widths of up to 76 feet are present. The implementation of a dedicated bicycle facility on Caltrain ROW will require obtaining necessary permitting, shared-use and cooperative agreement between Caltrain and each city. •Roadway Configuration: Roadway configuration is variable based on the existing land use contexts. For example, portions of the roadways include one lane of traffic and bike lanes (ex. Alma Street) while others include six (6) lanes of traffic and bike lanes. A number of segments along each of the roadways exhibit difficult transitions for people walking and biking, particularly at intersections. Fences, fast traffic, and existing rails represent physical barriers for people crossing east to west and vice-versa. A high degree of interagency and interjurisdictional coordination (cities and Caltrain) will be required to secure the appropriate right-of-way for implementing a continuous separated bikeway along the general corridors. •Parking: Alma Street is the only corridor that includes on-street parking located mostly on the west side of the corridor. As paralleling streets also include on-street parking, low to no impact to parking can be expected should a separated bikeway be implemented. •Posted Speed: Posted speed limits vary along the corridors between 25 and 45 mph. However, perceived speeding provides for difficult conditions for less experience riders throughout the corridors. •Connectivity to Destinations: Because of its geographic location bifurcating the lowlands of each of the cities, and the general crossing restrictions because of the existence of an active rail corridor in use, the study area receives a low connectivity score to destinations. •Connectivity to Transit: as previously noted, the general study area within the Alma Street / Central Expressway/ Caltrain ROW /Evelyn Avenue corridor ranks high in relation to its connectivity to transit. Caltrain provides high frequency and high ridership connections between San José and San Francisco. Bicyclists riding on a protected facility along these corridors may experience loud noises and be startled due to the high speeds and frequency of train service. •Existing Bicycle Infrastructure: while bicycle facilities exist through most of the available right of way along Alma Street and Evelyn Avenue (Class III sharrows and Class II bike lanes), high traffic volumes and speeds make it uncomfortable for bicyclists to utilize the corridors for transportation. Further, existing fences diminish bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between eastern and western parts of the cities. •Route Cohesion: currently there is no available continuous route along this study corridor north of Menlo Park. This makes the existing route circuitous and not very functional for bicyclists. Implementation of a continuous separated bikeway along these Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 45 Alma St & Ravenswood Ave (Menlo Park)Alma St & Forest Ave (Palo Alto) Central Expy Central Expy & Easy St (Mountain View) 46 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study EL CAMINO REAL El Camino Real is a critical arterial and Historic Landmark connecting communities from San Francisco to San José. Within the study area, the corridor extends around 12.5 miles from Redwood City in the north to Mountain View in the south. The road is owned and operated by Caltrans and has historically been an important transportation corridor and spine of activity for residents, workers, and visitors, connecting major shopping and employment destinations. The following is a summary of characteristics found: •Available ROW: Roadway characteristics vary between jurisdictions. Generally, however, El Camino Real includes 100 feet of available curb to curb right of way. While some short sections of the corridor include 2 lanes in each direction (ex. in Menlo Park), general roadway configuration includes three (3) lanes of general traffic and parking on both sides of the roadway. A variable width median/turn lane configuration was also recorded. •Roadway Configuration: Roadway design within the study area generally includes three vehicular lanes and on-street parking in each direction as well as a dedicated left-hand turn lane/center median. The corridor does include sidewalks with varying widths (five to eight feet) with four to six-foot-wide amenity zones. There is little existing bicycle infrastructure on El Camino Real. •Parking: El Camino generally includes on-street parking on both sides. Because of its functional characteristics as a main street, parking supply is an important consideration along several segments of the corridor. It is important to note that in some portions of the corridor, grandfathered/historic land uses have left many fronting businesses along the corridor without access to off-street parking. Existing on-street parking along El Camino Real provides the only parking supply throughout a number of segments of the corridor. Any changes to the landscape or configuration of the corridor will need to consider the trade-offs and potential effects on parking supply, loading/unloading, garbage pick-up, and other operational functions associated with retail businesses. •Posted Speed: El Camino Real has six available lanes for through traffic and posted speeds range between 35 mph and 40 mph. •Land Use Context: El Camino Real serves as the spine of activity and destinations within the study area. Unlike other State freeways where there is no access to adjacent land uses, El Camino Real is an urban thoroughfare that functions as a linear activity corridor, with many businesses and other land uses that require access by all modes of transportation. While the majority of land uses in the corridor offer light to medium commercial activity, there has been increased focus on increasing density of mixed-use developments increasing vibrancy for businesses and residents along the corridor. This is evidenced by the site specific and corridor plans developed by each MPP jurisdiction related to El Camino Real (see plan review section). •Connectivity to Destinations: major activity centers and jobs are within ½ mile of the corridor making it an important thoroughfare for commerce and business. Additionally, for the past five years, mixed- use development has been concentrated along the corridor increasing density and the number/types of uses along the corridor. Should a separated bikeway be implemented along the corridor, it would serve the highest number of destinations and people within the MPP jurisdictions. •Connectivity to Transit: El Camino Real has some of the highest-performing transit routes serving Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. This makes it a prime candidate for improving conditions for people walking and biking to transit and activity centers. Some of the transit routes serving the corridor include high frequency transit routes and ECR, 398, 295, 95, 397,398, 22, Rapid 522, X, and SE routes. A separated bikeway along the corridor would provide increased connectivity to high frequency transit and could have the potential to expand ridership. •Existing Bicycle Infrastructure: despite serving concentrated housing and commercial land uses that are within biking distances, the corridor lacks dedicated bikeways. A collision analysis for the * posted speed limit on ECR changes to 40 MPH at Rt. 85 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 47 latest five-year period (2014-2018) showed a high concentration of bicycle collisions along the corridor (around 5.77 per mile). A lack of bicycle facilities also means that many bicyclists ride along the sidewalk instead of high speed mixed traffic. Provision of bicycle facilities may therefore provide safety benefits to pedestrians who currently share the sidewalk with many cyclists. Improving safety for both users makes this also a good candidate for various funding sources. A future Peninsula Bikeway along the corridor can improve safety and connectivity for all types of users, with particular focus on the "interested but concerned" who tend to favor separated bicycle facilities. •Route Cohesion: the existing 12.5-mile route within the MPP area provides the most direct connection from Redwood City to Mountain View. Implementation of a separated bicycle facility would provide the best and least circuitous connection to jobs and activity centers for people biking. Increased attention should be placed on improving connectivity and safety at intersections throughout the corridor. El Camino Real & Nottingham Ave (Redwood City) El Camino Real & Oak Grove Ave (Menlo Park) Table 6 Corridor Characteristics Comparison Middlefield Road Evelyn/ Central Expressway/ Caltrain El Camino Real Available ROW 40-66'0 - 76'100' Roadway Configuration variable (2 traffic lanes + 2 bike lanes; 4 traffic lanes + 2 parking lanes) variable (2 traffic lanes + 2 bike lanes; 6 traffic lanes + 2 bike lanes) variable (6 traffic lanes; 4 traffic lanes + 2 parking lanes) Parking Impacts moderate low high Posted Speed 25-35 mph 25-45 mph 35-40 mph Land Use industrial-residential industrial-residential commercial-residential Connectivity to Destinations low-moderate low high Connectivity to Transit low high high Existing Bicycle Infrastructure variable (2 bike lanes; none) variable (2 bike lanes; none) none Route Cohesion direct circuitous direct 48 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study The following table presents a summary of existing conditions along each of the three corridors based on the aforementioned characteristics. Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 49 PREFERRED LONG-TERM ALIGNMENT All three corridors evaluated exhibit conditions that make the implementation of a separated bikeway facility between Peninsula communities difficult, based on the aforementioned features. However, El Camino Real represents the most viable opportunity to implement such a vision and help improve safety and connectivity for all bicycle users. This recommendation is based on: •Increased interest from regional partners including VTA and Caltrans: as of spring 2020, both VTA and Caltrans have begun studying the viability of implementing long-distance separated bikeway facilities along a number of corridors including El Camino Real. •Increased interest and focused investments: the majority of local and regional plans reviewed focused on improving livability and connectivity along El Camino Real. Residential and commercial developments have also begun to be implemented along the corridor. Integrating bike-friendly infrastructure into development projects may allow for residents to make active transportation a part of their daily lives and help curb the impact of single occupancy vehicles in the area. •Improved connectivity to activity areas: the recommended alignment will enable people to make easy connections to established destinations and activity areas along the way. •Improved links to existing bicycle networks: The corridor will also provide links to established bicycle routes and increase connectivity to/from eastern and western parts of each jurisdiction. •Existing right-of-way: El Camino Real has the most consistent and widest right-of-way characteristics of each of the corridors. •Route cohesion: the recommended corridor represents the most direct and fastest route connecting communities along the peninsula. It is important to note that the selection of a preferred bikeway route will require a balance of community values and priorities, with engineering judgement, and agency collaboration working within relevant constraints for the project. The land use context should also be an important consideration when determining the need for and type of separation between users (bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists). Best practices in bicycle facility planning and implementation have shown that the most successful bicycle facilities enable people of all ages and abilities to safely and conveniently get where they want to go. Further, if a project is planned on a roadway that is a critical link in the bike network, including the appropriate bike infrastructure should be prioritized as a part of that project. A bikeway with less separation such as a regular bike lane on a busy suburban arterial road with high speed traffic will fail to provide low-stress conditions needed to attract a majority of potential cyclists (i.e., interested but concerned). By appealing to the desire of the majority of users’ needs (i.e., interested but concerned) for increased separation, the implementation of a separated bicycle facility will help the community be strategic about investments and implementation, while also helping to balance competing network needs, such as for transit and freight. • 4: Q r ii•atigto AbC 11- P. — w emoke. ii;04.114, s v 1.a s 4 LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS 52 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS As the Southern Peninsula continues to be an economic engine for the region, there has been an increased interest from local jurisdictions to improve the safety, connectivity, and comfort for all roadway users. While local and regional investments have focused on improving conditions for the most vulnerable roadway users (i.e., people biking and/or walking), there continues to be need to provide a more comprehensive, safe, consistent, and comfortable experience linking the cities Mountain View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City, as well the Town Atherton and City of Los Altos (not included in this study). The long-term Peninsula Bikeway vision achieves this by focusing on providing separated regional bicycle facilities for users of all ages and abilities. El Camino Real represents the most cohesive, connected, and appropriate opportunity for implementing this vision. However, local jurisdictions should: •Address potential impacts on parking: changing land use contexts along El Camino Real require that each city examine its needs for on-street parking and its necessity to provide for safer environments for people to bike. It is recommended that city staff 4 work with elected officials to examine community priorities and safety needs along the ECR corridor, should there be a need to consolidate or eliminate on-street parking to provide for separated bicycle facilities. Further, a comprehensive assessment of both on-street parking utilization and off-street parking availability should be conducted within each jurisdiction's portion of the corridor. Finally, extensive before and after data should be collected in order to assess the impacts and benefits of the project in the following areas: •Effect on cycling environment; •Effect on motoring environment; •Effect on curbside demands and parking; •Effect on local business; and •Public perception and level of support from residents and businesses •Provide for additional improvements along the interim route: this study represents the first step to achieving a more long-term vision for the bikeway. While this is achieved throughout the region, it is recommended that MPP cities work collectively to provide improvements along the interim route. Short-term projects/investments should consider potential quick-build projects at key intersections along the interim route, as well as fully rolling out the comprehensive wayfinding recommendations developed for each city prior to this report. Particular attention should be placed on branding and creating a sense of place to improve the routing experience for users. •Increase and improve regional collaboration: Peninsula communities should consider increasing collaboration with regional entities including Caltrans, Caltrain, VTA, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties to increase the viability of implementation. Further, while the Town of Atherton* and City of Los Altos were not part of this study, any regional improvements whether short or long-term should include collaboration with those jurisdictions to improve the routing and safety of users. It is important to note that at the writing of this report both Caltrans and VTA are moving forward with understanding where the most logical regional bicycle connectors/superhighways should be implemented. This represents an important opportunity for MPP communities to help further regional integration. * At the time this report is being completed, Town of Atherton’s staff is recommending removing a lane from each side of El Camino Real to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, and reduce car accidents. El Camino Real Corridor Study July 2015 Tra ffic Conditions Minimal change in traffic volumes, shortest travel time y No change compared to 2035 No Project, because minimal new travel lanes are added to attract drivers from other roadways y Average travel time: 4.5 to 6.0 minutes Bicyclist Comfort and Safety Significant improvements to conditions for cyclists y Separation between the cyclists and vehicles y Removal of on-street parking would eliminate bicycle conflicts with “door zone” y Removal of parking would increase visibility for cyclists of potential conflicts y Motorists may be more aware of cyclists with dedicated space y Bike lane could be painted green in conflict zones such as intersections and driveways y Estimated to increase bicycle travel approximately 4 times that of existing levels Pedestrian Comfort and Safety Increased comfort, with slight decrease in crossing distance y Bike lane separates pedestrians from vehicle traffic y Decreases pedestrian exposure to traffic in crosswalks by decreasing crossing distance Parking Street parking on El Camino Real is removed y North of Roble Avenue: 88 spaces removed y South of Roble Avenue: 68 spaces removed Alternative 2 – Buffered Bike LanesIn this alternative, bike lanes would be added on El Camino Real in both directions between Sand Hill Road and Encinal Avenue. Because of the higher traffic volumes, higher travel speeds and exposure to truck traffic on El Camino Real, professional best practices suggest buffered bike lanes over conventional bicycle lanes in this type of situation. The bike lanes would be a minimum of five-feet standard with additional buffering from the vehicle travelway by an approximate three-foot wide painted section on most sections of the corridor. The additional bike lanes and buffering would be achieved by eliminating on-street parking along the majority of the corridor. No vehicle lanes would be removed under this alternative. Narrow pedestrian bulbouts could be added at some intersections where there are no right-turn lanes, and at intersections south of Roble Avenue. Other pedestrian improvements would include additional crossings of El Camino Real at five locations where there currently are none. ALTERNATIVE 2 SSAANNTTAA CCRRUUZZ AAVVEE((ttoo CCaallttrraaiinn)))) N Alternative 2 – looking southbound towards El Camino Real/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection ALTERNATIVE 2 SSSS AAAA NNNN TTTTT AAAAA CCCCC RRRR UUUUU ZZZZ AAAA VVVV EEE N TTTooo CCCaaallltttrrraaaiiinnn Alternative 2 – looking southbound at El Camino Real/Santa Cruz Avenue intersection Redwood City On December 4, 2017, the City Council of Redwood City adopted the El Camino Real Corridor Plan, including separated bikeway, pedestrian and streetscape improvements. CHAPTER 1 | MOBILIt Y 17 FIGuRE 4 ROOSeVeLt INteRSectION - AFteRThe Activity Center at Roosevelt Avenue features a cluster of retail shops, wide sidewalks, attrac- tive street trees, enhanced crosswalks, and protected bike lanes, making for a safer and more enjoyable experience for people walking and traveling by other means. The street network has been realigned into a traditional four way intersection, potentially connecting Roosevelt Avenue to Main Street. All improvements shown are conceptual and subject to further study and refinement. Palo Alto Palo Alto is in the process of implementing protected intersections along El Camino Real to improve the safety of crossings for all users. Two crossings are currently ready for implementation. El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvement Project El Camino Real Galvez Street Embarcadero Road Town & Country Village Palo Alto High School Stanford University Mountain View Mountain View City Council adopted the El Camino Real Streetscape Plan on November 18, 2019. The Council also approved efforts to collaborate with Caltrans on their repaving project on June 18, 2019. These are generally moderate to heavy volume signal- controlled roadways, with four to nine travel lanes without on-street parking (see Figure 3-9). Bicycle facilities are not provided on the side street, but should be considered in the future as recommended by the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Improvements to consider, subject to feasibility and Caltrans approval, include treatments previously noted including: • High visibility crosswalk markings, such as ladder crosswalks • ADA accessible curb ramps • Advanced stop bar • Reduced curb radius • Curb extensions • Green streets and green stormwater infrastructure • Green-colored dashed bike lanes at intersections • Pedestrian signal heads • Adjusted signal timing • Pedestrian refuge islands where there is sufficient median width • Green-colored left-turn queue box • Bicycle detection and push button In addition, vehicular right-turn-on-red restrictions should be considered to help minimize conflicts between bicyclists Four-way Intersection Figure 3-9: Typical Four-way Intersection All improvements shown are conceptual and subject to further study and refinement. REDUCED CORNER RADIUS, TYP. HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK STRIPING, TYP. GREEN BIKE LANE STRIPING, TYP.PROTECTED BIKE LANE, TYP. ADVANCED STOP BAR, TYP. EL CAMINO REAL N.T.S. making a through movement and right-turning vehicles. The restriction should be utilized if a bicycle signal is utilized to separate the movements, or if a leading bicycle interval is used. The restriction has a potential to increase traffic congestion if the volume of right-turn vehicles is sufficiently high. Obtaining traffic counts to determine these locations will be required. If the volume of right-turn vehicles is sufficiently high, terminating the protected bike lane in advance of the intersection and adding a mixing zone for cyclists and motorists may be required. 23 City of Mountain View DESIGN CONCEPT CONTINUING THE LONG-TERM VISION ACROSS JURISDICTIONS Menlo Park In 2014-2015, Menlo Park conducted a study of potential improvements to El Camino Real (SR 82) in the City. CP - - - r- i • • I ir • 6 • vL• • • • • l:t 4.'. • M•• • •1 f , 441. 0 1201'4.it* Y if �• 1 .I• • • • •,'��i ;181 • v. • .i •r�-••"r 4 i• • • s• tot ♦ II • . • •- • i • • • � ! 4; Ys '',• ' •�• :. r 'I6 ••t• • T •1 v `. • 1 W W m 4 •4. . 1.3 • • • r{ , • Ar r • • .4 • • ,1r01_ * . • • •4 NMI I, 1•. 