HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-15 City Council (8)TO:
C ty of Palo All6
C ty Manager’s Summary Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager
AGENDA DATE: July 15, 1996 CMR:331:96
SUBJECT:MIDTOWN REVITALIZATION FOLLOW-UP
REQUEST
This staff report provides an update on the Council’s Midtown revitalization assignment of
June 12, 1995. Recommended Council actions address the steps necessary to further the progress
that has been made in developing a revitalization approach for the Midtown core area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As reported to City Council last year, a public private partnership could be instrumental in
assisting Midtown property owners in private redevelopment and building rehabilitation efforts.
Staff recommends that the second phase of the Midtown revitalization process be initiated and
include the following:
Direct staff to return to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to initiate
a Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District Zone (CN-MSC). This
zone would only be applicable to the Midtown core area (NE quadrant) and would be based
on review and refinement of the Midtown Conceptual Master Plan developed over the past
year.
bo The City Council direct staff to work with a subcommittee of the Midtown commercial
property owners to identify financing mechanisms for implementation of on-site parking,
sidewalk and circulation improvements within the Midtown core area.
Direct Administrative Services Department staff to return with a Budget Amendment
Ordinance (BAO) to retain the services of a financial consultant to accomplish two distinct
phases of work. First, assist staff in working with property owners to insure that the broad
CMR:331:96 Page 1 of 22
do
outlines of a financing plan are understood and continue to be supported by the property
owners as the project progresses. Second, provide financial advisor services to structure a
debt package to bring to the financial markets. This second phase will not occur until near
the end of the process, typically just before construction. The first phase with the property
owners, however, will proceed as soon as a consultant can be hired. If so directed to proceed,
staff will also return with a Resolution of Intent to Issue Debt to allow the City to recoup its
up-front costs in the event that debt is ultimately issued.
Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and amended contract for the
traffic consultant to provide an additional $15,000 for traffic analysis related to the
installation of a new traffic signal on Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue; traffic analysis
for the environmental review of the Conceptual Master Plan; and proposed new CN-MSC
zone.
Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for up to $20,000 of contract
planner time to expedite review of the Conceptual Master Plan and the Neighborhood
Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District zone.
f.Council review and comment on the key elements of the conceptual master plan prepared by
the property owners’ architect.
g.Direct staff to draft a policy permitting the City-owned parking lot to be used as credit for
parking required for reuse/redevelopment of structures within the Midtown core area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 12, 1995 City Council directed staff to proceed in the following manner:
1)
2)
Assist property owners in their effbrts by playing a "convener" role in the form of site
plan preparation, to be privately funded by the property owners, with City staff
facilitation of plan preparation and community input to the process. The product of this
exercise would be a conceptual master plan for the Midtown core area showing the
general building locations and square footage of anchor tenants and small shops; and
Contingenk upon the property owners’ decision to fund and undertake the conceptual
master planning exercise, staff would proceed with the following two phases:
Phase I (completed):
1)Retain the services of a traffic engineering consultant to (a) provide technical assistance
to the conceptual site planning exercise, should the commercial property owners
proceed, and (b) to determine the proper location of a signalized entry into the
CMR:331:96 Page 2 of 22
commercial center (should one be necessary) and to evaluate the anticipated traffic
impacts of a two-lane versus four-lane Middlefield Road configuration; and
2) The City retain the services of a qualified retail financial consultant to provide a pro-
forma analysis of the site plan alternatives within the Midtown core area.
Phase II:
1)The City investigate the preparation of a companion zoning ordinance, which could be
called the Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center Zone, that spells out the
purposes of neighborhood commercial centers in the City and defines those uses
permissible within the district;
2)The City initiate a change in the zoning ordinance to allow non-complying structures to
rebuild at or below existing floor area ratios, so long as the project does not result in
greater non-compliance on any specific property. This provision could apply to
Midtown only, to all four of the City’s neighborhood commercial centers, or it could
include all of the E1 Camino Real areas of the City. The application of this change to
non-complying structures would apply initially only to Midtown, but that other areas of
the City be analyzed further for relief of the non-complying structures provisions; and
3) Direct staff to draft a policy permitting the City-owned parking lot to be used as credit
for parking required for ground floor re-use of structures within the Midtown core area.
This staff report discusses the results of the past year’s efforts to assist Midtown’s commercial
property o.wners in forming a consensus on issues; to bring together residents and commercial
property owners on issues related to the revitalization of Midtown, including the generation of a
conceptual master plan; and to identify the City’s role in stimulating the revitalization of
Midtown.
Several meetings were held among property owners. A consensus was reached to explore the
formation of a public / private partnership with the City to accomplish the on-site improvements,
and to support tax-exempt financing of the improvements. Property owners hired an architect
and reached basic agreement regarding a conceptual master plan, which includes shared parking
and circulation within the Midtown core area.
Five committee meetings with residents and property owners were held to discuss the conceptual
master plan issues of parking, circulation, and building areas. In addition, staff prepared a draft
Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center zoning ordinance which received extensive
comment from several residents, property owners, and community representatives.
CMR:331:96 Page 3 of 22
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City initiate efforts to approve, for the Midtown core area, a neighborhood commercial
shopping center zone to enable the Midtown core area to rehabilitate and redevelop. The
CN-MSC zone would incorporate an extensive review process for conceptual master plan
approval while retaining the current permitted and conditional uses of the existing CN
zoning.
The City has participated in providing parking facilities in the University Avenue and
California Avenue business districts through both the donation of land and the use of tax-
exempt financing. The Midtown project would extend the concept of participation to a
neighborhood commercial center.
The issue of two versus four lanes on Middlefield Road can be incorporated in the
Comprehensive Plan process for further technical evaluation and policy formulation in
conjunction with other Comprehensive Plan policies related to the Midtown commercial
area.
NEXT STEPS
Should Council direct staff as per the above recommendations, staff will proceed as follows:
ao The Planning and Community Environment Department will return to the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Board for initial review of a draft CN-MSC zone
in September 1996, with City Council review and adoption projected for early 1997. (Note
that the schedule is dependent upon the Midtown core area property owners securing the
services of architectural and engineering expertise necessary to conduct the ARB and
Planning Commission reviews as well as the related staff analysis, including the
environmental assessment. Staff is optimistic that this can occur.)
bo The Planning and Community Environment Department will return to Council with a draft
policy to allow the City-owned parking lot in the Midtown core area to be used as credit for
parking required for interim re-use/redevelopment of structures within the Midtown core
area. Timing of the draft policy will parallel the CN-MSC review process.
Co Staff will return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance(s) to allow for consultant assistance
in creating a tax exempt financing mechanism for common parking and circulation
improvements within the Midtown core area; provide for a contract planner to assist in the
Conceptual Master Plan and new zoning district; and expansion of the traf-fie consultant
contract.
CMR:331:96 Page 4 of 22
FISCAL IMPACT
Phase I: Completed
To date, consultant costs towards these efforts have totaled $73,725. This includes $26,225 for
the market analysis; $17,500 for the traffic consultant; $10,000 for the meeting facilitator; and
$20,000 for the economic consultant. This does not include the costs that will be incurred for
the development of a financing plan, hiring a contact planner, expanding the traffic consultant
contract, design and construction of a new traffic signal, or the subsequent costs of issuing tax-
exempt debt. If so directed, the costs involved will be brought forward in a future staff report as
described below. City representative efforts, stafftime, neighborhood representatives, and
assistance from the Chamber of Commerce staff and community ’mentors’ are also not included
in these figures.
Phase II:
If directed by Council, staff will retum with a request for the extension of the existing contract
with the traffic consultant for an additional $15,000 to complete the analysis for traffic light
installation and related traffic analysis work necessary for the environmental agreement.
If directed by Council to establish a tax-exempt financing mechanism, retain the services of a
financial consultant at an estimated cost of $35,000 - $60,000. The range in cost depends upon
the extent of work with property owners. These costs could be recouped through tax-exempt
financing, but the City would bear the risk of losing any City money invested in the project.
If directed by Council, staff will return with a request to retain the services of a contract planner
to initiate the process ofa CN-MSC zone, at an esti~nated cost not to exceed $20,000.
Phase I: Completed
$26,225 Market Analysis
$17,500 Traffic Consultant
$10,000 Meeting Facilitator
$20,000 Economic Consultant
TOTAL: $73,225
Phase II: Projected
$15,000 Traffic Consultant
$35,000.- $60,000 Financial consultant
$20,000 Planning consultant
TOTAL: $70,000 - $95,000
CMR:331:96 Page 5 of 22
If a fully functioning signal is recommended on Middlefield Road at Bryson Avenue, it is
anticipated that design and installation would cost an estimated $135,000. Funding for the
signal could be provided from the City’s electric utilities fund.
If directed by Council to assist in financing parking improvements, including the legal,
financial, environmental assessment, and other "up-front" costs, it would require approximately
¯$250,000. Again, these costs could be recouped through tax-exempt financing, but the City
would bear the risk of losing any City money invested in the project if it does not ultimately
proceed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No CEQA analysis is required at this time. An environmental assessment will be required as
part of the CN-MSC zoning text analysis, should Council so direct.
EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Map of building locations: Existing Conditions
Conceptual Master Plan: Phase I, II, and Altemate A
Parking Requirement Comparison
Midtown Revitalization Committee: Consensus Recommendations
Midtown Traffic Analysis
PREPARED BY:Carol Jansen, Manager, Economic Resources Planning
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
CC:Midtown Residents Association
Midtown Commercial Property Owners/Agents
CMR:331:96 Page 6 of 22
BACKGROUND
In May of 1995, staff reported.the following information:
The Midtown Neighborhood Commercial Center evolved over a 30 to 40 year time
period as a series of private property developments with individual buildings, generally
unrelated to one another physically, and with inadequate on-s~te parking. Some of the
structures were intended for single purpose tenancy such as the Midtown Market and
Bergmann’s Department Store, thereby severely restricting re-leasing efforts when those
buildings became vacant. Multiple property and building ownership, obsolescence of
structures, high expectations of property values and extens~ive investment requirements
for building and tenant improvements have been major private sector factors leading to
the Center’s economic decline.
Unlike the downtown or California Avenue assessment district areas where re-use of a
building to any retail tenant is permissible without providing additional parking, the
Midtown area CN (neighborhood commercial) zoning requires that each property owner
provide additional on-site parking for changes in use or minor building additions that
require more parking. This provision (which is also applicable to the City’s other
neighborhood and service commercial districts) does not allow offices to convert to
retail, or standard retail to convert to restaurants, etc., without providing additional
parking. Consequently, over time, many of the requests for change of use or for minor
building additions in Midtown have been discouraged or denied.
Midtown also exhibits a number of non-complying buildings, including the Bergmann’s
Department Store, Midtown Market, former Wells Fargo Bank Building, Bay Area
Action office building, etc. Non-complying structures are those that,would not meet the
required physical parameters of the zoning, such as setbacks, height limitations, floor
area ratios, etc., that the current ordinance allows. In particular, floor area ratios present
a major problem in that any structure that exceeds the allowable .4 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) cannot be added on to, even if the addition is very minor in nature and is
important to that particular retailer’s operations. More significantly, if the property
owner’s desire is to replace an existing building as opposed to rehabilitation, the .4 FAR
limitations of the CN district prevail. In staff’s opinion, there is little or no incentive to
redevelop properties where these conditions exist, even if private redevelopment is more
cost-effective and/or is the owner’s preferred alternative.
CMR:331:96 Page 7 of 22
Current City of Palo Alto Building and Fire Codes also impact the cost of building
rehabilitation efforts substantially. The Codes, which are City ordinances supplemental
to State of California Uniform Building and Fire Codes, essentially require seismic
upgrades and installation of sprinklers to all structures where building rehabilitation and
tenant improvements exceed 50 percent of the building value. In all of the City’s
neighborhood commercial centers and along E1 Camino Real, this provision is likely to
be invoked with re-use of structures, particularly where a change of occupancy is
involved, as from office or retail to commercial recreation, or where tenant improvement
costs are relatively high, as with restaurants, where kitchen equipment stoves, duct
systems, etc. are included in the value of tenant improvements. The building "value" is
based on a sliding scale that takes into account the use of the building and type of
construction.
This Code provision has,been the impetus for a number of downtown building upgrades
to meet current seismic and fire prevention standards. However, the potential
commercial rents to be gleaned from upgraded structures in downtown is substantially
higher than can be expected within the City’s neighborhood commercial or E1 Camino
Real strip commercial areas. The economics are as follows: If the costs of rehabilitation
and tenant improvements match or exceed the costs of new construction, it is in the
owner’s best interest to rebuild. If the building is non-complying, however, one cannot
rebuild without losing FAR or other entitlements, which often renders the project
economically infeasible. It is a "Catch 22" that property owners throughout the City.
regularly face, and a significant contributor, in staff’ s opinion, to the economic decline
of the City’s neighborhood and strip commercial retail areas.