1 c, • G- • 1I • 1 • s ,. • ti • r ♦. • + + 4 r 1 4 APPENDIX A INTERIM ROUTE - EXISTING CONDITIONS 60 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study INTERIM ROUTE - EXISTING CONDITIONS An interim Peninsula Bikeway route was implemented along local streets in 2019 to provide a suggested inter-city bike route using signage and basic traffic calming improvements. This section provides a summary and inventory of existing wayfinding along the interim Peninsula Bikeway route. This section also includes a summary of general issues found at specific intersections along the interim route. To document existing conditions, field observations were conducted in January 2020 and city-specific maps were developed. Findings and maps are organized by jurisdictions starting in the north with Redwood City and ending with the City of Mountain View. A Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 61 62 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study RE D W O O D C I T Y REDWOOD CITY INTERSECTIONS As noted in the analysis map on the next page, there was a high incidence of collisions along El Camino Real where much of the retail, jobs, and activity centers are focused. Intersections along El Camino Real tend to be wide and require that people walking and biking utilize the pedestrian actuators and cross up to six (6) lanes of traffic. Narrow sidewalks along the corridor and there are no designated bicycle facilities making conditions difficult for people walking and biking. Additional areas with difficult conditions for people walking and biking based on the collision statistics, were noted along the provisional Peninsula Bikeway at the intersection of Duane Street and James Avenue, as well as the Woodside Road and Hess Road intersection which recorded a higher incidence of collisions (between 6 and 11) for the five year period. The following is a summary of issues affecting people walking and biking at each of the eight (8) intersections evaluated: El Camino Real and James Ave •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) •Outdated pedestrian signals/actuators El Camino Real and Jefferson Ave •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) El Camino Real and Vera Ave •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) El Camino Real and Center St •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •Outdated pedestrian signals/actuators El Camino Real and Main St •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) Jefferson Ave and Cleveland St •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •Lack of traffic control signal/sign Woodside Rd and Cypress St •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) •Difficult bike/car mixing area •Lack of wayfinding James Ave and Duane St •Outdated ADA curb ramps REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park Andrew Spinas Park Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy Summit Preparatory Charter High Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R A V E CHELS E A WAY 3 R D A V E H Y DEST 4 T H A V E LARK AVE PECAN CT 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST MA D R ON E S T L I NDEN ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A A V E 1 7 T H A V ER O S E A V E D O D GE D R P E N O B S C O T D R H E S S R D DURL S T O N R D B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E V A A V E C E D A R S T L EAHY ST VERA AVE M A R S H R D H O R G A N AV E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E A V E WI L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A A V E WA R WICK ST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A L L L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLVD A ST S E A P O R T B L V D F L O R E N C E S T STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T E A T O N A V E B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWO O D B L VD C E N T R AL AV E LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 1 5 T H A V E C ST BIRCH ST C A R LO S AV E ATHERWOODAVE O D D S T A D D RBAIRISLANDRD I N NER CIR F I NGER AVE C H A R T E R S T A V EDEL O R A PA R K S T JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I LT O N S T E ST 2 N D A V E R O L I S O N R D 8 T H A V E B ST P A L M A V E H A V E N A V E WOODSWORTHAVE D ST ARCH ST C Y P R E SS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N AV E G ST 1 0 T H A V E B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T S C O T T A V E JACKSON AVE C E N T E R S T W I N S L O W S T REGENT ST RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIAL WAY O R C H A R D A V E CON V E N T I O N WAY OXFORD ST B L A N D F ORD B LVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST HILLVIE W A V E S A I N T F R A NCIS ST H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U I S T S T B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST 5 T H A V E POPLAR AVE LINCOLN AVE NEVADA ST H A R RISON AVE B R O A D W A Y S T GORDON ST KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S T A M B A U G H S T CLINTON ST ARLI N GTONRD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST A L A M E DA ALAMEDADE L A S P U L G A S VETERANS BLVD C H E S T N U T S T M A R S H A L L S T IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD M A P L E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE BAYSHORE FWY MIDDLEFIELD RD HOPKINS AVE J E F F E RSON AVE BREWSTER AVE H UDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W Y U S H W Y 1 0 1 B A Y R D B R O A D W A Y S T E L CAMINO REAL W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 BICYCLE + PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Rea l Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REDWOOD CITY Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Per Hexagon (2014 - 2018) 1 - 2 Collisions 3 - 6 Collisions 7 - 11 Collisions Data Source: UC Berkeley TIMS REGIO NAL CO NTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 Intersection Evaluated Intersection 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 63 ATHERTON REDWOOD CITYSAN CARLOS 64 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study ME N L O P A R K MENLO PARK INTERSECTIONS Four (4) intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking. Conditions along El Camino Real represented the most challenges for people biking and walking. Along the interim route, El Camino Real and Oak Grove Avenue, Laurel Street and Ravenswood Avenue, and Willow Road and Willow Drive represented the most difficult intersections. A summary of existing conditions is below: Elena Ave and Valparaiso Ave / Valparaiso Ave and Crane St •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •Missing traffic control El Camino Real and Oak Grove Ave •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) Laurel St and Ravenswood Ave •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Standard crosswalk markings (no high-visibility) •Outdated pedestrian signals/actuators Willow Pl and Willow Rd •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •Missing traffic control •Perceived speeding ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION £101 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Heritage Park Burgess Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park Rinconada Park The Oval Park Eleanor Pardee Park Andrew Spinas Park Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Scott Park Stanford University Hillview Middle Taft Elementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary S TAN F ORD SHOPPING CE N T E R CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN 33 POE ST L N 21 PA LO RD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R T I N A V E A S H S T B I R CH ST M E D I C A L L N F I F E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VI N E Y A R D L N L E L A ND AV E FULTON ST KIPLING ST W A L NUT D R H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST H A R R I E T S T MARIPOSA AVE KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBA N LN NORTHAMPTON DR P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E G R E E N W O O D A V E OAKCR E EKD R BYRON ST PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY R D COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE S TA N FO R D AVE P A S T E U R D R N E W E L L R D LYTTON AVE M E L V I L L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L T OA V E CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 W H E E L E R A V E CHELSE A WAY 3 R D A V E OA K L N C L A I R E P L 4 T H A V E D O D GE D R 1 5 T H A V E G AR D ENL N 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E EV E LY N S T S U RV E Y LN CO R I N E L N A M B A R WAY S P R U C E AV E POP P Y AVE H O L LY AV E R O S E A V E 3 R D S T H O O V E R S T T R E N T ON W A Y S P R I N G S T H A V E N A V E E N C I N A AV E ALMA LN O R C H A R D A V E ALTO LN MERRILL ST P I N E S T NOEL DR MILLS ST H A N N A W A Y H OOV E R ST STATE RTE 82 1 0 T H A V E F L O R E N C E S T OA K W O O D D R H E SKET H DR S T A T E R T E 8 4 S TA N FO R D AVE R O B L E A V E LA U R ELAVE AR D E N RD LE N N O X AVE E OAKWOOD BLV D G L E N W O O D AV E OA K D E L L D R W OAKWOOD B L VD STONEP I N E L N K E N T F I E L DAV E OA K AV E W H I T E H A L L L N B R O A D W A Y S T P OPE S T LEXI N G T O N D R P R I NC ETO N R D W 4 T H S T A T HERWOOD AVE W A LL E A D R C R A N E ST J O H NS O N S T EL D E R AV E H A R VA R D AV E 2 N D A V E P O L I T Z E R DR M C K E N D R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PA RT RI D G E AVE H ILLV IE W D R B U R G E S S D R M A R M O N A D R ME N LO AV E L I V E OA K AV E ROB L E AV E YA L E R D C O N C O R D D R H O B A R T S T H ER M O S A WAY WIN D S O R D R F R E MO NT S T P A G E S T AR B O R R D 5T H A V E VA LPA R A IS O AV E G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E E N C I N A L AV E E C R E E K D R S A N T A M O N I C A A V E B A Y L A U R E L D R C A M B R I DG E AV E CO L L EG E AV E L I N F IELD DR CRE E K D R O LI V E ST R AV E N S WO O D AV E SE M I N ARY D R WOODLA NDAVE U N I VE R S IT Y D R M I D D L E F I E L D R D O A K G R O V E AV E B A Y R D ALMA ST CO T TO N S T SAN M A T EO DR MID D LE AV E W I L L O W R D LAUR E L S T SA N TA CR U Z AV E S TATE RTE 82 M ORGA N L N G LOR I A CIR BICYCLE + PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Rea l Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Per Hexagon (2014 - 2018) 1 - 2 Collisions 3 - 6 Collisions 7 - 11 Collisions Data Source: UC Berkeley TIMS REGIO NAL CO NTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 Intersection Evaluated Intersection 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 65 ATHERTON MENLO PARK PALO ALTO 66 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PA L O A L T O PALO ALTO INTERSECTIONS Four (4) intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking. Collisions were concentrated along El Camino Real and along Bryant Street on the northern portions of the city. Existing issues found included: Bryant St and Lytton Ave •Wide curb radii Bryant St and Embarcadero Rd •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Deficient lighting Bryant St and Churchill Ave •Deficient lighting Bryant St and E Meadow Dr •Outdated ADA curb ramps •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •Missing traffic control •Perceived speeding PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION £101 Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Boulware Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Briones Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult EducationPalo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W M AY F IE L D LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T O NIO CIR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 E L C A M I NOWAY U N I V E R S I T Y A VE LN 33 POE ST CLARA DR A SHB Y DR L N 21 PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOC H DR ALGER DR V I S TA AV E TASSO ST SI L V A AV EENCINA AVE PA U L A V E B R UCE DR C E R E Z A D R LI N C O L N A V E H E A T H E R L N PA G E M I L L R D ASHTON AVE M E D I C A L L N B I B B I TSDR E L C EN T R O S T WEBSTER ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE AMARILLO AVE CENTRAL EXPY OR M E ST T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE E LSI NO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E TENNESSEE LN E L C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NT ST K E N DAL L AV E SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE D R L OOP R D MORRIS DR M ONTEL ENA C T ROBLE R I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE D UNCA N P L WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE V E N T U R A AV E MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E L E L A ND AV E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NAT H A N W A Y NITAAVE C U R T N E R AV E HIGH ST B OW DO I N S T STA N F O R D ST CO L U MB I A S T W M E A D O W D R YAL E S T H ARVA RD ST O B E R L I N ST W I L L I AM S ST WI LTO N AV E PR I N C E TO N ST CO R N EL L S T FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST EN C I NA GR A N D E DR S H ER I DA N AV E M A R G AR I TA AVE B I R CH ST F E R N AN D O AV E AC AC I A A V E W A L NUT D R WILLM A R D R L O IS L N M AGNOL I ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO R A L E S D R L A M B E R T AVE DO N A L D D R O L I V E AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH R ISTINE DR A M H E R ST S T MAR DELL WAY H A R R I E T S T SUT HER L A N D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX F O R D AV E GR A N T AV E BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR SH ER M A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LI N G DR RO RKE W AY EL CARMELO AVE BEN LO MOND D R KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AM A R A N TA AV E DELL AV E AMES A V E CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W MI D D L EFIELDRD L A D O N N A AV E URBA N LN S OUTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTOND R EMEADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E L A PA R A AV E G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMI NO RE AL MARSHAL LDR ELY PL CAL I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL OAKCR E EKD R C A M B R I D G E AV E STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E N TE R NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C H I M A L U S D R EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST G E O R GIA A V E LAGUNA AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E M ATAD E R O AV E S A N A NTON I O WAY WELC H R D TRANSPOR T S T QUARRY R D FE RNE AVE M AY B E L L A V E LO S RO B L E S A V E H A N S E NWAY B A R RO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N C AL I F O RNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S C A L I F O R N IA AV E LYTTON AVE M E L V I L L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE NEWELL RD CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R EMERSON ST HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADOAVE PA L OA LTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT ARA S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO L L EG E AV E SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA N F OR D AV E EMBARCADERO RD H AN OV E R S T ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVEHAMILTONAVE PARK BLVD S AN AN TO N I O R D E C H A R L E S T O N R D EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST MI DDL E F I E L D R D WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAVERLEY ST E L C A M I N O R E A L STATE RT E 82 ALMA ST STATE RTE 82 STARR K ING CIR R E D WOO D C I R R O OSEVE L T CIR ARB O R R D ALMA ST ALTO L N YA L E R D T R E N T ONW A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFI E LD RD C E N T R A L AVE LEXI N G T O N D R H A R VA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R C A M B R I D G E AV E C O N C O R D D R LA U R E LAVE P OPE S T E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREE K D R WOOD LAN D AVE W I L L O W R D BICYCLE + PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Rea l Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Per Hexagon (2014 - 2018) 1 - 2 Collisions 3 - 6 Collisions 7 - 11 Collisions Data Source: UC Berkeley TIMS REGIO NAL CO NTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 Intersection Evaluated Intersection 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 67 MOUNTAIN VIEWMENLO PARK PALO ALTO 68 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study MO U N T A I N V I E W MOUNTAIN VIEW INTERSECTIONS Eleven intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking and walking. A high concentration of crashes was found along El Camino Real and Castro Street where most of the activity centers are located. San Antonio Rd and Fayette Dr •Missing crosswalk markings •Short pedestrian phase •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic San Antonio Rd and California St •Wide curb radii •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic automobile oriented design Rengstorff Ave and California St •Existing curb ramps lack detectable warning surface •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic Rengstorff Ave and Latham St •Worn/Faded markings in need of replacemen •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •Outdated pedestrian actuators California St and Castro St •Missing high-visibility crosswalk markings Castro St and Evelyn Ave •Wide curb radii •Missing crosswalk markings •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic Dana St and Calderon Ave •Outdated pedestrian actuators El Camino Real and San Antonio Rd •Wide curb radii •Existing curb ramps lack detectable warning surface •Missing high-visibility crosswalk markings •Perceived speeding •Long distance for pedestrians/bicyclists to cross •No existing refuge island El Camino Real and Showers Dr •Wide curb radii •Lack of crossing markings and ramps across ECR on east side of intersection •Missing high-visibility crosswalk markings •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic •Long distance for pedestrians/bicyclists to cross •No existing refuge island El Camino Real and Rengstorff Ave •Wide curb radii •Existing curb ramps lack detectable warning surface •Missing high-visibility crosswalk markings •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic •Long distance for pedestrians/bicyclists to cross •No existing refuge island El Camino Real and Castro St •Wide curb radii •Existing curb ramps lack detectable warning surface •Missing high-visibility crosswalk markings •High level of user discomfort related to both the volume and speed of vehicle traffic •Long distance for pedestrians/bicyclists to cross MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85Ã82 Encinal Park Pioneer Memorial Park Slater School Park Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park Whisman School Park Eagle Park Castro School Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park San Veron Park Cooper Park Graham School Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park McKelvey Park Crittenden School Park Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital Independent Study Program Slater Special Education Preschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden Middle Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Herbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle M I R A M O N T E A V E W A L K E R D R C H E T W O O D D R CALIFORNIA 237 C A L D E R O N AV E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E S A N A N T O NIO C I R B AY ST A C C E SSRD YUC C A D R L I D A D R W A L K WAY M U I R D R H U F F A V E P I A Z Z A D R SH A R Y A V E E L S I E A V E BETLO AVE M O R A D R A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T R E I NE R T R D J E S SI E L N P A M E L A DR G E M I N I A V E S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE L N DAKE AVE B E NTL E Y SQ K I N G S R O W EICHLE R D R S A L A D O D R V I N CE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E SI L V A AV E O R M O N D E DR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L L E C T L A N E A V E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S W A Y W A S A TC H D R B E V E R L Y S T T H OM P S ONSQ ANNA AVE E H R H O R N A V E KENT DR F A Y W A Y B I B B I TSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE C R E S T V I E W D R STAR R W AY M C C A R T Y A V E J U D S O N D R P A RK DR M E A D O W L N P O M O N A A V E M A R I L Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T P IL G RI M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D M O O N B E A M D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E VA Q U E R O D R OA K L N GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR L O R E T O S T N W H I S M A N R D M ONTEL ENA C T T U L A N E DR S I E R R A AV E L AU R A L N K A R E N W A Y D UNCA N P L R AI N B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHI TNE Y D R MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D CHARLES T O N R D E L L I S S T YUBA DR G I L M O R E S T SON I A WAY L O G U E A V E H A C K E T T A V E C O M M E R C I A L S T NITA AVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N S A N L U C A S A V E M A CO N A V E STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O R D H A M W A Y TE RMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R L O U IS R D STATE RTE 82 M O RG A N S T J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L W AY S U N M O R A V E C E N T R E S T S A N M ARC O S C I R PARKSIDE DR S W HI SMANRD ALVIN S T S A N R A F A E L A V E A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C H D R F A R L E Y S T MORTO N C T MARD E LL WAY G L E N B ORO U G H D R A L T A A V E A L I S O N A V E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A N A S T LEONG DR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V E E MILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y T O W N ECI R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANN EDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDEDR M O N T R O S E A V E Y O S E M I T E AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMON DDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S T RE N G S T O R F F A V E C O L O N Y S T DELL AV E F A I R B R O O K D R P L Y M O U T H S T LEONALN S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E N B E R NARDO AVE VI L LA N U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y L I N D A V I S T A A V E P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R L I N R D C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E S A N P I E R R E W A Y ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C H E S LE Y A VE B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R Y A N T S T S A N L E A N DRO AVE N I L D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E M A R T E N S AV E S P R I N G ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSON DR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E MIDD L E F I E L D RD O A K S T P A U L A V E C U E S T A D R M O N T A L T ODR W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LI S A V E LAN D M ARK P K W Y L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDR C E N T R A L A V E C H I Q U I T A A V E EL CAMINO REAL B U R G O Y N E S TS A N A N TO NI O WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPORTST S L E E P E R A V E DIERI C X DR S R E N G S T O R F F A V E F A B I A N W A Y E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE F ERNE AVE CONTI N E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E LY N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY T Y R E L L A A V E ALMA ST V I E W S T I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S SH O R E L I N E B L V D T E R R A BELLA A V E B A R B A R A A V E SHOWERS DR R O C K S T O L D M I D D L E F I E L D W A Y M ONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N R E N G S T O R F F A V E G R A N T R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L E A S Y S T E E V E LY N A V E C H U R C H S T L A T H A M S T M O F F E T T B L V D C A S T R O S T SIE R R A VIS T A A V E E C H A R L E S T O N R D V I L L A S T N S H O R E L I N E B L V D E M I D D L E F I E L D R D C A L I F O R N I A S T S A N A N T O N I O R D MOUNTAINVIEWALVISO RD STAT E R TE 2 3 7 W M I D D L E F I E L D R D USHWY 101 BAYSHORE FWY U S H W Y 1 0 1 S T A T E R T E 8 2 W E L C A M I N O R E A L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 BICYCLE + PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Rea l Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Per Hexagon (2014 - 2018) 1 - 2 Collisions 3 - 6 Collisions 7 - 11 Collisions Data Source: UC Berkeley TIMS REGIO NAL CO NTE XT Map Produced: October 2020 Intersection Evaluated Intersection 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 69 MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE 70 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study RE D W O O D C I T Y REDWOOD CITY WAYFINDING In general, the existing wayfinding inventory within Redwood City is in good condition and has been correctly installed. The majority of wayfinding along the interim route includes destinations plates, directional arrows and sharrows, Peninsula Bikeway branding which makes it easy for people on bikes to traverse the city along the route. Some key intersections were missing wayfinding directions including: •Hopkins Avenue and Elwood Street •Elwood Street and James Avenue •Vera Avenue and Fulton Street •Ebener Street and Poplar Avenue •Cypress Street and East Oakwood Blvd •East Oakwood Boulevard and West Oakwood Boulevard The map on the following page provides a summary of existing wayfinding along the interim route. REDWOOD CITY STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Mezes Park Hoover Park Palm Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Rocketship Redwood City Hawes Elementary Hoover Elementary Orion Alternative Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST H A Z EL A V E W H E E L E R AV E DILLER ST M A NOR CT GARDEN ST FLOWER ST NORMAN ST REESE ST TACOMA WAY KI N G S F O R D L N R EN ATO C T STRATFORD ST E L M S T B U R B A N K A V E H A N C O C K S T H Y DE ST SOMERSET ST WILSON ST C O PLEY AVE H E M LOCK AV E L E X I N G T O N A V E LOCUSTST W I N K L E B L E C K ST COMMERC I A L W A Y B R A D B U R Y L N GRAND ST DAVIS ST WOODROW ST FAY ST C L AREMONT AVE M U RRAY CT PERRY ST G O R D O N S T MADR O NE ST P A L M A V E L I NDEN ST G R EE N W OODLN F ST M E A D OW L N E N C I N A A V E MYRTLE ST H E S S R D D U R L S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E V A A V E V E T E R A N S B L V D C E D A R S T LEAHY ST M C E VOYST VERA AVE NO R T H U M B E R L A N D AV E W A L N U T S T R O B L E AV E W I L L O W S T B O N I T A A V E LENOLT ST SAMSON ST S P R U C E S T CONVENTION WAY B E E C H S T E OA KWOO D BLVD ALDEN ST A ST BLAND F O R D B L V D STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T B U C K E Y E S T W OA KWO O D BLV D CENT RAL AVE LATHROP ST C ST BIRCH ST C A R LO S AV E FING ER AVE C H A R T E R S T PA R K S T JOHNSON ST KING ST DUANE ST CLINTON ST H I LT O N S T B A Y R D E ST B ST D O U G L A S AV E S C O T T A V E D ST ARCH ST C YP R E S S S T S H A S TA S T F LY N N A V E G ST C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T HARRISON AVE JACKSON AVE C E N T E R S T W I N S L O W S T MADISON AVE REGENT ST INDUSTRIAL WAY O R C H A R D A V E OXFORD ST FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST ALLERTON ST KATHERINE AVE B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST POPLAR AVE LINCOLN AVE REDWOOD AVE B R O A D W A Y S T FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST B AY S H O R E F W YUSHWY101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST S TA M B A U G H S T ARLINGTON RD C H E S T N U T S T OAK AVE M A P L E S T CLINTON ST ROOSEVELT AVE ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST B R O A D W A Y S T M A R S H A L L S T JETER ST E D G E W O O D R D KING ST S P R I N G S TVETERANS BLVD IRIS ST JAMES AVE HOPKINS AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE JEFFERSON AVE BREWSTER AVE MIDDLEFIELD RD S T A T E R T E 8 4 W O O D S I D E R D HUDSON ST EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 WE L L ESLE Y C RES FIELDWORK: EXISTING CONDITIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REDWOOD CITY Wayfinding Type Bike Route Destinations Plate Directional Arrows Peninsula Bikeway B randed REGIO NAL CO NTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 71 72 