The City’s neighborhood commercial zoning (CN) district has evolved over time, and
largely reflects the citizenry’s desire in the 1970’s to limit uses within the companion
service commercial (’CS) district that envelops much of E1 Camino Real. In essence, the
neighborhood commercial zone distinguishes itself from the service commercial zone in
two ways: automotive sales and services are allowed in CS and prohibited or restricted
in CN; and various other uses in the CN district are "capped" in size in order to address
the issue of scale and nature of operation of neighborhood versus more regionally
oriented strip cornrriercial. On a per parcel basis, these provisions limit grocery stores to
20,000 square feet, offices to 5,000 square feet, personal services to 2,500 square feet,
and so on. These restrictions were placed in an effort to control scale and use, but their
imposition has had a number of unintended negative consequences. Grocery store space
needs have long surpassed the 20,000 square foot maximum size; and personal services,
such as hair styling salons, which are ordinarily perceived as highly desirable within
neighborhood commercial areas, may be unduly restricted by CN zoning "caps," etc.
More importantly, all of the zoning provisions were predicated on a site-by site,
individual property analysis by use and physical development parameters. In contrast,
successful neighborhood commercial centers exhibit an integrated approach to the issues
CMR:331:96 Page 8 ot" 22
of retail commercial and service uses by size and location on the overall site, regardless
of individual property ownership.
Existing Conditions
It is likely that most of the properties are not heavily encumbered with debt, and current rents
within the area still reflect in some cases greater pedestrian and sales activity, particularly with
anchor tenants. If rents are still relatively high, owner incentive for substantial property
reinvestment is minimal. Potential income stream, versus ultimate land value, largely governs
the decision-making process. After many meetings and discussions, most property owners
indicated their desire to take some risk to improve their properties. The following is a brief list-
of comments regarding each building and/or property (see Exhibit A). It should be noted that
the information is accurate based on planning and building department data. However, until
actual building measurements and an engineer’s survey can be completed, the information
relating to building sizes and FAR should be viewed in general terms.
1)The building at 2605 Middlefield Road (Co-op Market) has continued to operate in the
same capacity as in prior years. It has been stated that the Co-op will pursue upgrades
to its merchandising and physical facility upon successful completion of this process,.
as a successful "center" would justify such reinvestment. The building area is 12,064
square feet; the FAR is .25.
2)The buildings at 2655 and 2675 Middlefield Road (containing Baskin Robbins, Act
II, Score Advantage Center, Midtown Bike, Midtown Video, Palo Alto Care, and
United Studios of Self Defense) continue to operate at almost full capacity. The
building at 2675 Middlefield occupies two properties, one of which is partially
covered with a drainage easement. The building areas are 5,600 and 6,800 square
feet; the FAR is approximately .31 and .41.
3)The building at 2695 Middlefield Road (containing Victoria Emmons and Larry
Wells Hair Salon) is operating at full capacity. The building area is 7,184 square feet;
the FAR is .47.
4)The parcel located to the rear of 2655 Middlefield is currently being maintained as a
community garden by Bay Area Action, whose office is located at 715 Colorado
Avenue. In recognition of the need for additional parking and circulation at the
center, Bay Area Action representatives stated their support for such use if that will
assist in revitalization efforts. There is no building on this site.
5)The former Midtown Market at 2701 Middlefield Road has been vacant for the past
three years. The building stretches across two parcels and has sixteen family
CMR:331:96 Page 9 of 22
member-owners. The building size of 15,706 square feet (including ground floor and
mezzanine) is sufficient for most drug store anchor tenants. The FAR is .53.
6)The building at 2717 Middlefield (containing Jamm’n Juice, University Florist and
Gift Shop and Midtown 1 Hour Photo) is fully occupied and has been substantially
upgraded in recent years. The building area is 2,520 square feet; the FAR is.28.
7)The former Bergmann’s Department Store at 2741 Middlefield Road has been vacant
since 1992. There are substantial building code issues involved with building
rehabilitation, including handicap access, seismic upgrade, and fire codes. The
building is located on two properties, and is built to the edge of the north and south
property lines, where it abuts neighboring buildings. There is almost no area for retail
exposure on the north or south sides of the building, and the rear of the structure is
hidden from both Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road. Most retail
establishments normally require 60 to 80 feet of depth; this building extends over 150
feet, with the rear of the building cantilevered as a second story mezzanine. Re-use of
the building is problematic, as any change in occupancy classification may result in
required upgrades to current building codes. Thus, there are few appropriate retail
establishments for the entire building (other than the Middlefield frontage), and a
change of use will likely trigger complete redevelopment of the site. The building is
approximately 18,500 square feet, including mezzanine area, and stretches across two
properties at an FAR of .97.
8)The building at 2775 Middlefield Road (containing Midtown Realty) recently
experienced a vacancy with the loss of Home Federal Bank. With the comer portion
of the building vacant, the property owner is confronted with new tenant recruitment
or redevelopment. Any change in occupancy classification will result in required
upgrades to current building codes. The building area is 2,720 square feet and the
FAR is .31.
9). The building located at 711-719 Colorado (containing Bay Area Action, Global
Automation, Cleo Eulau Center, and several psychotherapist and psychologists’
offices) is fully leased and occupied. The owner has indicated an eventual interest in
establishing ground floor retail or a restaurant in the building. The building area is
7,555 square feet; the FAR is 1.06.
10)The building located at 721 Colorado Avenue (the former Wells Fargo Bank) has
been converted and fully leased as professional offices. The building area is 7,315
square feet; the FAR is 1.12.
CMR:331:96 Page 10 of 22
~letion of Phase I
At the direction of City Council, staff, in the past twelve months, has played a "convener"
role to assist and encourage cooperation and communication among property owners as
well as residents in the Midtown neighborhood. The following activities have been
accomplished:
The property owners hired an architect and have agreed on a draft ’conceptual
master plan,’ showing general building locations, parking and circulation for
the center. In addition, the owners have agreed, in principle, to fund a special
financing district process to construct the shared parking and circulation
improvements.
B)A traffic study has been prepared, analyzing existing traffic conditions and
providing technical assistance to the conceptual site planning exercise. The
analysis explored the feasibility of placing a traffic light on Middlefield Road
at Bryson Avenue, and the potential of changing Middle field Road from four to
two lanes in the Midtown shopping center area. The results indicated the
following:
Removing the existing pedestrian signal from in front of the Co-op Market
and installing a signal at the Middlefield Road / Bryson Avenue location is
desirable. This would provide a fully functioning signal to the main
entrance to the center and allow a reduction in the number of existing curb
cuts on Middlefield Road.
Changing Middlefield Road from four to two lanes in the shopping center
area appears feasible and may not have significant impacts on the traffic
flow on Middlefield Road or result in a noticeable diversion of traffic to
parallel side streets such as Cowper Street or Louis Road. Existing bicycle
lanes could be moved off the sidewalk and onto Middlefield Road; it is
. likely that there will be increased pedestrian activity between .the
quadrants. Thus, it is believed by the consultant and staff that pursuing
this change would encourage both pedestrian and bicycle travel among the
four Midtown quadrants.
A key component is Synchronization of the existing signals at Colorado
Avenue and Oregon Expressway (controlled by Santa Clara County) at
Middlefield Road. However, the Middlefield configuration is independent
of the conceptual master planning process and if pursued, a demonstration
study should be conducted to further evaluate the actual impacts of lane
reconfiguration.
CMR:331:96 Page 11 of 22
C)The City’s financial consultant assisted commercial property owners in
analyzing the financial implications of various revitalization scenarios. This
analysis included possible property and building reconfigurations, and
preliminary discussions about the use of tax-exempt financing and its financial
impact on property owners. Particular attention was given to the Midtown
Realty and Bergmann’s buildings.
Staff participated in numerous discussions and meetings with commercial
property owners, residents and consultants. A draft of the conceptual master
plan was shared with the Midtown Residents Association, whereupon issues
such as retail convenience, pedestrian-friendliness, "local scale," and
community spaces were discussed.
E)Staff has prepared a preliminary draft Neighborhood Commercial Midtown
Shopping Center zone. Preliminary input regarding a potential new zone has
been received from many Midtown residents, property owners, and other
community members.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There are several policy implications inherent in the recommendations for future direction
from City Council for the Midtown revitalization process. The City’s role as convener and
majority funder for the Midtown planning process has represented a departure from past
actions, which have largely depended upon the marketplace to resolve the issues related to
economic decline within the City’s retail areas. Fortunately, most retail areas in the City
have flourished; therefore, the need for assistance has been minor. This is not true for
neighborhood commercial areas in general, and the unique problems in resolving the
economic decline in Midtown dictated greater City involvement in the revitalization
process. In staff’s opinion, the emphasis on the role of the property owners as the plan
"creators", financially and otherwise, and the role of the residents to provide early input
into the plarming process with a plan "reviewer" emphasis were key.
What implications does the Midtown process have for other areas of the City in need of
assistance? Where similar conditions exist, such as multiple property ownership, small
parcels, obsolete structures, and inadequate parking, there may be future parallels.
Midtown was fortunate, however, in that there was a commonality of goals, which was to
create a more economically healthy retail environment with pedestrian amenities and
enough parking to support future retail tenants. While Midtown-like conditions are largely
confined to E1 Camino Real and environs, there are parallel issues with other areas of the
City, including E1 Camino Way island and perhaps most of the neighborhood commercial
CMR:331:96 Page 12 ot" 22
centers, with regard to the deficiencies of the CN zoning district in treating retail center
development. Variations of the Midtown process may be applicable to other areas, and the
Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center zone may serve as a model for
future neighborhood commercial redevelopment.
Allocation of City staff time and financial involvement in the formation of a special
financing district has been directed to both the Downtown and California Avenue
assessment districts, and like Midtown, largely for parking purposes. While such
assistance to neighborhood commercial areas has not been recent policy, the existence of
the City-owned Midtown parking lot, which was created via assessment district, is clear
evidence of City Council recognition over forty years ago of the need to provide public
assistance in solving the parking and circulation problems inherent to the Midtown area.
The City’s recommended actions in the current process represent a much expanded version
of previous Midtown assessment efforts to create joint parking and circulation within the
retail center area. Finally, signal placement at the Middlefield Road / Bryson Avenue
intersection is recommended to be funded and accomplished by the City, where it is
expected to achieve both the goals of economic revitalization and increased traffic safety
for residents.
Perhaps the greatest public policy implication of Midtown evolves around the creation of
the Midtown Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center District to facilitate the
Midtown core area rehabilitation and redevelopment. While other planning and zoning
mechanisms are theoretically available to resolve the issues surrounding the CN district, in
staff’s opinion, the proposed CN-MSC zone best accomplishes the goal of Midtown
commercial property owners to maintain some planning flexibility early on in the approval
process, i.e. with the initial requirement for a conceptual master plan, while providing
surrounding residents with the surety of a master plan approach unique to their
neighborhood character. In addition, the zone incorporates widely accepted and defined
neighborhood commercial uses, thereby giving residents greater assurance of possible uses
in the Midtown center..
DISCUSSION
It was acknowledged early in the process that, ultimately, there were many difficult
decisions that needed to be addressed by the property owners; no amount of City
supported studies or consultant time could make the difficult decisions for them.
Consequently, in recognition of the many issues that were acting as a barrier to
revitalization -- including zoning issues, questions about traffic and circulation, minimal
understanding of revitalization economics, and the need for common improvements in the
context of multiple property ownership -- the City agreed to and paid for a limited amount
of professional consultation regarding fmancial issues, traffic analysis, and meeting
facilitation. The commercial property owners, in turn, selected and paid for the services of
CMR:331:96 Page 13 of 22
an architect, and, among themselves, negotiated a number of issues requiring their
agreement. The role of all involved participants has been essential to the ongoing success
of these efforts.
Traffic Signal
Relocating the pedestrian signal from in front of the Co-op Market to become a fully
functional traffic light on Middlefield at Bryson Avenue is considered desirable by the
traffic consultant. This would provide a fully fimctioning signal to the main entrance to
the center and allow a reduction in the number of existing curb cuts on Middle field Road.
Extending the consultant’s contract to allow for additional traffic analysis regarding trip
generation, distribution, network assignment, forecasts, traffic signal warrant analysis,
signal phasing, timing, queuing and coordination analysis could be completed in a two to
three month time period.
Parking and Circulation Improvements - Financing and Construction
Parking and circulation improvements would include addressing the quadrant’s intemal
traffic flow and parking areas by reconfiguring the parking lot, repaving, striping, lighting,
and pooling parking spaces. The construction cost for such improvements is expected to
be approximately $1 million.
Staff has explored the potential for tax-exempt financing for the parking and circulation
improvements and believes this is feasible, provided the property owners are in agreement
as to the project costs and methodology for apportioning the costs. If Council directs, staff
wil! work with the property owners to develop a financing plan, including the cost of
improvements, costs of debt issuance, interest and principle repayment requirements, and
potential fiscal impact to the affected property owners. Staff would return with a Budget
Amendment Ordinance to the Council for the consultant assistance required to-put the
financing plan together. While these consultant costs could be recouped if debt is
eventually issued, the City could potentially incur these costs without reimbursement,
should the project not move forward as anticipated.