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study ME N L O P A R K MENLO PARK WAYFINDING Wayfinding was in generally good condition, correctly installed, and included bike route and destination plates along the interim route. There were however a few key intersections that need additional signage because of their importance along the route. These intersections included: •Laurel Street and Willow Road •Willow Road and Waverley Street The map on the following page provides a summary of existing wayfinding along the interim route. MENLO PARK STATION Ã82Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Burgess Park El Palo Alto Park El Camino Park Nealon Park Stanford University Menlo-Atherton High STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER PA L O RD LN 15 E TASSO ST LN 33 EVERETT CT POE ST BRYANT CT FULTON ST HIGH ST RAMONA ST EM ERSON ST KIPLING ST WEBSTER ST RUTHVEN AVE BYRON ST ALMA ST QUARRY RD BRYANT ST S A N D HILL RD MI D D L E F I E L D R D COWPER ST EL C AM I N O R E A L STATE RTE 82 S TA T E R T E 8 2 P A L O ALT O A V E EVERETT AVE P A L O A L T O AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LYTTON AVE K E NTP L B LA K E S T MILLS CT C U R T I S ST D OY L E ST L A U R ELPL B A R R O N S T C L O V E R L N M O R EY D R M A LO N E Y S T C H E S T N UT S T R O BIN W A Y H O P K I N S ST MARMON A D R B A Y W O O D A V E M C K E N D R Y D R A RLI N G TO N W AY R I N G W O O D A V E MIEL KE D R CO R N EL L R D KENWOOD DR S U R V E Y L N B U C K T H O R N WAY S P R U C E AV E 3 R D S T B L A C K B U R N A V E SH E RW O O D WAYALMA LN ALTO L N MERRILL ST P I N E S T M A R C U S S E N D R NO E L DR MILLS ST H OOV E R ST S A N A N T O N I O S T VA L PA R A I S O AV E AR D E N R D L E N N O X AV E G L E N WO O D AV E STO N E P I N E L N S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E S A N T A M O N I C A A V E ME N LO AV E L I V E OA K AV E W 4 T H S T CO L L EG E AV E R O B LE AV E H A R VA R D AV E PA R T R I DG E AVE C A MB R I D G E AV E SE M I N ARY DR M I D D LE AV E C R A N E ST CREEK DR GARWOOD WAY C L A R E M O N T W A Y SA N TA CR U Z AV E B U R G E S S D R W O O D LAND A V E WAV E R L EY ST E N C I N A L AV E E C R E E K D R L I N F I EL D D R F E LTO N D R R AV E N S W O O D A V E O A K G R O V E AV E WILLOW RD ALMA ST L A U R E L S T P A U L S ON C I R M ORGAN L N GLO RI A C I R FIELDWORK: EXISTING CONDITIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK Wayfinding Type Bike Route Destinations Plate Directional Arrows Peninsula Bikeway B randed REGIO NAL CO NTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 73 74 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PA L O A L T O PALO ALTO WAYFINDING Wayfinding within Palo Alto city limits is comprehensive and provides good guidance to people biking internally (to and from Palo Alto). Many of its signage included bike route and destination plates as well as directional arrows. However much of the wayfinding throughout the interim route within city limits did not include any Peninsula Bikeway branded elements. This made it quite difficult for the field assessment team to traverse the interim route and connect to neighboring jurisdiction. Further, signage at key turns including those at bridges was either block by overgrown vegetation or was difficult to see because of the size of the existing sign plates and lack of lighting. The map on the following page provides a summary of existing wayfinding along the interim route. NOTE: city wayfinding plates/signage along the interim route that did not include Peninsula Bikeway information or branding were not included in this survey. PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION £101 Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Boulware Park Seale Park Robles Park Mitchell Park Briones Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult EducationPalo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle STAN F ORD SHOPPING CE N T E R NE W M AY F IE L D LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T O NIO C IR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 E L C A M I NOWAY UNIVERSITY AVE LN 33 POE ST CLARA DR A SHB Y DR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOC H DR ALGER DR V I S TA AV E TASSO ST SIL V A AVEENCINA AVE PA U L A V E B R UCE DR C E R E Z A D R LI N C O L N A V E H E A T H E R L N PA G E M I L L R D A SHTONAVE M E D I C A L L N B I B B I TSDR E L C EN T R O S T WEBSTER ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE OR M E ST T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE E LSI NO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E TENNESSEE LN E L C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A N T ST K E N DAL L AV E SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLE R I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE D UNCA N P L WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE V E N T U R A AV E MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E L E L A ND AV E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NAT H A N W A Y NITAAVE C U R T N E R AV E HIGH ST B OW D O I N S TSTANFORD STCOLUMBIA S T W M E A D O W D R YAL E S T H ARVA RD ST O B E R L I N ST W I L L I AM S ST WI LTO N AV E PR I N C E TO N ST CO R N EL L S T FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST EN C I NA GR A N D E DR S H ER I DA N AV E M A R G AR I TA AVE B I R C H S T F E R N AN D O AV E AC AC I A A V E W A L NUT D R WILLM A R D R L O IS L N M AGNOL I ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO R A L E S D R L A M B E R T AVE DO N A L D D R O L I V E AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH R ISTINE DR A M H E R ST S T MARD E LL WAY H A R R I E T S T SUT HER L A N D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX F O R D AV E GR A N T AV E BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR SH ER M A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LI N G DR RORKE WAY EL CARMELO AVE BEN LO MOND D R KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AM A R A N TA AV E DELL AV E AMES A V E CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W MI D D L EFIELDRD L A D O N N A AV E URBA N LN S OUTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTOND R EMEADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V EHARKER A V E L A PA R A AV E G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMI NO RE AL MARSHAL LDR ELY PL CALIF O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL OAKCR E EK D R C A M B R I D G E AV E NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C H I M A L U S D R EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST G E O R GIA A V E LAGUNA AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E M ATAD E R O AV E S A N A NTON I O WAY WELC H R D TRANSPOR T S T QUARRY R D FE RNE AVE M AY B E L L A V E LO S RO B L E S A V E H A N S E NWAY B A R RO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N C AL I F O RNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S C A L I F O R N IA AV E LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE NEWELL RD CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE MONROE D R EMERSON ST HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADOAVE PA L OA LTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT ARA S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO L L EG E AV E SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA N F O R D AVE EMBARCADERO RD H AN OV E R S T ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMI L T O N A V E PARK BLVD S AN AN TO N I O R D E C H A R L E S T O N R D EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST MI DDL E F I E L D R D WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAVERLEY ST E L C A M I N O R E A L STATE RT E 82 ALMA ST STATE RTE 82 STARR K ING CIR R E D WOO D C I R R O OSEVE L T CIR ARB O R R D ALMA ST ALTO L N YA L E R D T R E N T ONW A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFI E LD RD C E N T R A L AVE LEXI N G T O N D R H A R VA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R C A M B R I D G E AV E C O N C O R D D R LA U R E LAVE P OPE S T E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREE K D R W O ODLANDAV E W I L L O W R D FIELDWORK: EXISTING CONDITIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO Wayfinding Type Bike Route Destinations Plate Directional Arrows Peninsula Bikeway B randed REGIO NAL CO NTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 75 MOUNTAIN VIEWMENLO PARK PALO ALTO 76 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study MO U N T A I N V I E W MOUNTAIN VIEW WAYFINDING Bicycle wayfinding in Mountain View was among the most comprehensive along the full interim route. Signage included destinations plates, directional arrows, and peninsula bikeway branded elements making it easy to traverse the route. It is important to note that a number of corridors (ex. California Street, Dana Street) were undergoing repaving/upgrading during field observations and some of the signage may not have been present. The map on the following page provides a summary of existing wayfinding along the interim route. MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã82 Pioneer Memorial Park Slater School Park Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park Whisman School Park Eagle Park Castro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park San Veron Park Cooper Park Graham School Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park McKelvey Park Crittenden School Park Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital Independent Study Program Slater Special Education Preschool Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Stevenson Elementary Crittenden Middle Monta Loma Elementary Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Greendell M I R A M O N T E A V E W A L K E R D R C H E T W O O D D R C A L D E R O N AV E W O O DL E A F WAY N E L M O N T E A V E S A N ANT O NIO CIR B AY S TSILVA C T T O F T S T A L T A A V E R I C H A V E D O Y L E P L Y UCC A D R R I N C O N S T L I D A D R ESTR A D A D R S E V E L Y D R A D E L E A V E DRU C I L LA DR S AN L U P P E DR M U I R D R DIABLO AVE S H A R Y AV E E L S I E A V E BETLO AVE B E A T R I C E S T M O R A D R HI G DO N A V E P A L M E R A V E B O N N Y S T R E INE R T R D JE S S I E L N P A M E L A DR G E M I N I A V E S E R E N A D R O A K T R EE D R A LI S O N A V E V A S S A R A V E J A C K S O N S TJANE L N DAKE AVE BE NTL E Y SQ C H E S L E Y A V E KI N G S R O W EICHLE R D R L A C E W O O D D R V I NC E N T D R L O L A LN R U S TI C L N C U E S T A D R S I L VA AVE O R M O N D E DR J A R D I N D R LEONG DR JAC K S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I LLE C T L A N E A V E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORADO D R G R E E N V I E W D R W I L L I A MS W A Y B E V E R L Y S T MAYFIELD AVE T H OM P S ONSQ T Y L E R P A R K W AY ANNA AVENELSONDR M A R IL Y N D R E H R H O R N AV E KENT DR F A Y W A Y S N O W S T K A T R I N A W A Y SCRIPPS AVE B E G E N A V E C R E S T V I E W D R L E O N A LN STA R R W AY E D N A M A R Y W A Y M C C A R T Y A V E J U D S O N D R PA R K D R S U T H E R L A N D D R PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D EMILY DR M O O N B E A M D R K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E V A Q U E R O D R O A K L N W I N D M I L LP A R K LN V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR E R N E S T I N E L N L O R E T O S T N W H I S M A N R D MONTE L EN A C T M I D D L E F I E L D R D S I E R R A AV E L A U R A L N K A R E N W A Y R AI N B O W D R C A R O L A V E S U N M O R A V E MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D HEATHE R S TO N E W A Y YUBA DR G I L M O R E S T SONI A WA Y F A BIAN W A Y H A C K E T T A V E C O M M E R C I A L S T NITA AVE T O D D S T S A N L U C A S A V E STE V E N S C R E E K D R E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROU G H D R F A I R B R O O K D R E U N I C E A V E M O R G A N S T PARKSIDE DR H I G H S C H O O L W AY C E N T R E S T S A N M A RCO S C I R P L Y M O U T H S T S W H IS M ANRD ALVI N S T S A N R A F A E L A V E A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N G R A N A D A D R F A R L E Y S T M ORTON C T MARD ELL WAY G L E N B ORO U G H D R C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A NA ST M O N T R O S E A V E D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V E T O W NE C I R F L Y N N AV E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E S O L A N A D R ELCAMINO REAL Y O S E M I T E AV E BE NLOMON D DR C A R M E LITA D R W I L L O W G A T E G A R D E N S WIL L O W G A T E S T C O L O N Y S T DELL AVE S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E N B E R NARDO AVE M A R I C H W A Y LANDMARK PKWY L I N D A V I S T A A V E P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R L I N R D DIERICX D R C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E S A N P I E R R E W A Y B O R A N D A A V E BAYSHORE PKWY M O N T A L T O D R B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R Y A N T S T S A N L E AND R O AV E N I L D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E M A R T E N S AV E S P R I N G S T C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E W R I G H T A V E O A K S T P A U L A V E W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D ALMA ST L E G H O R N S T B A R B A R A A V E C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LIS A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDR T Y R E L L A A V E C E N T R A L A V E C H I Q U I T A A V E B U R G O Y N E S T S A N A N T O N I O WAY S L E E P E R A V E O R T E G A A V E T R A N S P O R T S T S R E N G S T O R F F A V E E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE C O N T I N E N T A L C I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E L Y N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARK W A Y F R A N K L I N S T E C H A R L E S T O N R D G R A N T R D V I E W S T I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S S H O R E L I NE BLV D TERRA B E L L A AV E S H O W E R S D R R O C K S T O L D M I D D L E F I E L D W A Y M ONROE DR S A N R A M ON AV E M E R C Y S T N R E N G S T O R F F A V E E A S Y S T E E L C A M I N O R E A L MO F F E T T B L V D E E V E L Y N A V E C H U R C H S T L AT H AM ST C A S T R O S T N S H O R E LI N E B L V D SIE R R A VIS T A A V E V I L L A S T S A N A N T O N I O R D E M I D D L E F I E L D R D C A L I F O R N I A S T MOUNTAIN VIE W A L VIS O R D STAT E R TE 2 3 7 BAYS H O R E F W YUS HWY 101 W M I D D L E F I E L D R D S T A T E R T E 8 5 W VALLEYFWY ST A TE RTE85 W V A LLE Y F W Y STAT E R T E 8 2 W E L C A M I N O REAL C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 C UERN AV AC A C I R C U L O FIELDWORK: EXISTING CONDITIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW Wayfinding Type Bike Route Destinations Plate Directional Arrows Peninsula Bikeway B randed REGIO NAL CO NTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 77 MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE PALO ALTO 1 B INTERIM ROUTE - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 80 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study INTERIM ROUTE - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS This section provides a summary of recommended wayfinding and safety improvements along the interim route and at priority locations identified by each jurisdiction. The proposed improvements are organized geographically by city/location and are based on existing conditions found during field observations conducted in January 2020. Recommended improvements are presented in illustrative maps and cutsheets in the following pages. They will require additional engineering evaluation and input from the community. B INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS The proposed recommendations in this section focus on improving safety and connectivity for bicyclists at priority locations throughout the study area. Recommendations include changes to intersection geometry, crossing improvements, and additional striping to increase visibility of people crossing the street. The recommendations are based on national best practices and designed to improve safety and provide a more continuous, low-stress experience for people biking. Particular attention is placed on intersections with high concentrations of bicycle/ pedestrian crashes within the past five (5) years. Concept designs were developed for Quick-Build implementation for a number of priority intersections within each jurisdiction at the request of MPP representatives. Designs such as bicycle boxes, left-turn boxes and protected intersections were highlighted at priority locations and should be further evaluated for each specific site. Recommendations are presented in illustrative maps and cutsheets on the following pages. Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 81 82 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study RE D W O O D C I T Y REDWOOD CITY INTERSECTIONS A set of eight (8) intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking. The intersections were selected based on analysis and fieldwork as well as the priority intersections identified by the city. Recommended improvements centered around geometric changes to tighten the curb radii and discourage speeding at intersections; the addition of high visibility crosswalks and bike boxes for increased bicycle visibility; and, traffic control improvements such as switching the intersection from 2-way to all-way stop. The following map presents the recommended improvements. QUICK BUILD RECOMMENDATIONS: The following design concepts were developed for quick-build considerations. The proposed improvements focus on increasing safety by utilizing affordable materials (ex. flexible posts/delineators, striping) which could easily be upgraded in the future. •El Camino Real and James Ave •Woodside Rd and Cypress St •James Ave and Duane St •El Camino Real and Center St REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park Andrew Spinas Park Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy Summit Preparatory Charter High Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R A V E CHELS E A WAY 3 R D A V E H Y DEST 4 T H A V E LARK AVE PECAN CT 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST MA DR O N E S T L I NDE N ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A AV E 1 7 T H A V ER O S E A V E D O D GE D R P E N O B S C O T D R H E S S R D DURL S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E V A A V E L E A H Y ST VERA AVE M A R S H R D H O R G A N A V E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E A V E WI L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A A V E WA R WICK ST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A LL L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLVD A ST S E A P O R T B L V D F L O R E N C E S T STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T E A T O N A V E B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOO D B L VD C E N T R AL AV E LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 1 5 T H A V E C ST BIRCH ST C A R LO S AV E ATHERWOODAVE O DD S T A D D RBAIRISLANDRD I N NER CIR F I NGER AVE C H A R T E R S T A V EDEL O R A PA R K ST JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I L T O N S T E ST 2 N D A V E R O L I S O N R D 8 T H A V E B ST P A L M A V E H A V E N A V E WOODSWORTHAVE D ST ARCH ST C Y P R E SS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N AV E G ST 1 0 T H A V E B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T S C O T T A V E JACKSON AVE C E N T E R S T W I N S L O W S T REGENT ST RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIAL WAY O R C H A R D A V E CON V E N T I O N WAY OXFORD ST B L A N D F ORD B LVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST HILLVIE W A V E S A I N T F R A N C I S ST H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U I S T S T B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST 5 T H A V E POPLAR AVE LINCOLN AVE NEVADA ST H A R RISON AVE B R O A D W A Y S T GORDON ST KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S T A M B A U G H S T CLINTON ST ARLI N GTONRD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST A L A M E DA ALAMEDADE L A S P U L G A S VETERANS BLVD C H E S T N U T S T M A R S H A L L S T IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD M A P L E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE BAYSHORE FWY MIDDLEFIELD RD HOPKINS AVE J E F F E R S ON AVE BREWSTER AVE H UDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W Y U S H W Y 1 0 1 B A Y R D B R O A D W A Y S T EL CAMINO RE AL W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REDWOOD CITY 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Proposed Improvements Recontruct Curbs Tighten Curb Radii High Visibility Crosswalk Add Traffic Control Bike Box REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 83 ATHERTON REDWOOD CITYSAN CARLOS Not to scale ECR PILOT PROJECT El Camino Real and James Ave 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ R e d w o o d C i t y . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Redwood City, CA ECR at James REDWOOD CITY NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION EL CAMINO REAL AND JAMES AVE PROTECTED INTERSECTION A protected intersection with paint and flexible delineators provides room for bicyclists and pedestrians. The tightened radii also slow vehicles, increase reaction times and increases bicyclists and pedestrians visibility to safely cross or turn CROSSWALKS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety for those crossing WAYFINDING Add wayfinding at intersections to connect local destinations and improve access to transit Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, angled crosswalks Large intersection with long wait times and long crossings Emphasis on cars and disconnect between Redwood City Train Station and El Camino Real REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park AndrewSpinasPark Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy Summit Preparatory Charter High Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R A V E CHELS E A WAY 3RD AVE H Y DEST 4TH AVE LOCUST ST LARK AVE PECAN CT 7TH AVE6TH AVE LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST MADR ON E S T L I NDE N ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A A V E 17TH AVEROSE AVEDODGEDRPENOBSCOT DR H E S S R D DURL S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E VA AV E C E D A R S T L EAHY ST VERA AVE MARSH RD H O R G A N AV E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E A V E WI L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A A V E WARWICK ST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A L L L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLVD A ST SEAPORTBLVD F L O R E N C E S T STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T E A T O N A V E B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOO D B L VD C E N T R AL AVE LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 15TH AVE C ST BIRCH ST C A RLO S AV E ATHERWOODAVE O D D S TA D D RBAIRISLANDRD I N NER CIR F INGER AVE C H A R T E R S T A V EDEL O R A PA R K S T JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I L T O N S T E ST 2ND A V E R O L I S O N R D 8TH AVE B ST P A L M A V E HAVENAVE WOODSWORTHAVE D ST ARCH ST C Y P RESS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N AV E G ST 10TH AVE B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T S C O T T AV E JACKSON AVE C E N T E R ST W I N S L O W S T REGENT ST RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIAL WAY O R C H A R D A V E CON V E N T I O N WAY OXFORD ST B L A N D F ORD B LVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST HILLVIE W A V E S A I N T F R A N C I S S T H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U I S T S T B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST 5TH AVE POPLAR AVELINCOLN AVE NEVADAST H A R RISON AVE B R O A D W A Y S T GORDON ST KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S TA M B A U G H S T CLINTONST ARLI N GTONRD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST A L A M E DA ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS VETERANS BLVD C H E S T N U T S T M A R S H A L L S T IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD M A P L E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE B A Y S H O R E F W Y M I D D LEFIELD RD HOPKINS AVE J E F F E RSON AVE BREWSTER AVE H UDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W Y U S H W Y 1 0 1 B A Y R DBROADWAY S T W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 EXISTING + PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY Existing / Proposed Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway REDWOOD CITY 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 The improvements incorporate the El Camino Real Pilot Project with protected bike lanes and enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Short term solutions include: •Straightened high visibility crosswalks •Protected intersection •Improved wayfinding and connection between commercial areas, Redwood City Train Station, and Sequoia High. Coordination with Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan (adopted Dec 2017) E L C A M I N O R E A L JA M E S A V E Not to scale INTERIM ROUTE REDWOOD CITY NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION WOODSIDE RD AND CYPRESS ST High vehicular speeds from highway on/off ramp Lack of comfort and space for bicycling on sidewalk Confusing route and lack of intuitive wayfinding Future improvements include: •Planned Class IV separated bikeway on Woodside Rd starting at Hess Rd heading north •Planned Class II buffered bike lane on Woodside Rd starting at Hess Rd heading south WAYFINDING Add increased Peninsula Bikeway branded wayfinding at intersections BICYCLE FACILITIES A painted two-way cycle-track with flexible delineators will separate bicyclist from traffic and increase user comfort BULB-OUTS A bulb-out with flexible delineators at the Northbound intersection approach will reduce the wide travel lane and will make room for the cycle track REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park AndrewSpinasPark Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy SummitPreparatory CharterHigh Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R A V E CHELS E A WAY 3RD AVE HYDEST 4TH AVE LOCUST ST LARK AVE PECAN CT 7TH AVE6TH AVE LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST MA DRONE S T L I NDEN ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A A V E 17TH AVEROSE AVEDODGEDRPENOBSCOT DR H E S S R D DURL S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E VA A V E C E D A R S T L EAHY ST VERA AVE MARSH RD H O R G A N AV E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E A V E WI L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A A V E WARWICKST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A L L L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLVD A ST SEAPORTBLVD F L O R E N C E S T STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T EATON AVE B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOO D B L VD C E N T R AL AVE LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 15TH AVE C ST BIRCH ST C A RLO S AV E ATHERWOODAVE O D D S TA D D RBAIRISLANDRD I N NERCIR F INGER AVE C H A R T E R S T A V EDEL O R A PA R K S T JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I L T O N S T E ST 2ND AVEROLISON R D 8TH AVE B ST P A L M A V E HAVENAVE WOODSWORTHAVE D ST ARCH ST C Y P RE SS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N AV E G ST 10TH AVE B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T SCOTT A V E JACKSON AVE CE N T E R ST W I N S L O W S T REGENT ST RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIALWAY O R C H A R D A V E CONVENTIONWAY OXFORD ST B L A N D F ORDBLVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORDST HILLVIEW A V E S A I N T F R A N C I S S T H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U I S T S T BROADWAY EBENER ST WARREN ST 5TH AVE POPLAR AVELINCOLN AVE NEVADAST H A R RISON AVE BROADWAYST GORDON ST KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S TA M B A U G H S T CLINTONST ARLI N GTONRD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST A L A M E DA ALAMEDADELASPULGAS VETERANSBLVD C H E S T N U T S T M A R S H A L L S T IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD MAPL E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE BAYSHORE FWY M I D D LEFIELD RD HOPKINS AVE JE F F E RSON AVE BREWSTER AVE H UDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W YUSHWY101 B A Y R DBROADWAY S T W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 EXISTING + PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY Existing / Proposed Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway REDWOOD CITY 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I RE GIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 00 40'80'SHEET OF Z: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ A . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY REDWOOD CITY, CA WOODSIDE & CYPRESS - NEAR TEARM CONCEPT WO O D S I D E R O A D / C A 8 4 HESS R D / C A 8 4 CY P R E S S S T The improvements enhance user comfort and safety by creating additional room for bicyclists. Short term solutions include: •High visibility crosswalks •Bicycle conflict striping and painted bicycle boulevard striping •Painted, separated, and buffered two-way cycle track •Improved wayfinding signage and placement Not to scale James Ave and Duane St 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ R e d w o o d C i t y . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Redwood City, CA James at Duane INTERIM ROUTE REDWOOD CITY NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION JAMES AVE AND DUANE ST WAYFINDING Increase Peninsula Bikeway branded wayfinding at intersections that includes directional arrows to alert users there is a turn in the route BICYCLE CONFLICT STRIPING The paint alerts drivers of existing crossings. Conflict striping also provides safer crossing for bicyclists trying to access the school. Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities Influx of pedestrians and cars adjacent to North Star Academy School Jog in route creates lack of continuity and wayfinding REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park AndrewSpinasPark Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy SummitPreparatory CharterHigh Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R A V E CHELSE A WAY 3RD AVE H Y DEST 4TH AVE LOCUST ST LARK AVE PECAN CT 7TH AVE6TH AVE LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST MADR O N E ST LINDE N ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A A V E 17TH AVEROSE AVEDODGEDRPENOBSCOT DR H E S S R D DURL S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E VA AV E C E D A R S T L EAHY ST VERA AVE MARSH RD H O R G A N AV E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E AV E WI L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A A V E WARWICK ST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A L L L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLVD A ST SEAPORTBLVD F L O R E N C E S T STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T E A T O N A V E B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOO D B L VD C E N T R AL AVE LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 15TH AVE C ST BIRCH ST C A RLO S AV E ATHERWOODAVE O D D S TA D D RBAIRISLANDRD I N NER CIR F INGER AVE C H A R T E R S T A V EDEL O R A PA R K S T JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I LT O N S T E ST 2ND AVEROLISON R D 8TH AVE B ST P A L M A V E HAVENAVE WOODSWORTHAVE D ST ARCH ST C Y P R ESS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N AV E G ST 10TH AVE B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T S C O T T AV E JACKSON AVE CE N T E R ST W I N S L O W S T REGENT ST RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIAL WAY O R C H A R D A V E CON V E N T I O N WAY OXFORD ST B L A N D F ORD B LVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST HILLVIE W A V E S A I N T F R A N C I S S T H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U I S T S T B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST 5TH AVE POPLAR AVELINCOLN AVE NEVADAST H A R RISON AVE B R O A D W A Y S T GORDON ST KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S T A M B A U G H S T CLINTONST ARLI N GTONRD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST A L A M E DA ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS VETERANS BLVD C H E S T N U T S T M A R S H A L L S T IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD M A P L E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE B A Y S H O R E F W Y M I D D LEFIELD RD HOPKINS AVE JE F F E RSON AVE BREWSTER AVE H UDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W YUSHWY101 B A Y R DBROADWAY S T W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 EXISTING + PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY Existing / Proposed Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway REDWOOD CITY 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 The improvements enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Short term solutions include: •High visibility crosswalk •Bicycle conflict striping •Improved wayfinding signage and placement D U A N E S T JAM E S A V E CROSSWALKS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety for those crossing Not to scale ECR PILOT PROJECT 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ R e d w o o d C i t y . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Redwood City, CA ECR at Center REDWOOD CITY NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION EL CAMINO REAL AND CENTER ST CROSSWALKS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety for those crossing - option to add painted refuge island to shorten crossings PROTECTED INTERSECTION A protected intersection with paint and flexible delineators provides room for bicyclists The tightened radii also slow vehicles, increase reaction times and increases bicyclists and pedestrians visibility to safely cross or turn Coordination with Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan (adopted Dec 2017) Perceived High vehicular speeds and turning movements from adjacent commercial area Lack of comfort and space for bicycling on sidewalk REDWOOD CITY STATION ATHERTON STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Holbrook Palmer Park E R Burton Park Dove Beeger Park Palm Park Fleishmans Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park AndrewSpinasPark Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Hawes Elementary John Gill Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Taft Elementary Orion Alternative North Star Academy Summit Preparatory Charter High Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST W H E E L E R AV E CHELSE A WAY 3RD AVE HYDEST 4TH AVE LOCUST ST LARK AVE PECAN CT 7TH AVE6TH AVE LYONS ST DAVIS ST FAY ST OPALAVE M URRAY CT PERRY ST MA DRON E ST L I NDEN ST M EA D OWLN JUNIPERO AVE E N C I N A AV E 17TH AVEROSE AVEDODGEDRPENOBSCOT DR H E S S R D DURL S T O N RD B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST OA K W O O D D R PRICE AVE N U E V A A V E C E D A R S T L EAHY ST VERA AVE MARSH RD H OR G A N AV E W A L N U T S T SANCHEZWAY R O B L E A V E WI L L O W S T L O R E L EI L N B O N I T A AV E WARWICKST LENOLT ST S P R U C E S T SIERRA ST W H I T E H A L L L N B E E C H S T E OAKWOOD BLVD A ST SEAPORTBLVD F L O R E N C E S T STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T EATON AVE B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOOD B L VD C E N T R AL AVE LATHROP ST U N I O N A V E 15TH AVE C ST BIRCH ST C A RLO S AV E ATHERWOODAVE O D D S T A D D RBAIRISLANDRD I N NER CIR F INGER AVE C H A R T E R S T A V EDEL O R A PA R K S T JOHNSON ST DUANE ST H I LT O N S T E ST 2ND AVEROLISON R D 8TH AVE B ST P A L M A V E HAVENAVE WOODSWORTHAVE D ST ARCH ST C YP RE SS ST S H A S TA S T FLY N N AV E G ST 10TH AVE B A Y R D C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T S C O T T AV E JACKSON AVE C E N T E R ST W I N S L O W S T REGENT ST RUBY ST D O U G L A S A V E QUARTZ ST INDUSTRIALWAY O R C H A R D AV E CONVENTIONWAY OXFORD ST B L A N D F ORDBLVD FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORDST HILLVIE W A V E S A I N T F R A N C I S S T H O O V E R S T ALLERTON ST B L O M Q U IS T S T BROADWAY EBENER ST WARREN ST 5TH AVE POPLAR AVELINCOLN AVE NEVADAST H A R RISON AVE BROADWAYST GORDON ST KATHERINE AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST MADISON AVE P A G E S T S T A M B A U G H S T CLINTONST ARLI N GTONRD ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST REDWOOD AVE JETER ST KING ST MYRTLE ST A L A M E DA ALAMEDADELASPULGAS VETERANSBLVD C H E S T N U T S T M A R S H A L L S T IRIS ST KENTFIELD AVE S P R I N G S T EDGEWOOD R D VALOTA RD M A P L E S T OAK AVE ROOSEVELT AVE EBAYSHORERD JAMES AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE BAYSHORE FWY M I D D LEFIELD RD HOPKINS AVE JE F F E RSON AVE BREWSTER AVE H UDSON ST B A Y S H O R E F W Y U S H W Y 1 0 1 B A Y R DBROADWAY S T W O O D S I D E R D EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 S T A T E R T E 8 4 EXISTING + PROPOSED BIKEWAYS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY Existing / Proposed Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway REDWOOD CITY 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 The improvements incorporate the ECR Pilot Project with protected bike lanes and enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Short term solutions include: •Straightened high visibility crosswalks •Protected intersection Large intersection with long wait times and long crossings E L C A M I N O R E A L CEN T E R S T 88 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study ME N L O P A R K MENLO PARK INTERSECTIONS Four (4) intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking. Recommended improvements centered around geometric changes to tighten the curb radii and discourage speeding at intersections; the addition of high visibility bike boxes and hashes at conflict points for increased bicycle visibility; and, traffic control improvements such as switching the intersection from 2-way to 3-way stops, and reorienting existing signals for ease in visibility. The following map presents the recommended improvements QUICK BUILD RECOMMENDATIONS: The following design concepts were developed for quick-build considerations. The proposed improvements focus on increasing safety by utilizing affordable materials (ex. flexible posts/delineators, striping) which could easily be upgraded in the future. •Elena Ave and Valparaiso Ave •Valparaiso Ave and Crane St •Laurel St and Ravenswood Av •Willow Pl and Willow Rd ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION £101 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Heritage Park Burgess Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park Rinconada Park The Oval Park Eleanor Pardee Park Andrew Spinas Park Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Scott Park Stanford University Hillview Middle Taft Elementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary S TANF ORD SHOPPING CE N T E R CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST L N 21 PA LO RD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R T I N A V E AS H S T M E D I C A L L N WEBSTER ST F I F E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VI N E Y A R D L N L E L AN D AV E FULTON ST KIPLING ST W A L NUT D R H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST H A R R I E T S T MARIPOSA AVE KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBA N LN NORTHAMPTON DR P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E G R E E N W O O D A V E OAKCR E EKD R BYRON ST PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY R D COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STA N F O R D AVE P A S T E U R D R N E W E L L R D LYTTON AVE M E L V I L L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L T OA V E CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 W H E E L E R A V E CHELSE A WAY 3 R D A V E OA K L N C L A I R E P L 4 T H A V E D O D GE D R 1 5 T H A V E G AR DENL N 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E EV E LY N S T S U RV E Y LN CO R I N E L N A M B A R WAY S P R U C E AV E P O P P Y AVE H O L LY AV E R O S E A V E 3 R D S T H O O V E R S T T R E N T ON W A Y S P R I N G S T H A V E N A V E E N C I N A A V E ALMA LN O R C H A R D A V E ALTO LN MERRILL ST P I N E S T NOEL DR MIL LS ST H A N N AW A Y H O OV E R ST STATE RTE 82 1 0 T H A V E F L O R E N C E S T OA K W O O D D R H E SKET H D R S T A T E R T E 8 4 STA N F O R D AVE R O B L E A V E L A U R ELAVE A R D E N RD LE N N O X AVE E OAKWOOD BLV D G L E N W O O D AV E OA K DE LL DR W OA KWOOD B L VD STONEP I N E L N K E N T F I E L DAV E OA K AV E W H I T E H A L L L N B R O A D W A Y S T P OPE S T LEXI N G T O N D R P R I NC ETO N R D W 4 T H S T A T HERWOOD AVE WAL LE A D R CR A N E ST JO H N S O N S T E L D E R AV E H AR VA R D AV E 2 N D A V E P O L I TZ E R DR M C K E N D R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PA R T R I D G E AVE H I L LV IE W D R B U R G E S S D R M A R M O N A D R ME N LO AV E L I V E OA K AV E R O B L E AV E YA L E R D C O N C O R D D R H O B A R T S T H ER M OS A WAY WIN D S OR D R F R E M O N T S T P A G E S T A R B O R R D WAVERLE Y S T 5TH A V E VA L PA R A I S O AV E G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E E N C I N A L AV E E C R E E K D R S A N T A M O N I C A A V E B A Y L A U R E L D R C A MB R I D G E AV E CO LL EG E AV E L I N F IELD DR F E LTON DR CRE E K D R O L I VE ST R AV E N S W O O D AV E SE M I N ARY D R WO O DL A NDAVE U N I V E R S IT Y D R M I D D L E F I E L D R D OA K G R O V E AV E B A Y R D ALMA ST CO T T ON S T SAN M ATEO D R MI D D L E AV E W I L L O W R D LAUR E L ST SA N TA C R U Z AV E S TAT E R TE 82 M ORGA N L N G LOR I A C I R INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Proposed Improvements Recontruct Curbs Tighten Curb Radii High Visibility Crosswalk Add Traffic Control Bike Box REGIO NAL CO NTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 89 ATHERTON MENLO PARK PALO ALTO Not to scale ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 JohnsonPark Holbrook Palmer Park HeritagePark Burgess Park WillowOaksPark El Palo Alto Park Peers Park BowlingGreenPark Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park RinconadaPark The Oval Park EleanorPardeeParkAndrewSpinasPark Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza ScottPark Stanford University Hillview Middle TaftElementary Menlo-AthertonHigh Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High AddisonElementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter HaysElementary CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56UNIVERSITY AVELN33 POE ST LN 21 PA LO RD LOUIS RDTASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R TI N A V E AS H S T M E D I C A L L N FI F E A V ERUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VIN E Y A R D L N L E LA ND AVE FULTON ST W A L NUTDRHOPKINS A V EHALE ST HARRIET ST MARIPOSA AVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBAN LN NORTHAMPTOND RPARKINSON A V EHARKER A V EGREENWOOD A V E O A K CREEKD R BYRON ST STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E N TE R PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY RD COLERIDGE AVEHAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STA NF O RD AVE P A S T E U R D R NEWELL RDLYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVECHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE PALO A L T OAVE CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVEHOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RDSEALE AVEHAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY STBRYANT STCOWPER ST STATE RTE 82 WHEELERAVE C H E LSEAWAY 3RD AVE OA K LN C L A I R E P L 4TH AVEDODGEDR15TH AVE G AR D ENL N 7TH AVE6TH AVE EVELYN ST SURVEYLN CO RI N E LN AMBA R WAY S P R U C E AV E POP P Y AVE HO LLY AV E ROSE AVE 3 R D STHOOVER ST TRENTON W A YSPRING STHAVENAVE ENCINA AVE ALMA LN ORCHARDAVE ALTO L N MERRILL ST P IN E S T NOEL DRMILLS ST H A N NAWAY HO OV ER ST STATE RTE 82 10TH AVEFLO R E N C E S T OA KW O O D D R H E SKET H D R S T A T E R T E 8 4 STA NFO R D AV E ROBLE AVE LAURELAVE AR D E N RD L E NN O X A V E EOAKWOODBLV D GL EN WOO D AV E OAKD E LL D R WOAKWOODBLVD 8TH AVE STONEP IN E L N KENTFIELDAV E OAK AVE W H I T E H A LL L N BROADWAY ST POPE S TLEXINGTONDR PR I NC ETO N R D W 4 T H S T ATHERWOODAVE WALLE A D R CRA NE ST JO HN S ON ST EL D E R AVE HA R VA R D AV E 2ND AVE P OL I TZ E R DR MCKENDRY DR GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PA R TRI DG E AV E HI LLVIEW D R BUR G E S S D R MARMONA DR MENLO AVE L IV E OA K AVE R OBLE AV E YAL E R D CONCORD DR HO B ART S T HE R MOS A WAY WINDSO R D R FR E MO NT ST PAGEST AR B O R R D WAVERLEY S T5THAVE VAL PARAI S O AV E G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E SANTA MARGARITA AVE EN C I NA L AV E E C R E E K D R SANTA MONICA AVE B A Y L A U R E L D R C A MB R I D G E AVE CO LL EG E AVE LINFIELDDR F E LTON DR CREEK DR OLIV E ST RAVENSWOOD AV E SEMIN A R Y D R WOODLA N D A V E UN IV ERS ITY DR MIDDLEFIELD RD OAK GROV E AVE BAY RD COT TO N ST SA N M ATEO D R MIDD L E AVE WILLOWRD LA U R E L S T SANTA CR U Z AVE M ORGANLNGLORIACIR EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M e n l o P a r k . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Menlo Park, CA VALPARAISO @ ELENA & CORRINE INTERIM ROUTE ATHERTON MENL O P A R K MENLO PARK NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclists visibility and slow down vehicular turning movements. Short term solutions include: •High visibility crosswalks •Green bicycle lanes at intersection approach and conflict striping •Painted bulb-outs with flexible delineators to narrow turning movements and increase visibility •Improved wayfinding signage and placement ELENA AVE AND VALPARAISO AVE Offset intersection creates multiple conflict points for bicyclists and drivers Lacks high visibility markings for bicyclists and school children Jog in route creates lack of continuity and wayfinding CONFLICT STRIPING Separating bicyclists from the pedestrian crosswalk allows both user groups to cross at a comfortable speed BULB-OUTS These posts narrow turning radii and slow down vehicles and increase visibility of students, pedestrians, and bicyclists STRIPING AND WAYFINDING Striping solutions and wayfinding elements provide continuity and prevent this jog in the route from becoming an uncomfortable and confusing intersection, that would negatively impact the entirety of the route. NOTE Improvements on west half of Valparaiso will require coordination and approval from town of Atherton VAL P A R A I S O A V E CO R I N N E L N Not to scale INTERIM ROUTE 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M e n l o P a r k . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Menlo Park, CA Willow at Willow ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Heritage Park Burgess Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park Rinconada Park The Oval Park Eleanor Pardee Park Andrew Spinas Park Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Scott Park Stanford University Hillview Middle Taft Elementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST L N 21 PA LO RD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R T I N A V E AS H ST M E D I C A L L N F IF E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VI N E Y A R D L N L E LA ND AV E FULTON ST W A L NUTD R H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST H A R R I E T S T MARIPOSA AVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBAN LN NORTHAMPTOND R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E G R E E N W O O D A V E O A K CREEKD R BYRON ST STA N F O RD SHO P P I N G C E N TE R PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY RD COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STA NFO R D AV E P A S T E U R D R NEWELL RD LYTTON AVE M E L V IL L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L T OA V E CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST STATE RTE 82 WHEELERAVE C H E L SEAWAY 3 R D A V E OAK L N C L A I R E P L 4 T H A V E D O D GEDR 1 5 T H A V E GAR DENL N 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E EV E LYN ST S URVE Y LN CO R INE LN AM B A R WAY SP R U C E AV E POP PY AVE HO L LY AVE R O S E A V E 3 R D ST HOOVER ST T R E N T ON W A Y SPRING ST H A V E N A V E ENCINA AVE ALMA LN ORCHARDAVE ALTO LN MERRILL ST PI N E S T NOEL DRMILLS ST H A N NA W A Y HO OVER S T STATE RTE 82 1 0 T H A V E FLORENCE ST OA K W O O D D R H ESKET H DR S T A T E R T E 8 4 STA NFO RD AV E ROBLE AVE LAU R E L AVE A RD E N RD L E NN O X A V E EOAKWOODBLV D GL E N W O O D AV E OAK D ELL D R WOAKWOODBLVD 8 T H A V E STONEP I N E L N KENTFIELDAV E OA K AVE W H I T E H A L L L N BROADWAY ST POPE S T LEXI N G T O N D R PR I N C ETO N RD W 4T H S T ATHERWOODAVE WALLE A D R CR ANE ST JO HN SON ST EL DER AV E HARVA RD AV E 2 N D A V E P O LIT ZER DR M C K E N D R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PARTR I DG E AVE HI LLV IE W D R B U R G E S S D R M A R M O N A D R ME N LO AVE LI VE OA K AVE ROB LE AV E YA L E RD C O N C O R D D R HO BAR T ST HE RM OS A WAY WIN DSO R DR F RE MO NT ST PAGEST ARBO R RD WAVERLEY S T 5TH A V E VAL PA R AI SO AV E G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E E N C I N A L AVE E C R E E K D R S A N T A M O N I C A A V E B A Y L A U R E L D R CA MBRI DG E AV E CO L L EG E AVE L I N F I E L D DR F E LTON DR CREEK DR OLI VE S T R AV E N SWO O D AV E SE MIN A R Y D R WOO DLA N D A V E UNIV E R SIT Y D R MIDDLEFIELD RD OAK G R OV E AV E BAY RD COT TON ST SAN M AT EO DR MI D D LE AV E WILLOWRD L A U R E L ST SA NTA C RUZ AV E M ORGA N L N G LOR I A CIR EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK REGIO NAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route MENLO PARK NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION WILLOW PL AND WILLOW RD REFUGE ISLAND Removing the center turn lane and adding a striped median increases user safety and comfort by allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to cross one lane of traffic at a time BENT-OUT BIKE LANES The bike lane ‘bent-out’ away from the travel lane enhances visibility by raising the angle at which vehicles cross the bikeway. Removal of parking required for this feature STRIPING AND WAYFINDING Striping solutions and wayfinding elements provide continuity and prevent this jog in the route from becoming an uncomfortable and confusing intersection, that would negatively impact the entirety of the route WILLO W R D W I L L O W P L The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclists visibility and slow down vehicular turning movements. Short term solutions include: •High visibility crosswalks and conflict striping •Painted median and refuge island •'Bent-out' bicycle lanes and striping •Improved wayfinding signage and placement Uncontrolled intersection so traffic does not stop on Willow Jog in route creates lack of continuity and wayfinding