Commercial property owners met and agreed to support, in concept, the establishment of
additional "taxes" on their properties to accomplish communal parking and circulation
improvements.
Timing: Estimated 31 - 39 months until parking and circulation improvements are
completed. In order to achieve the 31 month completion time, the city would need to
proceed at an expedited "fast-track" pace. This means accomplishing the preliminary
engineering design and initiating the financing process concurrently with the zoning
adoption process. This would place at risk any costs the City might advance for design
CMR:331:96 Page 14 of 22
and preparation prior to approval of the land use issues. If directed by Council to assist in
financing parking improvements, including the legal, financial, environmental assessment,
and other "up-front" costs, it would require approximately $250,000. Upon establishment
of tax-exempt financing, property owners would reimburse all costs incurred by the City.
Zone change / Preliminary design
Final design
Engineers report
Hearings
Construction bidding
Construction
Total estimated time
12 months
6 months
3 months
3 months
2 months
5 months
31 months
In discussions with members of City staff, including economic resources planning,
attorney’s office, and the planning department, it appears that with council direction the
staff could initiate the public hearing process for a new CN-MSC zone. Planning
Commission hearings could begin in September or October. The Planning Commission
review schedule will need to be coordinated with ARB review and preparation of the
environmental assessment. The ordinance could return for Council review in early 1997.
Parking and Circulation - Parking Ratio
The northeast quadrant of Midtown, including the City parking lot, has a current FAR of
.38. Existing conditions are such that one parking space exists for each 300 square feet of
building area. If the properties that are currently developed below the CN zone’s .4 FAR
were to expand to .4 FAR, there would ultimately be capacity for about 340 parking
spaces on the site. This allows for approximately 1 space for each 275 square feet of
building area, which is the same requirement listed under the Municipal Code’s "shopping
center" (section 18.83.050). Currently, this section of the Code applies only to Stanford
Shopping Center, but could be amended to include all center development.
Crucial to the application of the CN-MSC district zone is the 1 space per 275 square foot
parking ratio incorporated in the proposal. Current CN regulations require 1 space per 200
square feet for retail, 1 space per 300 square feet for office, and 1 parking space for every
three seats for restaurants. The need for pooled parking to allow for change of use within
buildings is crucial to the success of the project, and the recommended one space per 275
square feet falls squarely in the middle of the range for other communities polled for their
parking requirements (see Exhibit C). Recently, the communities of San Carlos and
Belmont relaxed their parking requirements for commercial uses, and the City of Menlo
Park will reconsider its commercial parking requirements in 1997.
CMR:331:96 Page 15 of 22
Five large Midtown committee meetings were held to discuss the progress of the
commercial property owner discussions, understand the zoning and building codes issues,
and to better understand resident perspectives. The last of the Midtown Committee
meetings was July 10, 1996, at which a consensus was reached concerning the following
six issues (see Exhibit D):
it is desirable to relocate the traffic light as quickly as possible from in from of the
Co-op Market to the intersection of Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue, and to
include a left-turn lane from Middlefield Road into the shopping area.
Parking for customers and employees should be accommodated within the
shopping center and not overflow onto adjacent residential streets.
Adequate square footage should be provided for other amenities including public
plazas or meeting areas, bicycle parking racks and access routes, bus pullout or
passenger areas, landscaping zones of sufficient size for trees, setbacks from
adjacent residential buildings, and loading / delivery areas.
The center should include one or more anchor stores and several satellite shops that
will provide for a variety of retail oppommities, and be designed with local,
pedestrian scale.
It is recognized that office space will be a component of the center’s revitalization,
although offices should have a secondary priority to retail.
A City-fimded traffic study should be undertaken after the changes are made to
determine the impact of the new traffic, circulation and parking patterns on the
adjoining residential areas (Colorado, Moreno, Cowper, Ross and Marion streets).
Sales Tax as an Indicator to the City.
As discussed in the Retail Trends Report(CMR:957:95), sales tax is often c~nsidered a
good general indicator of the economic health of an area or industry. Using constant
dollars (not adjusted for CPI), Midtown declined 19 percent in sales tax revenues in the
period 1989-94, while the City overall increased 7 percent. Sales tax figures show
Midtown Center sales to be less than one-half national averages for neighborhood
commercial centers.
Midtown represents less than three-quarters of 1 percent (0.007) of the City’s overall sales
tax revenues; sales tax revenues were not the primary or even a major impetus for this
revitalization effort. The catalyst was the significant loss of community services to
CMR:331:96 Page 16 of 22
Midtown residents, and the noticeable decline in use and appearance of commercial
properties.
Proposed Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District (CN-MSC) Zone
Throughout the Midtown Committee process, it became increasingly clear that some form
of zoning package would need to be crafted to accommodate Midtown revitalization.
Neighborhood center rehabilitation and redevelopment should involve a multi-level public
review process, for which current CN regulations do not provide. An initial Neighborhood
Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District zone was prepared to immediately address
the issues in the Midtown core area. Key to the CN-MSC zone is the generation of a
"conceptual master plan" which enables the applicant(s) to treat multiple property
ownership as a "center" for parking, circulation and anchor use purposes. The conceptual
master plan would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board,
and approved by the City Council. The conceptual master plan will show general building
locations, setbacks to residential uses, parking and circulation, and location of anchor or
major tenants. An overall development cap would be included as part of the application,
and would not exceed the square footage which can be parked as shopping center parking
standards. Architectural details, building elevations, signage and specific parking
configurations would return to the ARB for final design approval.
Over time, as minor changes are desired or needed in the center, the applicant would work
with staff or the Architectural Review Board for approval. SignifiCant changes, which
include changes in anchor tenant use, increases in anchor tenant size, proposals to exceed
the established floor area allotment for the center, and substantial building relocation
would require new conceptual plan review via the PC / ARB / CC process.
In essence, the CN-MSC zone combines a public review process similar to the City’s site
and design approval process, but with CN permitted and conditional uses. The conceptual
master plan approach would not involve the level of detail normally found in Planned
Community zone applications, however, and there would be no specific code requirement
for "public benefit" beyond those inherent in the project. In lieu of current size caps on
CN uses, the conceptual master plan would identify areas of the center as anchor tenants,
small shops, office, etc. In the case of the Midtown core area, there has been an historical
tradition of several smaller anchors, and it is anticipated that the conceptual master plan
would reflect this tradition. Unlike the City’s Planned Community zoning, uses would not
be permitted that are currently not allowed in the neighborhood commercial (CN) zoning.
Parking would be provided at the City’s shopping center parking rate of 1 space per 275
square feet, which is currently applied to the Stanford Shopping Center only.
The CN-MSC zone approach offers seVeral advantages:
CMR:331:96 Page 17 of 22
An integrated approach to Midtown’s shopping center development. Crucial to
situations involving multiple property ownership in a center-style setting is the use
of common circulation, parking and pedestrian areas. Since the draft zone requires
a conceptual master plan endemic to the site, the CN-MSC zone has no implicit or
explicit "carry-over" site planning applicability to other areas of the City. Much
like the City’s planned commtmity zone, the CN-MSC zone is an enabling tool for
property owners; absent an application from owners to apply the zone to the
Midtown core area, the current CN zoning would remain unchanged. Shared
parking at shopping center standards is critical to the integrated approach,
particularly for currently vacant building re-use.
Flexibility for property owners. The creation of a zoning review process whereby
the overall development parameters are reviewed by the PC / ARB / CC, with
details returning to the Architectural Review Board significantly reduces the
barriers to building improvements and upgrades, particularly where there are
multiple property owners with differing development timetables.
The opportunity for increased, and early-on, public input and review of
development proposals. Under current CN regulations, no master plan is required
and individual buildiflgs are reviewed at the ARB level only on a case by case
basis. Public input will occur at the initial conceptual master planning stage via
the PC / ARB / CC and at the final Architectural Review Board on project details.
Limitation of the CN-MSC to the Midtown Core Area only at this time may allow
the City and owners to move quickly toward land use decisions, thereby expediting
the public and private improvements necessary to revitalize the Midtown core area.
Staff has held a number of meetings with members of the community, including Midtown
residents, local architects, CPAC representatives and other neighborhood representatives
in order to elicit as much comment as possible on the conceptual provisions of the draft
zoning ordinance. Based on comments received, an important issue to be resolved is the
elimination of the office caps currently in place in the CN district. While identification of
anchor tenants mitigates the current cap on grocery store size, the potential for ground
floor office within the center has often been raised as problematic, largely because the
potential reuse of the Bergmarm building is an unknown. Current market considerations
will work in favor of retail over office, as neighborhood commercial retail rents are
generally higher than office in neighborhood center locations.. A reflection of those
market conditions is that the existing CN zoning, which allows up to 5,000 square feet of
offices per parcel, would permit up to an estimated 40,000 square feet of offices in the
existing 86,000 square foot center, whereas only 16,000 square feet currently exist. The
buyers of the Bergmann’s building have indicated their desire to redevelop the building,
CMR:331:96 Page 18 of 22
however full ground floor retail would necessitate redevelopment of the Midtown Realty
and Bergmann’s sites simultaneously. While retail can be accommodated in the first 60-70
feet of the Bergmarm building under a rehabilitation scenario, the likely reuse of the
remainder of the structure would be for office. Resolution of this issue will be important
as the planning process proceeds.
NEXT STEPS
Should Council direct staff as per the above recommendations, staff will proceed as
follows:
bo
The Planning and Community Environment Department will return to the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Board for initial review of a draft CN-MSC
zone in September 1996, with City Council review and adoption projected for early
1997. (Note that the schedule is dependent upon the Midtown core area property
owners securing the services of architectural and engineering expertise necessary to
conduct the ARB and Planning Commission reviews as well as the related staff
analysis, including the environmental assessment. Staff is optimistic that this can
OCCUF.)
The Planning and Community Environment Department will return to Council with a
draft policy to allow the City-owned parking lot in the Midto,ma core area to be used as
credit for parking required for interim re-use/redevelopment of structures within the
Midtown core area. Timing of the draft policy will parallel the CN-MSC review
process.
Staff will return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance(s) to allow for consultant
assistance in creating a tax exempt financing mechanism for common parking and
circulation improvements within the Midtown core area; provide for a contract planner
to assist in the Conceptual Master Plan and new zoning district; and expansion of the
traffic consultant contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Phase I: Completed
To date, consultant costs towards these efforts have totaled $73,725. This includes
$26,225 for the market analysis; $17,500 for the traffic consultant; $10,000 for the
meeting facilitator; and $20,000 for the economic consultant. This does not include the
costs that will be incurred for the development of a financing plan, hiring a contact
planner, expanding the traffic consultant contract, design and construction of a new traffic
signal, or the subsequent costs of issuing tax-exempt debt. If so directed, the costs
CMR:331:96 Page 19 of 22
involved will be brought forward in a future staff report as described below. City
representative efforts, staff time, neighborhood representatives, and assistance from the
Chamber of Commerce staff and community ’mentors’ are also not included in these
figures.
Phase II:
If directed by Council, staff will return with a request for the extension of the existing
contract with the traffic consultant for an additional $15,000 to complete the analysis for
traffic light installation and related traffic analysis work necessary for the environmental
agreement.
If directed by Council to establish a tax-exempt financing mechanism, retain the services
of a financial consultant at an estimated cost of $35,000 - $60,000. The range in cost
depends upon the extent of work with property owners. These costs could be recouped
through tax-exempt financing, but the City would bear the risk of losing any City money
invested in the project.
If directed by Council, s~aff will return with a request to retain the services of a contract
planner to initiate the process of a CN-MSC zone, at an estimated cost not to exceed
$20,000.
Phase I: Completed .Phase II: Projected
$26,225 Market Analysis $15,000 Traffic Consultant
$17,500 Traffic Consultant $35,000 - $60,000 Financial consultant
$10,000 Meeting Facilitator $20,000 Planning consultant
$20,000 Economic Consultant
TOTAL: $73,225 TOTAL: $70,000 - $95,000
If a fully functioning signal is recommended on Middlefield Road at Bryson Avenue, it is
anticipated that design and installation would cost an estimated $135,000. Funding for the
signal could be provided from the City’s electric utilities fund.
If directed by Council to assist in financing parking improvements, including the legal,
financial, environmental assessment, and other "up-front" costs, it would require
approximately $250,000. Again, these costs could be recouped through tax-exempt
CMR:331:96 Page 20 of 22
financing, but the City would bear the risk of losing any City money invested in the
project if it does not ultimately proceed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No CEQA analysis is required at this time. An environmental assessment will be required
as part of the CN-MSC zoning text analysis, should Council so direct.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As reported to City Council last year, a public private partnership could be instrumental in
assisting Midtown property owners in private redevelopment and building rehabilitation
efforts. Staff recommends that the second phase of the Midtown revitalization process be
initiated and include the following:
ao Direct staff to return to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to
initiate a Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District Zone (CN-
MSC). This zone would only be applicable to the Midtown core area (NE quadrant)
and would be based on review and refinement of the Midtown Conceptual Master Plan
developed over the past year.