Difficult for northbound cyclists to make left onto Willow Rd Not to scale ATHERTON STATION MENLOPARKSTATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORDSTADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park HolbrookPalmerPark Heritage Park Burgess Park Willow OaksPark El PaloAlto Park PeersPark Bowling GreenPark Lytton Plaza FremontPark El Camino Park Rinconada Park TheOval Park EleanorPardee Park Andrew SpinasPark NealonPark ElinorCogswellPlaza ScottPark Stanford University Hillview Middle Taft Elementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary CLARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST L N 21 PALORD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R TI N A V E ASH ST M E D I C A L L N FIF E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T UM R D CHAUCERST VINE Y A R D L N L E LAND AVE FULTON ST W A LNUTD R H O P K IN S A V E HALE ST H A R RIE T S T MARIPOSA AVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBAN LN NORTHAMPTONDR P A R K IN S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E G R E E N W O O D A V E O A K CREEKD R BYRON ST STA N F ORD SHO P PI N G C E NTER PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELCH R D QUARRY RD COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STANFORD AVE PA S T E U R D R NEWELL RD LYTTON AVE M E L VIL L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L TOAVE CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST STATE RTE 82 W HE E LER AV E C H ELSEAWAY 3RD AV E OAK LN C L AI R E PL 4T H AV E D O DGE D R 1 5 T H A V E GARDENL N 7T H AV E 6 T H AVE EVELYN ST S URVEY LN CORINE LN AMBAR WAY SPRUCE AVE POPPY AVE HOLLY AVE R O SE AV E 3RD ST H O O V E R S T T R E N T ONW A Y SP RIN G S T H A V E N AV E EN C I NA AVE ALMA LN O RCH ARD AV E ALTO LN MERRILL ST PINE ST NOEL DRMILLS ST H A NNA W A Y HOOVER ST STATE RTE 82 1 0 T H AVE F L O R E N C E S T OAKWOOD D R HESKET H DR S T AT E R T E 8 4 STANFORD AVE ROBLE AVE LAUR E L AVE ARD E N RD L ENNOX AV E E OAKWOOD BLV D GLENWOOD AVE OAKDELL DR W OAKWOOD B L VD 8T H AVE STONEP INE LN KENTFIEL DAVE OAK AVE W H I T E H A LL LN B R O A D W A Y S T POPE ST LEXIN G T O N D R PRINCETON RD W 4TH ST ATHERWOOD AVE WALLEA DR CRANE ST JOHNSON ST ELDER AVE HARVARD AVE 2N D AVE POLITZER DR M C K E N D R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PARTRIDGE AVE HILLVIEW DR BUR G E SS D R M A R M O N A D R MENLO AVE LIVE OAK AVE ROBLE AVE YALE RD C O N C O R D D R HOBART ST HERMOSA WAY WINDSOR DR FREMONT ST PAGE S T ARBOR RD WAVERLEY S T 5TH AV E VALPARAISO AVE G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E S A N T A M A R G A R I TA AV E ENCINAL AVE E C R E E K D R S A N T A M O N I C A A V E B A Y L AUR E L D R CAMBRIDGE AVE COLLEGE AVE LINF IELD DR FELTON DR CREEKDR OLIVE ST RAVENSWOOD AVE SEMIN A RY D R WOO DLAN D A V E UNIVERSITY DR MIDDLEFIELD RD OAK GROVE AVE BAY R D COTTON ST SAN MATEO DR MIDDLE AVE WILLOWRD LAUREL ST SANTA CRUZ AVE MORGA N LN GLOR I A CIR EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Heritage Park Burgess Park WillowOaksPark El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park Rinconada Park The Oval Park EleanorPardeePark Andrew Spinas Park Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Scott Park Stanford University Hillview Middle Taft Elementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST L N 21 PALO RD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R TI N A V E A SH S T M E D I C A L L N F I F E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VI N E Y A R D L N L E LA ND AV E FULTON ST W A L NUTDR H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST H A R R I E T S T MARIPOSA AVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBAN LN NORTHAMPTOND R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E G R E E N W O O D A V E O A K CREEKD R BYRON ST STA N F O RD SHO P P I N G C E N TE R PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY RD COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STA NFO R D AV E P A S T E U R D R NEWELL RD LYTTON AVE M E L V IL L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L T OA V E CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST STATE RTE 82 WHEELERAVE C H E L SEAWAY 3 R D A V E OAK L N C L A I R E P L 4 T H A V E DODGEDR15TH AVE GAR DE NL N 7 T H A V E 6 T H A V E EV E LY N ST S URVE Y LN CO RINE LN AM B A R WAY SP R U C E AV E POP PY AVE HO L LY AVE ROSE AV E 3 R D S T HOOVER ST T R E N T ON W A Y SPRING ST HAVENAV E ENCINA AVE ALMA LN ORCHARDAVE ALTO LN MERRILL ST PI N E S T NOEL DRMILLS ST H A N NA W A Y HO OV ER S T STATE RTE 82 10TH A V E FLORENCE ST OA K W O O D D R H E SKET H DR S T A T E R T E 8 4 STA NFO RD AV E ROBLE AVE LAURE L AVE A RD E N RD L E NN O X A V E EOAKWOODBLV D GL E N W O O D AV E OAK D ELL D R WOAKWOODBLVD 8T H A V E STONEP I N E L N KENTFIELDAV E OA K AVE W H I T E H A L L L N BROADWAY ST POPE S T LEXI N G T O N D R PRI NC ETO N RD W 4 T H S T ATHERWOODAVE WALL E A D R C R A N E ST JO HNS O N ST EL DE R AV E HARVA RD AV E 2 N D A V E P O L I TZ E R DR M C K E N D R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PARTR I DG E AVE HI LLVIEW DR B U R G E S S D R M A R M O N A D R ME N LO AVE LI VE OA K AVE ROB LE AV E YAL E RD C O N C O R D D R HO BAR T ST HERM O SA WAY WINDS O R D R FREMO NT ST PAGEST ARBO R RD WAVERLEY S T 5TH A V E VAL PA R AI SO AV E G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E E N C I N A L AVE E C R E E K D R S A N T A M O N I C A A V E B A Y L A U R E L D R CA MBRI DG E AV E CO L L EG E AVE L I N F I E L D DR F E LTON DR CREEK DR O L IV E ST R AV E N SWO O D AV E SE MIN A R Y D R WOO DLA N D A V E UN I VE R SI TY DR MIDDLEFIELD RD OAK G R OV E AV E BAY RD COT TO N ST SA N M ATEO DR MI D D LE AV E WILLOWRD L AU R E L ST SA NTA C RUZ AV E M ORGA N L N G LOR I A CIR EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route INTERIM ROUTE 00 40'80' SHEET OF Z: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ A . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK, CA RAVENSWOOD & LAUREL - NEAR TEARM CONCEPT MENLO PARK NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION High collision corridor Uncomfortable for bicyclists with small bike lanes and fast vehicular speeds LAUREL ST AND RAVENSWOOD AVE LA U R E L S T RA V E N S W O O D S T Underutilized parking The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclists visibility and slow down vehicular turning movements. Short term solutions include: •High visibility crosswalks •Green bicycle lanes at intersection approach with bicycle boxes •Painted bulb-outs with flexible delineators to narrow turning movements and increase visibility BULB-OUTS Painted bulb-outs and flexible delineators will deter vehicles from turning at fast speeds and increase pedestrian/bicyclist visibility BIKE BOXES Match existing conditions and bike boxes at Laurel Street and Oak Grove Ave, one block north PARKING Remove on-street parking 20’ from intersection to accommodate bike through lane Not to scale ATHERTON STATION MENLO PARK STATION PALO ALTO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Heritage Park Burgess Park WillowOaksPark El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza Fremont Park El Camino Park Rinconada Park The Oval Park EleanorPardeeParkAndrewSpinasPark Nealon Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Scott Park Stanford University Hillview Middle TaftElementary Menlo-Atherton High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary CL ARK W A Y LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST L N 21 PA LO RD LOUIS RD TASSO ST ENCINA AVE M A R TI N A V E AS H S T M E D I C A L L N FI F E A V E RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST VIN E Y A R D L N L E LA ND AV E FULTON ST W A L NUTDR H O P K I N S A V EHALE ST H A R R I E T S T MARIPOSA AVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLOGG AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SENECA ST URBAN LN NORTHAMPTOND RPARKINSON A V EHARKER A V EGREENWOOD A V E O A K CREEKD R BYRON ST STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E NTE R PARKBLVD EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST WELC H R D QUARRY RD COLERIDGE AVE HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE STANF O RD AV E P A S T E U R D R NEWELL RD LYTTON AVE M E L V IL L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE P ALO A L T OA V E CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE HOMER AVE HIGH ST RAMONA ST FOREST AVE EMBARCADERO RD SEALE AVE HAMILTON AVE LINCOLN AVE EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST EL CAMINO REAL ALMA ST WAVERLEY ST BRYANT ST COWPER ST STATE RTE 82 WHEELERAVE C H E LSEAWAY 3RD AV E OAK L N C L A I R E P L 4TH AVEDODGEDR 15TH AVE GAR D ENL N 7TH AVE6TH AVE EVELYN ST S URVE Y LN CO RI N E LN AMBA R WAY SP R U C E AV E POP P Y AVE HO LLY AV E ROSE AVE 3 R D ST HOOVER ST TREN T ON W A Y SPRING ST HAVENAVE ENCINA AVE ALMA LN ORCHARDAVE ALTO L N MERRILL ST P IN E S T NOEL DRMILLS ST H A N NAWAY HO OV ER ST STATE RTE 82 10TH AVE F L O R E N C E S T OA KW O O D D R H E SKET H DR S T A T E R T E 8 4 STA NFO R D AV E ROBLE AVE LAURELAVE A RD E N RD L E NNO X A V E EOAKWOODBLV D G L EN WO O D AV E OAKDE L L D R WOAKWOODBLVD 8TH AVE STONEP I N E L N KENTFIELDAV E OAK AVE W H I T E H A LL L N BROADWAY ST POPE S TLEXINGT O N D R PR I NC ETO N R D W 4 T H S T ATHERWOODAVE WALLE A D R CRA NE ST JO HN S ON ST EL D E R AVE H A R VA RD AV E 2 N D A V E P OL I TZ E R DR MCKEND R Y D R GARWOOD WAY CLARE M ONT W A Y PA R TRI DGE AV E HI LLVIEW D R B U R G E S S D R MARMON A D R ME NLO AVE LIV E OAK AVE ROBLE AV E YAL E R D CONCORD DR HO B ART S T HE R MOS A WAY WINDSO R D R FR E MO NT ST PAGEST AR B O R R D WAVERLEY S T 5THAVE VAL PARAI S O AVE G I L B E R T A V ECOLEMAN A V E SANTA M A R G A R I T A A V E EN C I NA L AV E E C R E E K D R SANTA M O N I C A A V E B A Y L A U R E L D R C A MB R I DG E AVE CO LL EGE AVE L I N F I E L D DR F E LTON DR CREEK DR OLIV E ST R AVE N S W OO D AV E SE MIN A R Y D R WOO DLA N D A V E UN IV ERS ITY DR MIDDLEFIELD RD OAK G ROV E AV E BAY RD COT TO N ST SA N M ATEO D R MID DLE AV E WILLOWRD LA U R E L S T SA NTA CR UZ AV E M ORGA N L N G LOR I A CIR EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M e n l o P a r k . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY Menlo Park, CA VALPARAISO @ CRANE INTERIM ROUTE ATHERTON MENL O P A R K MENLO PARK NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION VALPARAISO AVE AND CRANE ST BENT-OUT BIKE LANES The bike lane ‘bent-out’ away from the travel lane enhances visibility by raising the angle at which vehicles cross the bikeway as well as gives cyclists more space to cross Valparaiso safely while slowing bicyclists down to turn onto Crane St. Removal of parking required for this feature. BIKE FACILITIES The protected bike lane transitions Class III on Crane St to the Class II on Valparaiso Ave STRIPING AND WAYFINDING Striping solutions and wayfinding elements provide continuity and prevent this jog in the route from becoming an uncomfortable and confusing intersection, that would negatively impact the entirety of the route. LONG-TERM Consider implementing a sidepath along Valparaiso to better connect to adjacent school VAL P A R A I S O A V E CR A N E S T The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclists visibility and slow down vehicular turning movements. Short term solutions include: •High visibility crosswalks and conflict striping •Painted median and refuge island •'Bent-out' bicycle lanes and striping •Improved wayfinding signage and placement Uncontrolled intersection so traffic Jog in route creates lack of continuity and wayfinding Difficult for northbound cyclists to make left onto Willow 94 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PA L O A L T O PALO ALTO INTERSECTIONS Four (4) intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking. Recommended improvements included geometric changes to corners to discourage speeding at intersections; lighting improvements for better visibility at bridges, and traffic control device changes to increase the cycle time for cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross the intersection. The following map presents the recommended improvements. QUICK BUILD RECOMMENDATIONS: The following design concepts were developed for quick-build considerations. The proposed improvements focus on increasing safety by utilizing affordable materials (ex. flexible posts/delineators, striping) which could easily be upgraded in the future. •Bryant St and E Meadow Dr •Bryant St and Embarcadero Rd •Bryant St and Churchill Ave •Bryant St and Lytton Ave PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION £101 Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Boulware Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Briones Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult EducationPalo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle STANF ORD SHOPPING CE N T E R NE W M AY F I E L D LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T O NIO C IR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 E L C AMI NO WAY UNIVERSITY AVE LN 33 POE ST CLARA DR A SH B Y DR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR VI S TA AV E TASSO ST SI L V A AV EENCINA AVE PA U L A V E B R UCE DR C E R EZ A D R L I N C O L N A V E H E A T H E R L N PAG E M I L L R D A SHTON AVE M E D I C A L L N B I B B I TSDR E L C E N T R O ST WEBSTER ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE O RME ST T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN L A SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE ELSINO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E TENNESSEE LN E L C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NTST K E N DAL L AV E SANTA RI TA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLER I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE D UNCA N P L WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE VE N T UR A AVE MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E L E L A ND AV E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NAT H A N W A Y NITAAVE C U R T NE R AV E HIGH ST B OW D O I N S TSTANFORD S TCOLUMBIA S T W ME A DOW D R YAL E S T HA R VAR D S T O B ER L I N S T WI L LIA M S S T WI LTO N AV E P R I N C ETO N S T CO R NE LL S T FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST EN C I N A G R A N D E DR SH E R I DA N AV E MA R G A R I TA AVE B I R CH ST FE R NA N D O AV E AC AC I A A V E W A L NUT D R WILLM A R D R L O IS L N M AGNOL I ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO R AL E S D R LA MB E R T AV E DO N A L D D R O L I V E AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY C H RISTINE DR A M H E R S T ST MARD E LL WAY H A R R I E T S T SUT HER L A N D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX FO R D AV E G R A N T AVE BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR SH E R M A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LI N G DR RORKE WAY EL CARMELO AVE BE N LO MOND D R KELLOGG AVE SAINT MICHAEL DR AM AR A N TA AV E DELL AV E AMES A V E CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST A S H S T W M I D D L EFIELDRD S A N A N T O N I A R D L A D O N N A AV E URBA N LN S OUTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTOND R EME ADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V EHARKER A V E L A PAR A AV E G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMI NO REAL MARSHAL LDR ELY PL CAL I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL OAKCR E EK D R CA MB R I D GE AV E NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C H I M A L U S D R EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST G E O R GIA A V E LAGUNA AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E MATA D ER O AV E S A N A NTONI O WAY WELC H R D TRANSPOR T S T QUARRY R D FE RNE AVE M A Y B E L L AV E LO S RO B LE S AV E H A N S E NWAY BA RRO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N C AL I F O RNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S CA L I F O R NI A AV E LYTTON AVE M E L V IL L E A V E TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE NEWELL RD CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R EMERSON ST HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADOAVE PA L OA LTO A V E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT ARA S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO LLE G E AVE SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA NF O R D AV E EMBARCADERO RD H A N OV E R S T ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMI L T O N A V E PARK BLVD S AN A NTO N I O R D E C H A R L E S T O N R D EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST MIDD L E F I E L D R D WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAVERLEY ST E L C A M I N O R E A L STATE RT E 82 ALMA ST STATE RTE 82 STARR K ING CIR R E D WOO D C I R R O OSEVE L T CIR A R B OR R D ALMA ST ALTO LN YAL E R D T R E N T ONW A Y E L M S T MIDDLE FIE LD RD C E N T R A L AVE LEXI N G T O N D R HA R VA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R C A M B R I D G E AV E C O N C O R D D R LA U R E LAVE P OPE S T E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREE K D R W O ODLANDAV E W I L L O W R D INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Proposed Improvements Recontruct Curbs Tighten Curb Radii High Visibility Crosswalk Add Traffic Control Bike Box REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 95 MOUNTAIN VIEWMENLO PARK PALO ALTO Not to scale PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Wallis Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto ParkPeers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W M AYF I ELD LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CLARKWAY S A N A N T O NIO C IR LN 39 LN 7 ELN B E LN D E LN 56 ELCAMINO W A Y UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST CLARA DR A SHBYDR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PALORD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR VI STA AV E TASSO ST SI L VA AVE ENCINA AVE PA U L AV E B RUCE DR CE R E Z A DR LINCOLN AVE H E A T H E R L N PAG E MI LL R D A SHTONAVE MEDICALLN BI B B I TSDR EL C EN T R O ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE O R ME ST T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN AVE EDLEE AVE ELSINO R E DR DANA AVE FIFE AVE TENNESSEE LN EL C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NT ST K E N DALL AV E SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLE R I D G E RD ARBORETUM RD CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE DUNC A NPL WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE VE NT URA AVE MILLER AVE VINEYARDLN PITMANAVE GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NATH A N W A Y NITAAVE CU R T N ER AVE HIGH ST B OWDOI N ST STANF O R D S T CO LU MB I A ST W ME A DOW DR YA L E S T HA RVA R D S T O B ER L IN S T WIL LI AMS ST WI LTO N AVE PRI NC ETO N S T CO RNE L L ST FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST COASTLAN D DR KIPLING ST EN CI NA G R A ND E D R SHE R I DA N AV E MA R G A R I TA AVE BIR CH ST F E R N A N D O AVE AC AC I A A V E WALNUTDR W ILLMAR D R L O IS L N M AGNO LI ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO RAL E S D R L A MB E R T AV E DO N A L D D R O L IV E AV E KIPLING ST HOPKINS AVE HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH RISTINE DR AM H E R ST ST MAR DELL WAY H A R R I E T S T S UTH E R L A N D DR MARIPOSA AVE OX F ORD AVE GR A NT AVE BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR SH E RM A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LIN G DR RO RKE WAY EL CARMELO AVE BE NLOMON DDR KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AM A R A N TA AV E DELL AV E AMES AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W M I D DLEFIELDRD LA DO N N A AVE URBANLN S O UTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTON DR EMEADO W C I R PARKINSON AVE HARKER AVE L A PA R A AVE GREENWOOD AVE MARION AVE W EL CAMINO REAL MARSHAL L DR ELYPL C A L I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL O A K CREEKDR CAMBRI DG E AVE STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E NTER NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C HI M A LU S DR EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST RED W OODCIR RO O S E VELTCIR G E O R GIA A V E LA GU N A AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E M ATADE RO AVE S A N A N TONIO WAY WELCHRD TRANSPORT S T QUARRY RD FERNE AVE M AY B E L L AV E LOS R O B LE S AV E HAN SE N WAY B A RRON AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVELOWELL AVE N CALIF O RNI A AV E PASTEURDR S CA LI FO R NI A AVE LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE N E W E L L R D CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADO AVEPA L OALTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT A R A S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO L L EG E AVE SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA NF O RD AVE EMBARCADERO RD HA N OV ER ST ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMILTON AVE PARK BLVD S A N A N T O N I O R D E CHARLESTON RD EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAV E RLEY ST EL C A M I N O REA L ALMA ST STAT E RT E 8 2 STA R R KIN G CIR ARBOR RD ALMA ST ALTOLN YALE RD T R E N T ONWAY ELM ST MIDDLEFIELD RD C E N T R A L A V E LEXI N G T O N D R HA RVA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLAREMONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R CA M BRI DG E AV E C O N C O R D D R POPEST E C R E E K D R GILBERT AVE CREEK DR WOODLANDAVE WILLOW R D EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route INTERIM ROUTE 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ P a l o A l t o . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO, CA BRYANT @ MEADOW PALO ALTO NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION Uncontrolled intersection so traffic does not stop on Meadow Jog in route creates lack of continuity and wayfinding MEA D O W D R B R Y A N T S T Difficult for northbound cyclists to make left onto Bryant St The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclists visibility, improve wayfinding, and slow down vehicular speeds. Short term solutions include: • High visibility crosswalks • Bicycle conflict striping • Peninsula Bikeway signage and wayfinding • Painted bulb-outs with flexible delineators BRYANT ST AND MEADOW DR CONFLICT STRIPING AND HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS Bicycle conflict striping increases bicycle visibility and cues to vehicles to slow down and yield at uncontrolled intersection WAYFINDING Add additional Peninsula Bikeway branded wayfinding at intersection to cue bicyclists to turn onto the interim route BULB-OUTS Painted bulb outs slow vehicular turning movements and add space for pedestrians and bicyclists who want to cross the street Not to scale 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ A . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO, CA BRYANT & EMBARCADERO - NEAR TEARM CONCEPT PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Wallis Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W M AYF I E LD LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T ONIO C IR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 ELCAMINO W A Y UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST CLARA DR A SHB Y DR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR V I STA AV E TASSO ST SI L VA AVE ENCINA AVE PA U L AV E B RUCE DR C E R E Z A D R LINCOLN AVE H E A T H E R L N PAG E MI LL R D ASHTONAVE M E D I C A L L N BI B BI TSDR EL C EN T R O ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE O R ME ST T HAI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE ELSINO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E TENNESSEE LN EL C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NT ST K E N DALL AV E SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLERI D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE DUNC A NPL WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE VE N T URA AVE MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NATH A N W A Y NITAAVE CU R TN ER AV E HIGH ST BOWD OI N ST STANF O RD S T CO LU MB I A ST W MEA DOW DR YA L E S T HA RVA R D S T O B ER LIN S T WIL LI AMS ST WILTO N AV E PRI NC ETO N S T CO RNE L L ST FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST EN C I NA G R A ND E D R SH E RI DA N AV E M A R GA RI TA AV E BIR CH ST F E R NA N DO AVE AC AC I A A V E W A L N U T DR W ILLMAR D R L O IS L N M AGNO LI ADR PARKSIDE DR FLO R A L E S DR LA M B E R T AV E DO N A L D D R OLI V E AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH RISTINE DR AM H E R ST ST MARDELL WAY H A R R I E T S T S UTH E R L AN D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX FOR D AV E G R A N T AV E BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR SH E R MA N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LIN G DR RO RKE W AY EL CARMELO AVE BE NLOMON DDR KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AM A R A N TA AV E DELL AV E AMES AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W M I D DLEFIELDRD LA DO N N A AVE URBAN LN S O UTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTON DR EMEADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E LA PA R A AVE G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMINO REAL MARSHALL DR ELYPL C A L I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL O A K CREEKD R C A MB R I D G E AVE STA N F O RD SHO P P I N G C E N TE R NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C H I M A LUS DR EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST RED W OODCIR RO O S E VELTCIR G E O R GIA A V E LA GU N A AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E MATADE RO AV E S A N A N TONI O WAY WELC H R D TRANSPORT S T QUARRY RD FERNE AVE M AY B E L L AV E LOS ROBLES AV E HA NS E N WAY B A RRO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N CALIF ORNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S CA L IFO RNI A AV E LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE N E W E L L R D CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADO AVEPA L OA LTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT A R A S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO LL EG E AVE SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STANF O R D AV E EMBARCADERO RD HA N OV ER ST ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMILTON AVE PARK BLVD S A N A N T O N I O R D E CHARLESTON RD EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAV ERLEY ST EL C A M I N O REA L ALMA ST STAT E RT E 8 2 STA R R KIN G CIR ARBO R RD ALMA ST ALTO LN YA L E RD T R E N T ON W A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFIELD RD C E N T R A L A V E LEXI N G T O N D R HA R VA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R CA MB R I DG E AVE C O N C O R D D R P O P E ST E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREEK DR WOODLAN D AVE WI LLOW R D EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO RE GIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route INTERIM ROUTE PALO ALTO NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION BRYANT ST AND EMBARCADERO RD Wide corner radii increase pedestrian and bike riders expose to turning vehicles Bicycle facilities in middle of street Lack of high visibility striping The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclists visibility , improve wayfinding, and slow down vehicular turning movements. Short term solutions include: • High visibility crosswalks • Green bicycle lanes at intersection approach • Painted bulb-outs with flexible delineators IMPROVED CROSSINGS AND BULB-OUTS Painted bulb-outs and flexible delineators will deter vehicles from turning at fast speeds and increase pedestrian/ bicyclist visibility. Add leading pedestrian interval (LPI) signal timing BICYCLE STRIPING Painted green bicycle lanes at the approach to intersections alert right-turning motorists to yield to bicyclists - this is also a wayfinding tool EXISTING DIVERTERS Future improvements include: •Potentially restricting vehicles northbound on Bryant. EMBAR C A D E R O R D B R Y A N T S T Not to scale PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Wallis Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W M AYF I ELD LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T ONIO C IR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 ELCAMINO W A Y UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST CLARA DR A SHB Y DR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR VI STA AV E TASSO ST SI L VA AVE ENCINA AVE PA U L AV E B RUCE DR C E R E Z A DR LINCOLN AVE H E A T H E R L N PAG E MI LL R D A SHTONAVE M E D I C A L L N BI B B I TSDR EL C EN T R O ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE O R ME ST T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE ELSINO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E TENNESSEE LN EL C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NT ST K E N DALL AV E SANTA RI TA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLE R I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE DUNC A NPL WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE VE NT URA AVE MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NATH A N W A Y NITAAVE CU R TN ER AVE HIGH ST BOWD OI N ST STANF O RD S T CO LU MB I A ST W ME A DOW DR YA L E S T HA RVA R D S T O B ER LIN S T WIL LI AMS ST WI LTO N AV E PRI NC ETO N S T CO RNE L L ST FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST COASTLAN D DR KIPLING ST E N C I NA G R A ND E D R SHE RI DA N AV E MA R G A R I TA AVE BIR CH ST F E R N A N D O AVE AC AC I A A V E W A L N U T DR W ILLMAR D R L O IS L N M AGNO LI ADR PARKSIDE DR FLO R A L E S DR L A MB E R T AV E DO N A L D D R O L IV E AVE KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH RISTINE DR AM H E R ST ST MARDELL WAY H A R R I E T S T S UTH E R L AN D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX F ORD AV E GR A N T AVE BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDE DR SH E RM A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LIN G DR RO RKE WAY EL CARMELO AVE BE NLOMON DDR KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AM A R A N TA AV E DELL AV E AMES AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W M I D DLEFIELDRD LA DO N N A AVE URBAN LN S O UTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTON DR EMEADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E L A PA R A AVE G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMINO REAL MARSHAL L DR ELYPL C A L I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL O A K CREEKD R CA MB R I DG E AVE STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E NTE R NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C HI M A LU S DR EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST RED W OODCIR RO O S E VELTCIR G E O R GIA A V E LA GU N A AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E M ATADE RO AVE S A N A N TONIO WAY WELC H R D TRANSPORT S T QUARRY RD FERNE AVE M AY B E L L AV E LOS R O BLE S AV E HAN SEN WAY B ARRON AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N CALIF O RNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S C A LI FO R NI A AVE LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE N E W E L L R D CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADO AVEPA L OA LTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT A R A S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO LL EG E AVE SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA NF O RD AVE EMBARCADERO RD HA N OV ER ST ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMILTON AVE PARK BLVD S A N A N T O N I O R D E CHARLESTON RD EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAV ERLEY ST EL C A M I N O REA L ALMA ST STAT E RT E 8 2 STA R R KIN G CIR ARBO R RD ALMA ST ALTO LN YA L E RD T R E N T ON W A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFIELD RD C E N T R A L A V E LEXI N G T O N D R HA RVA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R CA MBRI DG E AV E C O N C O R D D R P O P E ST E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREEK DR WOODLAN D AVE WI LLOW R D EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO RE GIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ P a l o A l t o . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO, CA BRYANT @ CHURCHILL INTERIM ROUTE PALO ALTO NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION Unpredictable vehicular movements, no stop on Bryant but vehicles stop on Churchill CHU R C H I L L A V E B R Y A N T S T Lack of high visibility striping in walkable residential neighborhood Bicycle facilities lack visual connectivity The improvements enhance pedestrian and bicyclist’s visibility, improve wayfinding, and slow down vehicular speeds. Short term solutions include: • High visibility crosswalks • Traffic circle • Parking restrictions to enhance visibility BRYANT ST AND CHURCHILL AVE Future improvements include: PARKING Restrict parking at a minimum of 20’ from intersection to increase visibility at intersection approach MINI ROUNDABOUT OR TRAFFIC CIRCLE Traffic circles keep vehicle speeds at a minimum and increase safety at intersections. These traffic calming techniques work best as a system - rather than acting as one individual intersection - consider implementing along Bicycle Boulevard segment. Design aesthetics range from striping and posts to adding landscape/art/water features.Long-term installation at Bryant St and Addison Ave, Palo Alto Short-term, temporary materials Not to scale 00 40'80'SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ P a l o A l t o . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO, CA BRYANT @ LITTON PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Wallis Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Seale Park Robles Park Monroe Mini Park Mitchell Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W MAYF I E LD LN GARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T O NIO CIR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 ELCAMINO W A Y UNIVERSITY AVE LN33 POE ST CLARA DR A SHB Y DR L N 21 A C C E SSRD PA LO RD Q U A ILD R C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR VI S TA AV E TASSO ST SI L VA AV E ENCINA AVE PA U L AV E B R UCE DR C E R EZ A D R LINCOLN AVE H E A T H E R L N PAGE M I LL RD A SHTON AVE M E D I C A L L N B I B BI TSDR EL C EN TRO ST A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE CENTRAL EXPY AMARILLO AVE ORME ST T HAI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN LA SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE ELSINO R E DR D A N A A V E FI F E A V E TENNESSEE LN E L C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NTST KE N DALL AVE SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANICEWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR MONTE LEN A C T ROBLER I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE DUNC A NPL WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE VEN TU R A AVE MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NATH A N W A Y NITAAVE CURTN ER AVE HIGH ST B OWD OI N ST STA NFO R D S T CO LU M BI A ST W ME ADO W D R YAL E S T HA R VA RD ST OBER LIN S T WIL L I A M S S T WILTO N AV E PR I NC ETO N ST CO R NE LL ST FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST ENCI NA G RA NDE D R SH E R I DAN AV E MA RGA RI TA AV E BI R C H ST FERNA N DO AV E AC AC I A A V E W A L N U T DR W ILLMAR D R L O IS L N M AGNOL I ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO R AL E S D R LAMBE RT AV E DO N A L D D R O LI V E AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RICK E Y ' S WAY CH RISTINE DR AM H E R ST ST MARD ELL WAY H A R R I E T S T S UTH E RL A N D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX FO R D AV E GRA N T AVE BAYSHORE FWY CREEKSIDEDR SHE R M AN AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LI N G DR RO RKE W AY EL CARMELO AVE BE NLOMON DDR KELLOGG AVE SAINTMICHAEL DR AMA R ANTA AV E DELL AV E AMES AVE CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W M I D DLEFIELDRD LA DON N A AVE URBAN LN S O UTHAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTON DR EMEADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V E H A R K E R A V E LA PA R A AVE G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMI NO RE AL MARSHALL DR ELYPL C A L I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL O A K CREEKD R C A M B R I DG E AVE STA N F O RD SHO P PI N G C E N TE R NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY CH IM A LU S D R EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST RED W OODCIR RO O S E VELTCIR G E O R GIA A V E L AGUN A AV E W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E MATADERO AV E S A N A N TONI O WAY WELC H R D TRANSPORT S T QUARRY RD FERNE AVE M A Y B E L L A V E LO S ROB LE S AV E HA N S E N WAY B A RRO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N CALIF ORNI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S CALIF O RNI A AV E LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE N E W E L L R D CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M ONRO E D R HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADO AVEPA L OA LTO AV E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT A R A S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO LL EGE AVE SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA NFO R D AV E EMBARCADERO RD HAN OVER ST ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMILTON AVE PARK BLVD S A N A N T O N I O R D E CHARLESTON RD EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAV E RLEY ST EL C AM I N O R E A L ALMA ST STAT E R TE 82 STA R R KIN G CIR ARB OR RD ALMA ST ALTO LN YAL E R D T R E N T ON W A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFIELD RD C E N T R A L A V E LEXI N G T O N D R HA R VA RD AVE M C K E N D R Y D R B AY L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R C A MB R I D G E AVE C O N C O R D D R P O P E ST E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREEK DR WOODLAN D AVE WILLOW R D EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO REGIONAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route INTERIM ROUTE PALO ALTO NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the Interim Peninsula Bikeway Route currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION BRYANT ST AND LYTTON AVE EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING Existing traffic calming measures including the tight curb radii and high visibility crosswalks prioritize walking and biking in this downtown corridor The improvements enhance bicyclists visibility and build off of existing traffic calming improvements. Short term solutions include: • Bicycle conflict striping • Remove parking 20’ minimum from intersection • Add Peninsula Bikeway branded signage and destinations plates to connect bicycle facilities on Lytton and Bryant - connecting the train station, downtown, and interim route LYT T O N A V E B R Y A N T S T BIKE BOXES AND CONFLICT STRIPING Bicycle conflict striping lowers bicyclist stress by delineating a direct path and raises awareness in potential conflict areas/turning movement and is a wayfinding tool - see Park Blvd and ECR for reference EXISTING STRIPING Currently the existing conflict striping only directs cyclists northbound and southbound on Lytton - additional striping will connect users onto the interim route PARKING Extend parking restrictions to a minimum of 20' from intersection to increase visibility at intersection approach Parking close to the intersection and obscures visibility Conflict striping prioritizes bicycles on Lytton, unclear that there are facilities on Bryant Lacks Peninsula Bikeway branded wayfinding 100 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study MO U N T A I N V I E W MOUNTAIN VIEW INTERSECTIONS Eleven intersections were evaluated based on their general safety for people biking. Recommended improvements included geometric changes to discourage speeding at intersections; implementation of No Turn on Red restrictions; changes to increase the cycle time for cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross the intersection; and elimination of right turn lanes. The following map presents the recommended improvements. QUICK BUILD RECOMMENDATIONS: The following design concepts explore the geometry of a number of intersections along the long-term route, including locations where the interim route could potentially transition to the long-term route. These may not be implemented as quick builds, but provide guidance for more detailed design to be developed under the long-term project. The proposed improvements focus on increasing safety by utilizing affordable materials (ex. flexible posts/delineators, striping) which could easily be upgraded in the future. •El Camino Real and San Antonio Rd •El Camino Real and Showers Dr •El Camino Real and Rengstorff Ave •El Camino Real and Castro St MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85Ã82 Encinal Park Pioneer Memorial Park Slater School Park Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park Whisman School Park Eagle Park Castro School Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park San Veron Park Cooper Park Graham School Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park McKelvey Park Crittenden School Park Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital Independent Study Program Slater Special Education Preschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden Middle Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Herbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle M I R A M O N T E A V E W A L K E R D R C H E T W O O D D R CALIFORNIA 237 C A L D E R O N AV E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E S A N A N TO NIO CI R B AY S T A C C E SSRD YUC C A D R L I D A D R W A L K WAY M U I R D R H U F F A V E P I A Z Z A D R SH A R Y A V E E L S I E A V E BETLO AVE M O R A D R A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T R E I NE R T R D J E S SI E L N P A M E L A DR G E M I N I A V E S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE L N DAKE AVE B E NTLE Y SQ K I N G S R O W EICHLE R D R S A L A D O D R V I N CE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E SI L V A AV E O R M O N D E DR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L LE C T L A N E A V E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S W A Y W A S A TC H D R B E V E R L Y S T T H OM P S ONSQ ANNA AVE E H R H O R N A V E KENT DR F A Y W A Y B I B B I TSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE C R E S T V I E W D R STAR R W AY M C C A R T Y A V E J U D S O N D R PA R K DR M E A D O W L N P O M O N A A V E M A R I L Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T P IL G RI M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D M O O N B E A M D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K L I N A V E VA Q U E R O D R OA K L N GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR L O R E T O S T N W H I S M A N R D M ONTEL ENA C T T U L A N E DR S I E R R A AV E L AU R A L N K A R E N W AY D UNCA N P L R AI N B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHI TNE Y D R MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D CHARLES T O N R D E L L I S S T YUBA DR G IL M O R E S T SO NI A WAY L O G U E A V E H A C K E T T A V E C O M M E R C I A L S T NITA AVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N S A N L U C A S A V E M A CON A V E STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O R D H A M W A Y TERMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R L O U IS R D STATE RTE 82 M O R G A N ST J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L WA Y S U N M O R A V E C E N T R E S T SA N M ARC O S C I R PARKSIDE DR S W HI SMANRD ALVIN S T S A N R A F A E L A V E A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C H D R F A R L E Y S T MORTO N C T MARD E LL WAY G L E N B ORO U G H D R A L T A A V E A L I S O N A V E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A N A S T LEONG DR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V E E MILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y T O W N ECI R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANN EDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDEDR M O N T R O S E A V E Y O S E M I T E AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMON DDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S T R E N G S T O R F F A V E C O L O N Y S T DELL AV E F A I R B R O O K D R P L Y M O U T H S T LEONALN S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E N B E R NARDO AVE VI L LA N U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y S A N A N T O N I A R D L I N D A V I S T A A V E P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R L I N R D C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E S A N P I E R R E W A Y ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C H E S LE Y A VE B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R Y A N T S T S A N L E A N DRO AVE N IL D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E M A R T E N S AV E S P R I NG ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSON DR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E MIDD L E F I E L D RD O A K S T P A U L A V E C U E S T A D R M O N T A L T ODR W Y A N D O T T E S TLEGHORN S T C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L L I S A V E LAN D M ARK P K W Y L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDR C E N T R A L A V E C H I Q U I T A A V E EL CAMINO REAL B U R G O Y N E S TS A N A N TO NIO WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPORTST S L E E P E R A V E DIERI C X DR S R E N G S T O R F F A V E F A B I A N W A Y E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE F ERNE AVE CONTIN E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E LY N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY T Y R E L L A A V E ALMA ST V I E W S T I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S SH O R E L I N E B L V D T E R R A BELLA A V E B A R B A R A A V E SHOWERS DR R O C K S T O L D M I D D L E F I E L D W A Y M ONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N R E N G S T O R F F A V E G R A NT R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L E A S Y S T E E V E LY N A V E C H U R C H ST L AT H A M S T M O F F E T T B L V D C A S T R O S T SIE R R A VIS T A A V E E C H A R L E S T O N R D V I L L A S T N S H O R E L I N E B L V D E M I D D L E F I E L D R D C A L I F O R N I A S T S A N A N T O N I O R D MOUNTAINVIEWALVISO R D STAT E RTE 2 3 7 W M I D D L E F I E L D R D USHWY 101 BAYSHORE FWY U S H W Y 1 0 1 S T A T E R T E 8 2 W E L C A M I N O R E A L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Proposed Improvements Recontruct Curbs Tighten Curb Radii High Visibility Crosswalk Add Traffic Control Bike Box REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 101 MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALE PALO ALTO Not to scale MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85 Ã82 EncinalPark Pioneer Memorial Park SlaterSchoolPark Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park WhismanSchoolPark Eagle ParkCastro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park SanVeronPark Cooper Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park CrittendenSchoolPark Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home& HospitalIndependentStudyProgram Slater SpecialEducationPreschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden MiddleTheuerkauf Elementary Adult EducationHerbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle MIRAMO N T E A V E W A L K E R D R CHETWOOD DR CALIFORNIA237 C A L D E R O N A V E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E SA N ANT O NIOCIR B AY ST A C C ESSRD Y UC C A D R L I D A D R W A L K WAY M U I R D R HUFF AVE PIAZZA DR SH A R Y AV E E L S I E A V E M O R A D R A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T REINE R T R D J E SSI E L N G E M I N I A VE S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE L N DAKE AVE B E NTLE Y SQ KI N G S R O W EICHL E R D R SALADODR V I NCE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E R U S T I C L N SI L VA AVE ORMONDEDR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L LE CT L A N E AV E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S W A Y W A S A TCH D R BEVERLY ST T H OM P S ONSQ EH R H O R N AV E KENT DR F A Y W A Y BIBBITSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE S T A R RWA Y M C C A R T Y A VE J U D S O N D R P A RK DR M E A D O W L N P O M O N A A V E M A R I L Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D MOONBEAM D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E VAQUERODR OAK LN GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR E R N E S T I N E L N L O R E T O S T N WHISMAN RD M ONTEL ENA C T T U L A N E DR S I E R R A AV E LA U R A L N K A R E N WAY D UNCA N P L R AIN B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHITNE Y D R MILLER AVE WHISMANRDCHARLESTONRD ELLIS ST YUBA DR G I L M O R E S T SO NI A WAY LOGUE AVE H A C K E T T A V E COMMERCIALST NITAAVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N S A N L U C A S A V EMACONAVE STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O RD H A M W A Y TE RMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R LOUIS RD STATE RTE 82 M O R G A N ST J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L WAY S U N M O R A V E C E N T R E ST SANMARC O S C IR PARKSIDE DR SWH IS M ANRD ALVIN S T D OV E R TO N S Q SANRAFAELAVE A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C HD R FAR L E Y S T M O R T O N C T G L E N B OROU G H D R ALTA AVESUTHERLANDDR A LI S O NAV E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A N A S T LEONGDR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V EEMILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y T O W N ECI R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANN EDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDE DR MONTROSEAVE Y O S E M I TE AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMON DDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S TRENGSTORFFAVECOLONY S T DELL AVE F A I R B R O O K D R P L Y M O U T H S T L E O N A LN S Y L V A N A V E ADA AVE NBERNARDOAVE VI L LAN U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y LINDAVISTAAVE P I O N E E R W A Y STIERLIN RD C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E SANPIERREWAY ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C HE S L E YA V E B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R YA N T S T S AN L E A N DRO AVE N IL D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E M A R T E NS AV E SP RING ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSON DR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E MI D D LE F I E L D R D O A K S T P A U L A V E C U E S T A D RMONTALTO DR W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LI S A V E LAND M ARKPKWY L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDRCENTRALAVE C H I Q U I T A A V E EL CAMINO REAL BURGOYNE S T SANAN T O N I O WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPORTST S L E E P E R A V E D I E R I C X D R S R E N G S T O R F F A V E FABIAN WAY E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE CONTI N E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E L Y N AV E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY TYRELLA AVE ALMA ST V I E W S T INDEPENDENCE AVE W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S S H O R E L I N E B L V D TERR A B E L L A AVE B A R B A R A A V E S H O W ERS DR R O C K S TOLDMIDDLEFIELDWAY M ONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N RENGSTORFF AVE G R A N T R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L EASY ST E E V E L Y N A V E C H U RC H ST L ATHAM S T MOFFETTBLVD C A S T R O S T SIERRA VISTA AVEE C H A R L E S T O N R D V I L L A S T NSHORELINEBLVD E MI DDLEFIELDRD C A L I F O R N I A S T SANANTONIORD MOUNTAIN VIEW ALVISO RD STATERTE 237 W M I D D L E F I E L D R DBAYSHOREFWYUS HWY 101 W E L C AM I N O R E A L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 C U E R N AV A C A C I R C U LO EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route ECR 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M o u n t a i n V i e w . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW ECR AND SAN ANTONIO MOUNTAIN VIEW NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the El Camino Real corridor currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION These improvements explore the geometry of potential long-term treatments to enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclist and pedestrians. Design solutions include: •Straightened high visibility crosswalks •Protected intersection markings EL CAMINO REAL AND SAN ANTONIO RD Coordination with MTV El Camino Real Streetscape Plan (2019) SA N A N T O N I O R D EL C A M I N O R E A L Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, angled crosswalks High speed corridor Uncomfortable for bicyclists to make turns with adjacent fast vehicular speeds PROTECTED MARKINGS A protected intersection with paint and flexible delineators provide room for bicyclists and pedestrians, the tightened radii also slow vehicles and increase reaction times and increases bicyclists and pedestrians visibility to safely cross or turn CROSSWALKS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety for those crossing,- option to add painted refuge island to shorten crossings Not to scale 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M o u n t a i n V i e w . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW ECR AND SHOWERS MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85 Ã82 EncinalPark Pioneer Memorial Park SlaterSchoolPark Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park WhismanSchoolPark Eagle ParkCastro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park SanVeronPark Cooper Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park CrittendenSchoolPark Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home& HospitalIndependentStudyProgram Slater SpecialEducationPreschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden MiddleTheuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Herbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle MIRAMO N T E A V E W A L K E R D R CHETWOOD DR CALIFORNIA237 C A L D E R O N A V E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E SA N ANT O NIOCIR B AY ST A C C ESSRD Y UC C A D R L I D A D R W A L K WAY M U I R D R HUFF AVE PIAZZA DR SH A R Y AV E E L S I E A V E M O R A D R A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T REINE R T R D J E SSI E L N G E M I N I A VE S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE L N DAKE AVE B E NTLE Y SQ KI N G S R O W EICHL E R D R SALADODR V I NCE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E R U S TI C L N SI L V A AV E ORMONDEDR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L LE C T L A N E AV E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S W A Y W A S A TCH D R BEVERLY ST T H OM P S ONSQ EH R H O R N AV E KENT DR F A Y W A Y BIBBITSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE S T A R RWA Y M C C A R T Y A VE J U D S O N D R P A RK DR M E A D O W L N P O M O N A A V E M A R IL Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D MOONBEAM D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E VAQUERODR OAK L N GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR E R N E S TI N E L N L O R E TO S T N WHISMAN RD M ONTEL ENA C T T U L A N E DR S I E R RA AV E LA U R A L N K A R E N WAY D UNCA N P L R AIN B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHITNE Y D R MILLER AVE WHISMANRDCHARLESTONRD ELLIS ST YUBA DR G IL M O R E S T SONI A WAY LOGUE AVE H A C K E T T A V E COMMERCIALST NITAAVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N SAN L U C A S A V EMACONAVE STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O R D H A M W A Y TERMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R LOUIS RD STATE RTE 82 M O R G A N S T J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L WAY S U N M O R A V E C E N T R E S T SANMARC O S C I R PARKSIDE DR S W H IS M ANRD ALVIN S T D OV E R TO N S Q SANRAFAELAVE A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C HD R F A R L E Y S T M O R T O N C T G L E N B OROU G H D R ALTA AVESUTHERLANDDR A LI S O NAV E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E DA N A S T LEONGDR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V EEMILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y T O W N ECI R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANN EDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDE DR MONTROSEAVE YO S E M I TE AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMON DDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S T RENGSTORFFAVE C O L O N Y S T DELL AVE F A I R B R O O K D R P L Y M O U T H S T L E O N A LN S Y L V A N A V E ADA AV E NBERNARDOAVE VI L LA N U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y LINDAVISTAAVE P I O N E E R W A Y STIERLIN RD C R I S A N T O AV E S A N L U I S AV E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E SANPIERREWAY ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C HE S L E Y A V E B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R YA N T S T S A N L E A N DRO AVE N IL D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E MA R T E N S AV E S P R I N G ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSON DR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E MI D D L E FI E L D R D O A K S T P A U L A V E C U E S T A D RMONTALTO DR W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LI S A V E LAN D M ARKPKWY L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDRCENTRALAVE C H I Q U I T A A V E EL CAMINO REAL BURG O Y N E S T S A N A N T O N I O WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPORTST S L E E P E R A V E D I E R I C X D R S R E N G S T O R F F A V E FABIAN WAY E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE CONTI N E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E LY N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY TYRELLA AVE ALMA ST V I E W S T INDEPENDENCE AVE W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S S H O R E L I N E B L V D TERR A B E L L A AVE B A R B A R A A V E S H O W ERS DR R O C K S TOLDMIDDLEFIELDWAY M ONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N RENGSTORFF AVE G R A N T R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L EASY ST E E V E L Y N A V E C H U R C H S T L ATHAM S T MOFFETTBLVD C A S T R O S T SIERRA VISTA AVEE C H A R L E S T O N R D V I L L A S T NSHORELINEBLVD E MIDDLEFIELDRD C A L I F O R N I A S T SANANTONIORD MOUNTAIN VIEW ALVISO RD STATERTE 237 W M I D D L E F I E L D R DBAYSHOREFWYUS HWY 101 W EL C A M I N O R EA L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 C U E R N AV A C A C I R C U LO EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route ECR MOUNTAIN VIEW NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the El Camino Real corridor currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION EL CAMINO REAL AND SHOWERS DR REMOVE TURN LANES Removing this lane creates room and space for a protected corner for bicyclist to safely cross the intersection as well as slow down vehicular turning movements. Improvements on private property will require coordination and approval from landowner Coordination with MTV El Camino Real Streetscape Plan (2019)SH O W E R S D R EL C A M I N O R E A L Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, angled crosswalks These improvements explore the geometry of potential long-term treatments to enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclist and pedestrians. Design solutions include: •Straightened high visibility crosswalks •Protected intersection markings High speed corridor Uncomfortable for bicyclists to make turns with adjacent fast vehicular speeds PROTECTED MARKINGS A protected intersection with paint and flexible delineators provide room for bicyclists and pedestrians, the tightened radii also slow vehicles and increase reaction times and increases bicyclists and pedestrians visibility to safely cross or turn CROSSWALKS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety Not to scale 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M o u n t a i n V i e w . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW ECR AND RENGSTORFF MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85 Ã82 EncinalPark Pioneer Memorial Park SlaterSchoolPark Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park WhismanSchoolPark Eagle ParkCastro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park SanVeronPark Cooper Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park CrittendenSchoolPark Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital IndependentStudyProgram Slater SpecialEducationPreschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden Middle Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Herbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle MIRAMO N T E A V E W A L K E R D R CHETWOO D D R CALIFORNIA237 C A L D E R O N A V E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E SA N ANT O NIOCIR B AY ST AC C ESSRD Y UC C A D R L I D A D R W A L K WAY M U I R D R HUFF AVE PIAZZA DR SH A R Y AV E E L S I E AV E M O R A D R A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T REINE R T R D J E SSI E L N G E M I N I A V E S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE L N DAKE AVE B E NTLE Y SQ KI N G S R O W EICHL E R D R SALADODR V I NCE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E R U S TI C L N SI L V A AV E ORMONDEDR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L LE CT L A N E AV E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S WA Y W A S A TCH D R BEVE R L Y S T T H OM P S ONSQ EH R H O R N AV E KENT DR F A Y W A Y BIBBITSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE S T A R RWA Y M C C A R T Y A VE J U D S O N D R P A RK DR M E A D O W L N POMONAAVE M A R I L Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D MOONBEAM D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E VAQUERODR OAK L N GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR E R N E S T I N E L N L O R E TO S T N WHISMAN RD M ONTEL ENA CT T U L A N E DR S I E R RA AV E LA U R A L N K A R E N WAY DUNCA N P L R AIN B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHITNE Y D R MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D CHARLESTO N R D ELLIS ST YUBA DR G I L M O R E S T SONI A WAY LOGUE AVE H A C K E T T A V E COMMERCIALST NITAAVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N SA N L U C A S A V EMACONAVE STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O R D H A M W A Y TERMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R LOUIS RD STATE RTE 82 M O R G A N S T J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L WAY S U N M O R A V E CE N T R E ST SANMARC O S C I R PARKSIDE DR S W H IS M ANRD ALVIN S T D OV E R TO N S Q SANRAFAELAVE A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C HD R F A R L E Y S T M O R T O N C T G L E N B OROU G H D R ALTA AVE SUTH E R L A N D D R A LI S O NAV E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A N A S T LEONGDR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V EEMILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y T O W N ECI R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANNEDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDE DR MONTROSE A V E YO S E M I TE AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMON DDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S T RENGSTORFFAVE C O L O N Y S T DELL AVE F A I R B R O O K D R P L Y M O U T H S T L E O N A LN S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E NBERNARDOAVE VI L LA N U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y LINDAVISTAAVE P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R L I N R D C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E SANPIERRE W A Y ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C HE S L E Y A V E B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R Y A N T S T S A N L E A N DRO AVE N IL D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E M A R T E N S A V E S P R I N G ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSON DR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E MID D L E FI E L D R D O A K S T PA U L A V E C U E S T A D RMONTALTO DR W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LI S A V E LAN D M ARKPKWY L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDR C E N T R A L AV E C H I Q U I T A A V E EL CAMINO REAL B U R G O Y N E S T S A N A N T O N I O WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPORTST S L E E P E R A V E D I E R I C X D R S R E N G S T O R F F A V E FABIAN WAY E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE CONTI N E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W AV E W E V E L Y N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY TYRELLA AVE ALMA ST V I E W S T INDEPENDENCE AVE W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S S H O R E L I N E B L V D TERR A B E L L A AVE B A R B A R A A V E S H O W ERS DR R O C K S TOLDMIDDLEFIELDWAY M ONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N RENGSTORFF AVE GR A N T R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L EASY ST E E V E L Y N A V E C H U RC H ST L ATHAM S T MOFFETTBLVD C A S T R O S T SIERRA VISTA AVEE C H A R L E S T O N R D V I L L A S T NSHORELINEBLVD E MIDDLEFIELDRD C A L I F O R N I A S T SANANTO N I O R D MOUNTAIN VIEW ALVISO RD STATERTE 237 W M I D D L E F I E L D R DBAYSHOREFWYUS HWY 101 W E L C A M I N O R E A L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y C E N T R A L E X P Y STATE RTE 82 C U E R N AV A C A C I R C U LO EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL CON TEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route ECR MOUNTAIN VIEW NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the El Camino Real corridor currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION EL CAMINO REAL AND RENGSTORFF AVE Coordination with MTV El Camino Real Streetscape Plan (2019) RE N G S T O R F F A V E EL C A M I N O R E A L PROTECTED MARKINGS A protected intersection with paint and flexible delineators provide room for bicyclists and pedestrians, the tightened radii also slow vehicles and increase reaction times and increases bicyclists and pedestrians visibility to safely cross or turn CROSSWALKS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety for those crossing,- option to add painted refuge island to shorten crossings Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, angled crosswalks These improvements explore the geometry of potential long-term treatments to enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclist and pedestrians. Design solutions include: •Straightened high visibility crosswalks •Protected intersection markings High speed corridor Uncomfortable for bicyclists to make turns with adjacent fast vehicular speeds Not to scale 00 40'80' SHEET OF N: \ S h a r e d \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 9 \ 0 0 - 2 0 1 9 - 1 2 1 M o u n t a i n V i e w , C A P e n i n s u l a B i k e w a y A l i g n m e n t \ C A D \ 1 9 - 1 2 1 _ L W D _ C o n c e p t s _ M o u n t a i n V i e w . d w g February 2020 PENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW ECR AND CASTRO MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã85 Ã82 EncinalPark Pioneer Memorial Park SlaterSchoolPark Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park WhismanSchoolPark Eagle ParkCastro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park SanVeronPark Cooper Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park CrittendenSchoolPark Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital IndependentStudyProgram Slater SpecialEducationPreschool Gabriela Mistral Elementary Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff Elementary Isaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Crittenden Middle Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Herbert Hoover Elementary Greendell Terman Middle MIRAMO N T E A V E W A L K E R D R CHETWOOD D R CALIFORNIA237 C A L D E R O N A V E W O O DL E A FWAY N E L M O N T E A V E SANANT O NIOCIR B AY ST ACCESSRD Y UC C A D R LIDA DR W A L K WAY M U I R D R HUFF AVE PIAZZA DR SH A R Y AV E E L S I E A V E MORADR A W A L T DR DEODAR ST B O N N Y S T REINERTRD J E SSI E L N G E M I N I A VE S E R E N A D RJACKSONSTJANE LN DAKE AVE B E NTLE Y SQ KI N G S R O W EICHL E R D R SALADODR V I NCE N T D R B R Y A N T A V E R U S TI C L N SILVAAVE ORMONDEDR H O S P I T AL D R JACK S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I L LE C T L A N E AV E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R W I L L I AM S W A Y W A S A TCH D R BEVER L Y S T THOM P S ONSQ EH R H O R N AV E KENT DR F A Y W A Y BIBBITSDR S N O W S T SCRIPPS AVE S T A R RWA Y M C C A R T Y A VE J U D S O N D R P A RK DR M E A D O W L N POMONAAVE M A R IL Y N D R L A A V E N I D A S T PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T EDLEE AVE F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D MOONBEAM D R LOSPALOSAVE K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E VAQUERODR OAK L N GAILEN AVE V E L A R D E S T FAYETTEDR E R N E S TI N E L N L O R E TO S T N WHISMAN RD M ONTELENA C T T U L A N E DR S I E R RA AV E LAURALN K A R E N WAY DUNCA N P L R AIN B O W D R C A R O L A V E WHITCLEM DR WHITNEYDR MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D CHARLESTONRD ELLIS ST YUBA DR G IL M O R E S T SONI A WAY LOGUE AVE HACKETT A V E COMMERCIALST NITAAVE WILKIE WAY T O D D S T L O L A L N SAN L U C A S A V EMACONAVE STEV E N S C R E E K D R B R O O K D A L E A V E F O R D H A M W A Y TERMA N DR E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O X BOROUG H D R LOUIS RD STATE RTE 82 MORGANST J A R D I N D R H I G H S C H O O L WAY S U N M O R A V E C E N T R E S T SANMARC O S C I R PARKSIDE DR S W H IS M ANRD ALVINST D OV E R TO N S Q SANRAFAELAVE A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N I S A B E L L EAVE G R A N A D A D R L U B I C HD R F A R L E Y S T M O R T O N C T G L E N B OROU G H D R ALTA AVE SUTHERLANDDR A LI S O NAV E C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E DA N A S T LEONGDR D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V EEMILY DR M U R L A G A N A V E K A T R I N A W A Y TOWNECI R F LYN N A V E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E W MAUDE AVE SUZANNEDR S O L A N A D R CREEKSIDE DR MONTROSEA V E YO S E M I TE AV E A R A S T R A D E R O R D BE NLOMONDDR C A R M E L I TA DR WI L L O W G A T E G A R D E N SWILLOWGATE S T RENGSTORFFAVECOLONY ST DELLAVE F A I R B R O O K D R PLYMOUTH ST L E O N A LN S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E NBERNARDOAVE VI L LA N U E V A W A Y M A R I C H W A Y LINDAVISTAAVE P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R L I N R D CRISANTO AVE SAN LUIS AVE H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E SANPIERREWA Y ELY PL B O R A N D A A V E C HE S L E Y A V E B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R YA N T S T S A N L E A N DRO AVE N IL D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E B E G E N A V E MA R T E N S AV E SPRI N G ST C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E NELSONDR E U N I C E A V E W R I G H T A V E MIDDLEFIELD RD O A K S T P A U L A V E C U E S T A D RMONTALTO DR WYANDOTTE ST S A N A N T O N I A R D LEGHORN ST C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LI S A V E LANDMARKPKWY L E V I N A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDR C E N T R A L AV E C H I Q U I T A A V E ELCAMINOREAL B U R G O Y N E S T S A N A N T O N I O WAY O R T E G A A V E TRANSPORTST S L E E P E R A V E D I E R I C X D R S R E N G S T O R F F A V E FABIAN WAY E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE CONTI N E N T A LC I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E LY N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T BAYSHOREPKWY TYRELLA AVE ALMA ST V I E W S T INDEPENDENCE AVE W D A N A S T MONTECITO AVE S S H O R E L I N E B L V D TERR A B E L L A AVE B A R B A R A A V E S H O W ERS DR ROCK STOLDMIDDLEFIELDWAY MONRO E D R SANRAMONAVE M E R C Y S T N RENGSTORFF AVE G R A N T R D E E L C A M I N O R E A L EASY ST E E V E L Y N A V E C H U R C H S T LATHAMST MOFFETTBLVD C A S T R O S T SIERRA VISTA AVEE CHARLESTON RD V I L L A S T NSHORELINEBLVD E MIDDLEFIELDRD C A L I F O R N I A S T SANANTON I O R D MOUNTAIN VIEW ALVISO RD STATERTE 237 WMIDDLEFIELDRDBAYSHOREFWYUS HWY 101 W EL C A M I N O R EA L S T A T E R T E 85 W V A L L E Y F W Y CENTRALEXPY STATE RTE 82 C U E R N AV A C A C I R C U LO EXISTING FACILITIES Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL CONTEXT Map Produced: October 2020 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Existing Bikeways Class I Shared-Use Path Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard Class IV Separated Bikeway Class II Bicycle Lane Class IIB Buffered Bike Lane Class III Bicycle Route ECR MOUNTAIN VIEW NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS This intersection along the El Camino Real corridor currently has the following issues: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION EL CAMINO REAL AND CASTRO ST Coordination with MTV El Camino Real Streetscape Plan (2019) CA S T R O S T EL C A M I N O R E A L PROTECTED MARKINGS A protected intersection with paint and flexible delineators provide room for bicyclists and pedestrians, the tightened radii also slow vehicles and increase reaction times and increases bicyclists and pedestrians visbility to safely cross or turn CROSSWALKS AND REFUGE ISLANDS High-visibility crosswalks that are placed perpendicular to vehicular movement increase visibility and safety for those crossing. Pedestrian Refuge Island shortens crossings. Lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, angled crosswalks These improvements explore the geometry of potential long-term treatments to enhance user comfort and safety for bicyclist and pedestrians. Design solutions include: •Straightened high visibility crosswalks •Protected intersection markings •Pedestrian refuge island High speed corridor Uncomfortable for bicyclists to make turns with adjacent fast vehicular speeds 1 C INTERIM ROUTE - WAYFINDING IMPROVEMENTS 108 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study WAYFINDING IMPROVEMENTS This Study evaluated the design, condition, and location of existing wayfinding signs along the interim route. This section provides a summary of recommendations to increase visibility of destinations, and increase connectivity throughout the interim Peninsula Bikeway route. WAYFINDING GENERAL GUIDELINES Wayfinding signs are important for providing direction to people walking, biking and driving. Effective signage is an important aspect of enhancing the “sense of place” to residents and visitors alike. Wayfinding can also help introduce new riders to potential routes and facilities. The appropriate use of wayfinding can also provide a visual queue for motorists that bicyclists should be expected on streets, potentially increasing diver awareness. Finally, appropriate wayfinding encourages bicycling by creating a visual image of the bicycle in the roadway environment. C The core principals of developing and implementing an effective wayfinding system include: Logic: addresses orientation, route navigation, route monitoring and it is easy to follow Legibility: the system makes sense for the user and provides the users’ needs for information at each location/sequence of the journey Simplicity: The system provides the right amount of information at each point in the sequence. Flexibility: The system responds to local conditions, and reinforces people’s mental maps. Safety: The system guides bicyclists to avoid unsafe bike movements. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Guidelines and AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Bicycle Facilities provide extensive guidance on specific aspects of wayfinding including size of signs/fonts, sign placement, appropriate abbreviations, and design of signage. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Recommended improvements for the existing wayfinding along the interim route focused on improving directionality and connectivity to and from destinations. Wayfinding should be placed in a predictable consistent manner, and incorporate Peninsula Bikeway branded sign topper, as shown in the graphics on the following page. WAYFINDING | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN | FEBRUARY 13, 2020 SUMMARY PLACEMENT Decision SAMPLE SIGNAGE Conﬁrmation Bike Route WAYFINDING | ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN | FEBRUARY 13, 2020 SUMMARYPLACEMENT Decision SAMPLE SIGNAGE Conﬁrmation Bike Route Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 109 Incorporate Peninsula Bikeway branded sign toppers and connections to future routes WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PLACEMENT 110 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study RE D W O O D C I T Y REDWOOD CITY WAYFINDING The majority of wayfinding along the interim route is in good shape and includes destinations plates, directional arrows, and Peninsula Bikeway branding which makes it easy for people on bikes to traverse the city along the route. It is recommended, however that the city install directional arrows and Peninsula Bikeway branding plates at the following intersections to improve directionality and route continuity: •Hopkins Avenue and Elwood Street •Elwood Street and James Avenue •Vera Avenue and Fulton Street •Ebener Street and Poplar Avenue •Cypress Street and East Oakwood Blvd •East Oakwood Boulevard and West Oakwood Boulevard Striping of directional arrows on the pavement along the interim route may also help increase visibility of bicyclists and improve directionality. REDWOOD CITY STATION £101 Ã84 Ã82 Mezes Park Hoover Park Palm Park Linden Park Hawes Park Red Morton Community Park Stafford Park KIPP Excelencia Community Preparatory Rocketship Redwood City Hawes Elementary Hoover Elementary McKinley Institute of Technology Orion Alternative North Star Academy Redwood High Sequoia High OAKDALE ST H A Z E L AV E W H E E L E R A V E DILLER ST M A NOR CT GARDEN ST FLOWER ST NORMAN ST REESE ST TACOMA WAY KI N G S F O R D L N R E N ATO C T STRATFORD ST E L M S T B U R B A N K A V E H A N C O C K S T H Y DE ST SOMERSET ST WILSON ST C O PLEY AVE H E M LOCKAV E L E X I N G T O N A V E LOCUSTST W I N K L E B L E C KST COMMERC I A L W A Y B R A D B U R Y L N GRAND ST DAVIS ST WOODROW ST FAY ST C L AREMONT AVE MURRAY CT PERRY ST G O R D O N S T MADR O N E ST P A L M A V E LINDEN ST G REE N W OODLN F ST ME A D O W LN E N C I N A A V E MYRTLE ST H E S S R D DURLSTO N R D B R A D F O R D S T M A N Z A N I T A S T H A M IL T O N S T L A U R E L S T FULLER ST O A K WO O D D R PRICE AVE N U E V A A V E C E D A R S T LEAHY ST M C E VOYST VERA AVE NO R T H U M B E R L A N D AV E W A L N U T S T R O B L E A V E W I L L O W S T B O N I T A A V E WARWICK ST LENOLT ST SAMSON ST S P R U C E S T CONVENTION W A Y B E E C H S T E OAKWOO D BLVD ALDEN ST A ST B L A NDFORDBLV D STANDISH ST HOWLAND ST P I N E S T B U C K E Y E S T W OAKWOO D B LV D CE NTRAL AVE LATHROP ST C ST BIRCH ST C A R LO S A V E FIN G ER AV E C H A R T E R S T PA R K S T JOHNSON ST KING ST DUANE ST CLINTON ST H I LT O N S T B A Y R D E ST B ST D O U G L A S AV E S C O T T A V E D ST ARCH ST C Y P R E S S ST S H A S T A S T F LY N N A V E G ST C A S S I A S T H E L L E R S T HARRISON AVE JACKSON AVE C E N T E R S T W I N S L O W S T MADISON AVE REGENT ST INDUSTRIAL WAY O R C H A R D A V E O X F O R D S T FRANKLIN ST CLEVELAND ST STAFFORD ST ALLERTON ST KATHERINE AVE B R O A D W A Y EBENER ST WARREN ST POPLAR AVE LINCOLN AVE REDWOOD AVE FULTON ST ELWOOD ST LOWELL ST B AY S H O R E F W YUSHWY101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE ADAMS ST S T A M B A U G H S T ARLINGTON RD C H E S T N U T S T OAK AVE M A P L E S T CLINTON ST ROOSEVELT AVE ARGUELLO ST GRAND ST B R O A D W A Y S TMARSHALL S T JETER STEDGEWOODRD KING ST S P R I N G S T VETERANS BLVD IRIS ST JAMES AVE HOPKINS AVE M A I N S T WHIPPLE AVE JEFFERSON AVE BREWSTER AVE M I D D L E F I E L D R D S T A T E R T E 8 4 W O O D S I D E R D HUDSON ST EL CAMINO REAL STATE RTE 82 W E LLES L E Y C R E S WAYFINDING RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY REDWOOD CITY 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Wayfinding Recommendations Wayfinding (Northbound) Wayfinding (Southbound) REGIO NAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Wayfinding Existing Wayfinding Existing Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 111 ATHERTON REDWOOD CITY 112 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study ME N L O P A R K MENLO PARK WAYFINDING As previously noted, most of the wayfinding along the interim route is in good shape and includes destinations plates, directional arrows, and Peninsula Bikeway branding which makes it easy for people on bikes to traverse the city along the route. It is recommended, however that the city install directional arrows and Peninsula Bikeway branding plates at the following intersections to improve directionality and route continuity: •Laurel Street and Willow Road •Willow Road and Waverley Street and Willow Place •Willow Place – beginning of bridge Striping of directional arrows on the pavement along the interim route may also help increase visibility of bicyclists and improve directionality. Particular attention should be placed on improving wayfinding at the intersections of Willow Drive and Waverley Street and at Willow Place at the beginning of the bridge connecting to Palo Alto. MENLO PARK STATION Ã82 Ã82 Johnson Park Holbrook Palmer Park Burgess Park El Palo Alto Park El Camino Park Nealon Park Stanford University Menlo-Atherton High STANFORD SHOPPING CE NTER PA L O RD LN 15 E TASSO ST LN 33 EVERETT CT POE ST BRYANT CT FULTON ST HIGH ST RAMONA ST E MERSON ST KIPLING ST WEBSTER ST RUTHVEN AVE BYRON ST ALMA ST QUARRY RD BRYANT ST S A N D HILL RD M I D D L E F I EL D R D C OWPER ST E L C A M I N O R E A L STATE RTE 82 P A L O ALT O A V E EVERETT AVE PALO A LTO A V E HAWTHORNE AVE LYTTON AVE K E NTP L B L A K E S T MIL LS CT C U R T I S S T D OY L E ST L A U R ELPL BA RR O N S T C L O V E R L N MO R E Y DR MA LO N EY S T CHE ST N U T S T R O BIN WA Y H O P K I N S ST MARMON A D R B A Y W O O D A V E M C K E N D R Y D R A RLI N G T O N W AY R I N G W O O D A V E MIE LKE DR CO R N E L L R D KENWOOD DR S U R V E Y L N B U C K T H O R N WAY S P R U C E AV E 3 R D S T B L A C K B U R N A V E SH E R WO O D WAY ALMA LN MO R G ANLN A LTO LN MERRILL ST P I N E ST M A R C U S S E N D R NO E L DR MILLS ST HOOV E R S T S A N A N T O N I O S T VA L PA R A I S O AV E AR D E N R D L E N N O X AV E G L E N WO O D AV E S TO N E P I N E L N S A N T A M A R G A R I T A A V E S A N T A M O N I C A A V E ME N LO AV E G L O R I A C I R L I V E O AK AV E W 4 T H S T CO L L E GE AV E R O B L E AV E H AR VA R D AV E PA R T R I DG E AV E C A M B R I D G E AV E SE M I N ARY DR M I D D L E AV E CR A N E S T CREEK DR GARWOOD WAY C L A R E M O N T W A Y SA N TA C R U Z AV E B U R G E S S D R WOOD L A N D A V E WAV E RLEY ST E N C I N A L AV E E C R E E K D R L I N F IELD DR F E LTO N D R R AV E N S WO O D AV E OA K G R O V E A V E WILLOW RD ALMA ST L A U R E L S T WAYFINDING RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MENLO PARK 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Wayfinding Recommendations Wayfinding (Northbound) Wayfinding (Southbound) REGIO NAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Wayfinding Existing Wayfinding Existing Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 113 ATHERTON MENLO PARK PALO ALTO 114 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study PA L O A L T O PALO ALTO WAYFINDING Wayfinding within Palo Alto city limits provides good guidance to people biking within city limits. However, existing signage along the interim route did not include Peninsula Bikeway branded elements making it difficult to understand the directionality of the route, especially related to connectivity to/from Menlo Park and Mountain View. It is recommended that the City complement its existing wayfinding along Bryant Avenue by adding Peninsula Bikeway branded elements. Additionally, the city should consider improving directional plates and Peninsula Bikeway elements at bridges and intersections including: •Menlo Park Bridge and Palo Alto Ave •Bryant Street and Oregon Ave •Bryant St and Meadow Dr •W Meadow Dr and Wilkie Way PALO ALTO STATION CALIFORNIA AVENUE STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION STANFORD STADIUM STATION Ã82 Johnson Park Heritage Park Wallis Park Willow Oaks Park El Palo Alto Park Peers Park Bowling Green Park Lytton Plaza El Camino Park Bowden Park Rinconada Park Werry Park The Oval Park Weissharr Park Eleanor Pardee Park Cameron Park Elinor Cogswell Plaza Bol Park Scott Park Hoover Park Terman Park Boulware Park Seale Park Robles Park Mitchell Park Briones Park Ramos Park Stanford University Willow Oaks Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Palo Alto Adult Education Palo Alto High Addison Elementary Herbert Hoover ElementaryEl Carmelo Elementary Ohlone Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary Greendell Juana Briones Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Packard Children's Hospital/Stanford Walter Hays Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Barron Park Elementary Terman Middle NE W M AYF I E L D LN G ARLAND DR MORT ONST CL ARK W A Y S A N A N T O NIO CIR LN 39 LN 7 E LN B E LN D E LN 56 E L C AM INO WAY UNIVERSITY AVE L N33 POE ST CLARA DR A SH B Y DR L N 21 PA LO RD Q U A I LD R C E D A R S T C O R I N A WAY DEODAR ST DAKE AVE 2N D S T M U R DOCH DR ALGER DR VI S TA AV E TASSO ST SI L V A AV EENCINA AVE PA U L AV E B R UCE DR C E R E Z A D R LINCOLN AVE H E A T H E R L N PAG E M IL L R D ASHTON AVE M E D I C A L LN B I B B I TSDR E L C E NT R O S T A L VIN ST SCRIPPS AVE AMARILLO AVE CENTRAL EXPY O R M E S T T H AI N WAY WARREN WAY CAROLINA LN L A SELVA D R P O M O N A A V E E V ERGREEN DRMARTIN A V E EDLEE AVE ELSINO R E DR D A N A A V E F I F E A V E E L C AJONWAY WELL S BURY WAY RUTHVEN AVE MADRONO AVE SUTTER AVE B R Y A NTST K E N DALL AV E SANTA RITA AVE GREER R D GAILEN AVE C E N T E R D R JANIC EWAY BARBARA DR FAYETTE DR L OOP R D MORRIS DR M ONTEL ENA C T ROBLE R I D G E RD A R B O R E T U M R D CHAUCERST LOSPALOSAVE D UNCA N P L WHITCLEM DR ARBUTUS AVE EL VERANO AVE V E N T U R A AV E MILLER AVE VIN E Y A R D L N P I T M A N A V E LE L A N D AVE GROVE AVE SYCAMORE DR C O M M E R C I A L S T NATH A N W A Y NITAAVE CU R T N E R AV E HIGH ST B OW D O I N S T STA N F O R D ST CO L U M B I A S T YA L E S T H AR VA R D ST O B E R L I N ST WI L L I A MS ST WI LT O N AV E P R I NC E TO N ST CO R N EL L S T FULTON ST TERMA N DR BYRON ST C OASTLA N D DR KIPLING ST EN C I N A G R AN D E D R S H ER I DA N AVE M A R G AR I TA AV E B I R CH S T F E R N AN D O AV E AC AC I A A V E W A L N U T DR W ILLMAR D R L O IS L N M AGNOL I ADR PARKSIDE DR F LO R A L E S D R L A M B E R T AV E D O N A LD D R O L I VE AV E KIPLING ST H O P K I N S A V E HALE ST J O SI N A A V E RIC K E Y ' S WAY CH R ISTINE DR AM H E R S T S T MAR DELL WAY H A R R I E T S T S UTH E R L A N D D R MARIPOSA AVE OX F O R D AV E GR A N T AV E BAYSHORE FWY C REEKSIDEDR S H ER M A N AV E M O N T R O S E A V E S T E L LI N G DR RO RKE W AY EL CARMELO AVE BE NLOMON DDRKELLOGG AVE SAINT MICHAEL DR A M A R A NTA AV E DELL AV E AMES A V E CASTILLEJA AVE SUZANNE DR SENECA ST AS H S T W M I D DLEFIELDRD LA D O N N A AV E URBA N LN SOU T HAMPTON DR W Y A N D O T T E S T NORTHAMPTON DR EME ADO W C I R P A R K I N S O N A V EHARKER A V E L A PA R A AV E G R E E N W O O D A V E MARION AVE W EL CAMI NO REAL MARS HALL D R ELYPL CAL I F O R N I A S T STOCKTON PL O A K CREEKD R C A MB R I D G E AV E STA N F O RD SHO P P I N G C E N TE R NELSON DR EL DORADO AVE MORENO AVE WILKIE WAY C H I M A L U S D R EVERETT AVE GUINDA ST BYRON ST RED W O O D CIR R O OSEV E LTCIR G E O R GIA A V E LA G U N A AVE W A L T E R HAYSDR S A N A N T O N I A R D L E G H O R N S T DEL MEDIO AVE I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E M ATADE R O AV E SA N A N TO N IO WAY WELC H R D TRANSPORT S T QUARRY RD FERNE AVE M A Y B E L L AV E LO S R O B L E S AV E H AN S E N WAY B A R RO N AV E OREGON AVE COLERIDGE AVE F A B I A N W A Y HAWTHORNE AVE LOWELL AVE N C ALI F O R NI A AV E P A S T E U R D R S CA LI F O R N I A AV E LYTTON AVE MELVILLE AVE TENNYSON AVE CHANNING AVE KINGSLEY AVE N E W E L L R D CHURCHILL AVE SAND HILL RD ADDISON AVE M O N R O E DR HOMER AVE HIGH ST COLORADO AVE PA L OA LTO A V E RAMONA ST SOUTH CT A R A S T R A D E R O R D FOREST AVE CO L L E GE AV E SEALE AVE RAMONA ST E MEADOW DR STA N F O R D AV E EMBARCADERO RD H A N OV E R S T ROSS RD LOMA VERDE AVE HAMILTON AVE PARK BLVD S A N A N T O N I O R D E CHARLESTON RD EL CAMINO REAL OREGON EXPY EMERSON ST MIDDLEFIELD RD WEBSTER ST LOUIS RD BRYANT ST COWPER ST WAV E RLEY ST E L C A MI N O R E A L ALMA ST S TAT E R T E 8 2 STARR K ING CIR A R BO R R D ALMA ST ALTO LN YA L E R D T R E N T ON W A Y E L M S T MIDDLEFIELD RD C E N T R A L A V E LEXI N G T O N D R H AR VA R D AV E M C K E N D R Y D R B A Y L A U R E L D R CLARE M ONT W A Y M A R M O N A D R C A M B R I D G E AV E C O N C O R D D R P O P E ST E C R E E K D R G I L B E R T A V E CREEK DR WOODLAN D AVE WILLOW R D WAYFINDING RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY PALO ALTO 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Wayfinding Recommendations Wayfinding (Northbound) Wayfinding (Southbound) REGIO NAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Wayfinding Existing Wayfinding Existing Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 115 MOUNTAIN VIEW MENLO PALO ALTO PARK 116 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study MO U N T A I N V I E W MOUNTAIN VIEW WAYFINDING Bicycle wayfinding throughout the interim route within Mountain View city limits was among the most comprehensive along the full interim route. Prior to implementing any bicycle improvements along the El Camino Real corridor, it is recommended that the city staff work to improve wayfinding to/from said corridor. Other potential locations for additional wayfinding improvements include: •California St and Rengstoff Ave •Dana St and Calderon Ave MOUNTAIN VIEW STATION SAN ANTONIO STATION £101 Ã237 Ã85 Ã82 Pioneer Memorial Park Slater School Park Rex Manor Park Terman Park Rengstorff Park Whisman School Park Eagle ParkCastro School Park McKelvey Park Landels School Park Cuesta Park San Veron Park Cooper Park Graham School Park Bubb Park Sylvan Park McKelvey Park Crittenden School Park Monroe Mini Park Monta Loma Park MVWSD Home & Hospital Independent Study Program Slater Special Education Preschool Benjamin Bubb Elementary Edith Landels Elementary Frank L. Huff ElementaryIsaac Newton Graham Middle Mariano Castro Elementary Stevenson Elementary Crittenden Middle Monta Loma Elementary Theuerkauf Elementary Adult Education Greendell M I R AMONTEAV E W A L K E R D R C H E T W O O DDR C A L D E R O N AV E W O O DL E A F WAY N E L M O N T E A V E S A N ANT O NI O CIR B AY STSILVA C T T O F T S T A L T A A V E R I C H A V E D O Y L E P L Y UCC A D R R I N C O N S T L I D A D R ESTR A D A D R S E V E L Y D R A D E L E A V E DRU C I L L A DR S AN L U P P E DR M U I R D R DIABLO AVE S H A R Y A V E E L S I E A V E BETLO AVE B E A T R I C E S T M O R ADR H I G DO N A V E P A L M E R A V E B O N N Y S T R E INE R T R D JE S S I E L N P A M E L A DR G E M I N I A V E S E R E N A D R O A K T RE E D R V A S S A R A V E J A C K S O N S TJANE L N DAKE AVE B ENTL EY S Q C H E S L E Y A V E K I N G S R OW EICHLE R D R L A C E W O O D D R V I NC E N T D R L O L A LN R U S TI C L N C U E S T A D R S I L VA AVE O R M O N D E DR J A R D I N D R LEONG DR JAC K S O N A LY T A M I W A Y C A M I LLE C T L A N E A V E P A C I F I C DR S U L L I V AND R DORA D O D R G R E E N V I E W D R W I L L I AM S W A Y B E V E R L Y S T MAYFIELD AVE T H OM P S ONSQ T Y L E R P A R K W AY ANNA AVE NELSON DR M A R IL Y N D R E H R H O R N AV E KENT DR F A Y W A Y S N O W S T K A T R I N A W A Y SCRIPPS AVE B E G E N A V E C R E S T V I E W D R L E O NA LN S T A R R WAY E D N A M A R Y W A Y M C C A R T Y AV E J U D S O N D R PA R K D R S U T H E R L A N D D R PIL G R I M A V E C O L L E G E S T F A I R O A K S A V E M I N A R E T A V E H A N F O R D EMILY DR M O O N B E A M D R K I T T O E D R F R A N K LI N A V E V A Q U E R O D R OA K L N W I N D M I L LP A R K LN V E L A R D E S T FAYETTE DR E R N E S T I N E L N L O R E T O S T N W H I S M A N R D MONTE L EN A C T M I D D L E F I E L D R D S I E R R A AV E L A UR A L N K A R E N W AY R AIN B O W D R C A R O L A V E S U N M O R A V E MILLER AVE W H I S M A N R D HEATH E R S T O N E WA Y YUBA DR G I L M O R E S T SO NI A WAY F A BIAN W A Y H A C K E T T A V E C O M M E R C I A L S T N I TA AVE T O D D S T S A N L U C A S A V E STE V E N S C R E E K D R E L D O R A D R FA I R M O N T AV E F O XBOROU G H D R F A I R B R O O K D R E U N I C E A V E M O R G A N S T PARKSIDE DR H I G H S C H O O L W AY C E N T R E S T S A N M A RCO S C I R P L Y M O U T H S T S W HISM A N R D ALVIN S T S A N R A F A E L A V E A N Z A S T B L O S S O M L N G R A N A D A D R F A R L E Y S T M O R T O N C T MARDE L LWAY G L E N B OROU G H D R C Y P R E S S P O I N T D R E D A N A S T M O N T R O S E A V E D A L M A D R S H E R L A N D A V E T O W NE C I R F L Y N N AV E L L O Y D W A Y A L I C E A V E S O L A N A D R ELCAMINO REAL Y O S E M I TE AV E BE NLOMON D DR C A R M E L I TA DR W I L L O W G A T E G A R D E N S WIL L O W G A T E S T C O L O N Y S T DELL AVE S Y L V A N A V E A D A A V E N B ERNARDO AVE M A R I C H W A Y LANDMARK PKWY L I N D A V I S T A A VE P I O N E E R W A Y S T I E R LI N R D DIERICX D R C R I S A N T O A V E S A N L U I S A V E H A N S A V E M A R I P O S A A V E S A N P I E R R E W A Y B O R A N D A A V E BAYSHORE PKWY M O N T A L T O D R B O N I T A A V E G R E T E L L N B R Y A N T S T S A N L E AND R O A V E N I L D A A V E G L A D Y S A V E M A R T E N S AV E S P R I N G S T C L A R K A V E D A L E A V E W R I G H T A V E O A K S T P A U L A V E W Y A N D O T T E S T S A N A N T O N I A R D ALMA ST L E G H O R N S T B A R B A R A A V E C E N T R A L E X P Y P H Y L LI S A V E DEL MEDIO AVE H O P E S T RAVENDALEDR T Y R E L L A A V E C E N T R A L AV E C H I Q U I T A A V E B U R G O Y N E S T S A N A NTO NIO WAY S L E E P E R A V E O R T E G A A V E T R A N S P O R T S T S R E N G S T O R F F A V E E S C U E L A A V E P E T T I S A V E THOMPSON AVE FERNE AVE C O N T I N E N T A L C I R P A L O A L T O A V E M O U N T A I N V I E W A V E W E V E L Y N A V E FERGUSON DR B U S H S T MOORPARKWAY F R A N K L I N S T E C H A R L E S T O N R D G R A N T R D V I E W S T I N D E P E N D E N C E A V E W D A N A S T M O N T E C I T O A V E S S H O RE LI N E B L V D T E R R A B E L L A A V E SHOWERS DR R O C K S T O L D M I D D L E F I E L D W A Y MONRO E D R S A N R A M O N A V E M E R C Y S T N R E N G S T O R F F A V E E A S Y S T E E L C A M I N O R E A L MO F F E T T B L V D E E V E L Y N A V E C H U R C H S T L A T H AM ST C A S T R O S T N S H O R E L I N E B L V D SIE R R A VIS T A A V E V I L L A S T S A N A N T O N I O R D E M I D D L E F I E L D R D C A L I F ORNIA ST MOUNTAIN VIEWALVISO RD STATERTE237 BAYSHORE FWY U S H W Y 1 0 1 W M I D D L E F I E L D R D S T A T E R T E 8 5 ST A T E RTE85 W V A LLE Y F W Y S TA T E R T E 8 2 W E L C A M I N O REAL C E N T R A L E X P Y STATERTE 82 C UERN A V AC A C I R C ULO WAYFINDING RECOMMENDATIONS Peninsula Bikeway Routes Interim Route Alt. A - Railway Alt. B - Middlefield Road Alt. C - El Camino Real Destinations + Boundaries School Caltrain Station Landmark Park City BoundaryPENINSULA BIKEWAY MOUNTAIN VIEW 0 0.25 0.5 MILES I Wayfinding Recommendations Wayfinding (Northbound) Wayfinding (Southbound) REGIO NAL CONTEXT Map Produced: February 2020 Wayfinding Existing Wayfinding Existing Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 117 MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS SUNNYVALEPALO ALTO 1 D PLAN REVIEW 120 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • PLAN YEAR JURISDICTION EL CAMINO REAL EVELYN/ CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY / CALTRAIN MIDDLEFIELD ROAD GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE 2019 Multiple jurisdictions CLASS IV N/A N/A MOUNTAIN VIEW EL CAMINO REAL 2019 Mountain View CLASS IV N/A N/A BIKE AND PED SAFETY IMPROVEMENT 2019 Redwood City CLASS IV N/A N/A REDWOOD CITY MOVES 2018 Redwood City CLASS IV CLASS II CLASS IV SANTA CLARA COUNTYWIDE (VTA) BICYCLE 2018 Santa Clara County CROSS COUNTY BICYCLE CORRIDOR CROSS COUNTY BICYCLE CORRIDOR CROSS COUNTY BICYCLE CORRIDOR CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 BICYCLE PLAN 2017 Caltrans District 4 CLASS IV None One intersection improvement REDWOOD CITY EL CAMINO REAL 2017 Redwood City CLASS IV N/A N/A GRAND BOULEVARD PALO ALTO SAFETY 2016 Palo Alto CLASS IV N/A N/A MOUNTAIN VIEW BICYCLE 2015 Mountain View CLASS IIB CLASS I CLASS II EL CAMINO REAL PRECISE PLAN 2014 Mountain View CLASS IIB or CLASS IV None None PALO ALTO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN 2012 Palo Alto CLASS II and CLASS III CLASS III CLASS II OR CLASS III MENLO PARK COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE 2005 Menlo Park CLASS III NONE/ CLASS II NONE/ CLASS II Recommendations Along Potential Alignments • o o o o • • • • • • • • • Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 121 • • • o o o o • o o o o • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • 122 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study • • • • • • • o o o o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o ▪ Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 123 o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 124 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 125 • • • • o o o • • • • • • 126 | Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study • • o o • o • o • • o o o o • • o • o o o o o • • Peninsula Bikeway Alignment Alternatives Study | 127 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 12259) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Affordable Housing Month Proclamation Title: Affordable Housing Month Proclamation From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Please find the attached proclamation honoring Affordable Housing Month. Attachments: • Attachment A: Affordable Housing Month Proclamation Proclamation __________________________ Tom DuBois Mayor MAY 2021-AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, affordable housing is a basic human right and yet, each year, thousands of Silicon Valley families and individuals struggle to find an affordable home in this expensive housing market; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the existing housing and homelessness crises; and WHEREAS, thousands of Palo Alto residents who were already feeling financial stress before the COVID- 19 pandemic have suffered through job disruptions, loss of income, and continue to struggle to pay their rent or mortgage; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto has further responded to the pandemic with urgency and compassion by enacting a citywide moratorium of evictions to protect renters from displacement and support small businesses; and WHEREAS, the process of economic recovery will be gradual. Palo Alto must put the ongoing need for new affordable housing development, preservation of existing affordable homes, and protection of its most vulnerable residents at the center of its recovery planning to promote the stability of its community; and WHEREAS, many organizations throughout Silicon Valley are dedicated to providing safe, stable, permanent and affordable housing to all members of the community; these organizations along with local agencies and community members have organized Affordable Housing Month. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Tom DuBois, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the entire City Council do hereby proclaim the month of May as Affordable Housing Month in the City of Palo Alto, to call upon our community to support affordable housing solutions and to recognize the successful efforts of the City of Palo Alto and its partners who seek to improve access to affordable housing in Palo Alto. PRESENTED: May 10, 2021 City of Palo Alto (ID # 12260) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/10/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proclamation - National Police Week Title: Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week - May 9-15, 2021 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day - May 15, 2021 From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Attachments: • Attachment A: National Police Week and National Police Officers' Memorial Day _______________________ Tom Dubois Mayor Proclamation National Police Week, May 9-15, 2021 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day, May 15, 2021 WHEREAS, the United States Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15, 2021 as National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day and the week in which it falls as Police Week; and WHEREAS, the members of the Palo Alto Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of its citizens; and WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens know and understand the problems, duties, and responsibilities of their police department, and that members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Police Department has grown to be a modern and progressive law enforcement agency which unceasingly provides a vital public service; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto asks all citizens to join in honoring the police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in doing so, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Tom Dubois, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the entire City Council do hereby proclaim the week of May 9-15, 2021, as Police Week and urge all citizens of Palo Alto to observe Saturday, May 15, 2021 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of duty. Presented: May 10, 2021