The City Council direct staff to work with a subcommittee of the Midtown commercial
property owners to identify financing mechanisms for implementation of on-site
parking, sidewalk and circulation improvements within the Midtown core area.
Direct Administrative Services Department staff to return with a Budget Amendment
Ordinance (BAO) to retain the services of a financial consultant to accomplish two
distinct phases of work. First, assist staff in working with property owners to insure
that the broad outlines of a financing plan are understood and continue to be supported
by the property owners as the project progresses. Second, provide financial advisor
services to structure a debt package to bring to the financial markets. This second
phase will not occur until near the end of the process, typically just before construction.
The first phase with the property owners, however, will proceed as soon as a consultant
can be hired. If so directed to proceed, staff will also return with a Resolution of Intent
to Issue Debt to allow the City to recoup its up-front costs in the event that debt is
ultimately issued.
Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and amended contract for
the traffic consultant to provide an additional $15,000 for traffic analysis related to the
installation of a new traffic signal on Middlefield Road and Bryson Avenue; traffic
CMR:331:96 Page 21 of 22
analysis for the environmental review of the Conceptual Master Plan; and proposed
new CN-MSC zone.
eo
go
Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for up to $20,000 of
contract planner time to expedite review of the Conceptual Master Plan and the
Neighborhood Commercial Midtown Shopping Center District zone.
Council review and comment on the key elements of the conceptual master plan
prepared by the property owners’ architect.
Direct staff to draft a policy permitting the City-owned parking lot to be used as credit
for parking required for reuse/redevelopment of structures within the Midtown core
area.
CMR:331:96 Page 22 of 22
<>
4
5
Middlefield Road
!
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
AREA
OFFICES
MIDDLEFI~LD ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
LOAD~G
ANCHOR G~OC~RY
oNE
SMALL ANCH~ )R RETAL
SMALL
ONE OR TWO STOREY
BU~.DING AREA
RELOCATED
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
0
o
Retail Store
Parking
U
Office Parking
Restaurant Parking
Telephone Survey of Parking Requirements for Neighborhood Commercial Uses
OTHER COMMUNITIES
Belmont Berkeley Burlingame Los Altos Menlo Park Mtn View
1/250 in public
areas; 1/2000
in non-public
areas
1/250 in public
areas; 112000
in non-public
areas
1/60 in public
areas; 1/600 innon-public
areas
Palo Alto Pasadena San Carlos Sunnyvale Walnut Creek
1/500
1/500 for
professional /
general office;
1/300 for
medical &
dental office
1/300
1/400
1/300 forprofessional
and general
office; 1/250 formedical office
1/200
1/200
1/200
1/166; Parking
requirement isdetermined by
zone
1/166; Parking
requirement isdetermined by
zone
1/250 forneighborhood
commercial
centers over20,000 square
feet
1/300 forprofessional /
general office;
11150 medicaloffice
1/200
1/310 for Cal
Ave
assessment
area; 1/300 in
LM district ;1/250 in non -
assessment
areas
1/400
1/333
1/300
1/300
1/225 forneighborhood
commercial
centers over
50,000 square
feet
1/125 public
space; 1/300
non-public
1 space for
each 3
restaurant
seats and 1 for
every 3
restaurant
employees
1/166; Parking
requirement is
determined by
zone
1/250 with
restaurantsallowed to
occupy up to
10%of the
center; add 1
space per 100,
or, 1 space for
each 2.5 seats
for centers
where
restaurants
occupy over
10%
1/155 in Cal
Ave parking
assessment
area; in non-assessment
areas, 1 space
for each 60 sq.
ft. public area
and 1 for each
200 sq. ft. for
non-public
areas
1 space for
each 4 fixed
seats or 1
space for each
50 sq ft for
movable seats
space
1/225 forneighborhood
commercial
centers over50,000 square
~et
1/225 for
neighborhood
commercial
centers over
50,000 square
feet
1/250 forneighborhood
commercialcenters over
50,000 square
feet
1/250 forneighborhood
commercial
centers over50,000 square
feet
1/250 for
neighborhood
commercial
centers over
50,000 square
feet
EXHIBIT "D"
To:Palo Alto City Council
July 10, 1996
From:Midtown Revitalization Committee
Consensus Recommendations Regarding Midtown Revitalization
We support the development of a Conceptual Master Plan which will allow the
owners of commercial property in the northeast quadrant of the Midtown area
to proceed with revitalization as quickly as possible.
We encourage the City Council to establish a zoning mechanism that would allow
the northeast quadrant of Midtown to be developed in totality as a neighborhood
commercial shopping center with shared parking and other requirements, rather
than applying current zoning standards to each individual property within the
center.
The goal of this revitalization would be to create a dynamic, profitable retail area
that is compatible with the neighborhood and addresses neighborhood concerns.
To accomplish this goal, representatives of the commercial property owners and
the Midtown Residents’ Association came to agreement on the following specific
points at a meeting at Councilmember Ron Andersen’s home on Friday, June 21:
1)The traffic light currently located on Middlefield between the Co-op Market
and Baskin Robbins should be moved as quickly as possible to the
proposed location across from Bryson Ct., creating a true intersection with
a left-turn lane from Middlefield into the shopping area.
2)The overall maximum square footage to be developed in the area covered by
the new zoning should not exceed the size that would allow ali retail and
office parking (including employees) to be accommodated within the
shopping center and not overflow onto adjacent residential streets.
3)In addition to space for required parking, adequate square footage should be
provided for other amenities: public plazas or meeting areas, bicycle
parking racks and access routes, bus pullout and passenger areas,
landscaping zones of sufficient size for trees, setbacks from adjacent
residential buildings, and loading/delivery areas.
4)The center should include one or more anchor stores and several satellite
shops that will provide for a variety of retail opporttmities, and be
designed with local, pedestrian scale.
OVeF
Recommendation to Palo Alto City Council from Midtown Revitalization
Committee, July 10, 1996, page 2
5) We want to encourage the development of retail uses in the center. We
recognize that office space will be a component, but office space should
have a secondary priority.
6) A City-ftmded traffic study should be undertaken after the changes are made
to determine the impact of the new traffic, circulation and parking
patterns on the adjoining residential areas (Colorado, Moreno, Cowper, Ross
and Marion streets). Appropriate mitigation (such as traffic calming
devices) should be provided by the City to offset any significant negative
impacts.
Finally, recognizing that the commercial property owners have expressed
willingness to assess themselves approximately 15 cents per square foot toward
landscaping and other amenities for the center, the Midtown Residents’
Association and the property owners are ready to work together to find a source
of low-cost loans which will stretch these funds even further. We encourage the
City Council to join with us in an effort to develop such low-cost financing.
We appreciate the Council’s finandal support for and involvement in the
Midtown revitalization process. We look forward to working together to address
the interests of all the stakeholders as the next steps of the process unfold.
Signed by the following voting members of the Midtown Revitalization
Committee:
EXHIBIT
City of Palo Alto
Revised Draft
Working Paper No. 1
SUMMARY OF DATA
AND ANALYSIS
Prepared by:
April, 1996
COLLECTION
1. Introduction
This working paper summarizes the results of initial data collection and analysis conducted as part
of the Palo Alto Midtown Revitalization project. Initial data collection and analysis tasks included:
collection of daily machine counts on Middlefield Road,
performing peak hour turning movement counts at the intersections of Middlefield
Road with Colorado and Moreno/Webster Avenues,
conducting an origin-destination survey on Middlefield Road, and
performing travel time runs on parallel streets that could be affected by traffic
diversion from Middlefield Road,
calculating existing levels of service at the signalized intersection of Middlefield Road
and Colorado Avenue.
The data collection and analysis were conducted for the AM (7:00 to 9:00 AM), Midday (11:30 AM
to 1:30 PM’), and PM (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. This data and analysis will be used as part of
evaluation of alternative revitalization concepts developed for the Midtown Shopping Center. The
data will be particularly useful in evaluating the feasibility of reduction in the number of lanes on
Middlefield Road in the vicinity of the Center.
Atn’t123,1~96 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
~ STUDYINTERSECTION
Meyer, Mohaddes Associate~, Inc~.
CITY OF PALO ALTO .
MIDTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY
FIGURE 1
Location Map
2. Anaylsis of Data
This section of the working paper summarizes the preliminary traffic data and analysis. It provides
a "snap shot" of existing conditions in the study area. The selection of a preferred concept for the
Midtown Shopping Center will be based on a wide range of inputs beyond the information provided
in this paper. The data and analysis in this paper will be of particular value in evaluating potential
modifications to the number of lanes, access treatments and intersection control on Middlefield Road.
Daily Variation in Traffic Demand
Multiple day machine counts on Middlefield Road between Bryson Avenue and Colorado Avenue
were collected from November 15 to 21, 1995. The results of the machine counts are illustrated in
Figures A1 through A4 in Appendix A. The results indicate that:
The average daily traffic on Middlefield Road is about 8,500 vehicles per day in each
direction;
Weekday trattic varies between a low of 8,300 vehicles per day on Monday to a high
of 9,200 vehicles per day on Friday in the northbound direction, and a low of 8,500
vehicles per day on Monday to a high of 9,100 vehicles per day on Friday in the
southbound direction;
Trattic patterns are similar during weekdays with Friday PM peak traffic generally
higher than other times of the week and Monday I’M peak period traffic generally
lower than other weekdays;
While the time of peak demand varies between weekdays and weekends, the
magnitude of the peak hour demand is similar throughout the week 700 to 800
vehicles per hour in the northbound direction and 700 to 900 vehicles per hour in the
southbound direction).
The 9¢eekday AM peak demand is lower than the I’M peak demand;
AM peak traffic .demand is similar for both northbound and southbound directions
while PM peak traffic demand is noticeably higher in the southbound direction;
Midday traffic levds range from 500 to 600 vehicles per hour during weekdays but
can be as high as 800 vehicles per hour on weekends;
Intersection Level of Service
Peak period turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections on November 15,
1995. The existing levels of service (LOS) at the three study intersections is summarized in Table
1. Level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Key findings include:
The signalized intersection of Middlefield Road at Colorado Avenue operates at
3 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Midtown Traffic Stud~:Draft WP #1
(LOS) B or better throughout the day;
The unsignalized cross street approaches of Moreno/Webster to Middlefield Road
operate at LOS C or better during the AM and Midday peak periods but operate at
capacity (LOS E) during the PM peak hour;
The poor operation of the Webster and Moreno approaches during the PM peak hour
is due, primarily, to the higher traffic levels on Middlefield Road.
Table 1
Level of Service - Existing Conditions
Intersection
Middlefield/Colorado
Middlefield/Moreno WB
Middlefield/Moreno SBL
Middletield/Webster EB
!vliddlefield/Webster NBL
AM Peak Hour Midday Peak PM Peak Hour
Hour
Delay Delay Delay
Control (see)LOS (see)LOS (see)LOS
Signalized 8 B 7 B 7 B
Stop Sign 18 C 10 B 31 E
None 5.3 B 4.6 A 5.6 B
Stop Sign 20 C 10.3 C 37.1 E
None 4.6 A 4.5 A 7 B
Notes:Westbound (WB)
Southbound Left (SBL)
Eastbound (EB)
Northbound LeR (NBL)
Origin-Destination Survey
An origin-destination survey was conducted along Middlefield Road from Oregon Expressway to
Charleston Road in the vicinity of the Midtown Shopping Center. License Plate numbers were
recorded for vehicles on Middlefield Road entering and exiting the study area. Matching sot~ware
was then used to match license plate numbers. Identical license plates entering and exiting the study
area within less than 10 minutes were considered a match and represented through traffic or traffic
with neither origin or destination within the study area.
Any traffic with either origin or destination within the area bounded by Oregon Expressway, Alma
Street, Charleston Road and US 101 would be defined as local traffic. Vehicles entering and exiting
4 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
AM PEAK
16%
84%
Northbound
l-)Local
[] Thin Traffic
21%
79%
Southbound
MIDDAY PEAK
7%
93%
Northbound
~ Local
[] Thru Traffic
6%
94%
Southbound
[] Local
[] Thru Traffic
PM PEAK
17%
83%
Northbound
0 Local
[] Thru Traffic J
Southbound
27%@ [r’l L°cal
73%[VIThru Traffic
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc,
CITY OF PALO ALTO FIGURE 2
MIDTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY Summary of Origin-Destination Survey
the area at the same end of Middlefield Road were considered local traffic since some intermediate
destination within the study area was implied. Field observations prior to the origin-destination
survey suggested a very limited number of drivers using Middlefield as a means to reach Alma (i.e.,
via Loma Verde or Meadow Drive) as an alternative through-fare to Middlefield. As such, there was
no attempt to quantify these vehicles.
The results of the origin-destination survey are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 1. The
key findings include the following:
As much as 84 percent of the AM and PM peak period traffic on northbound
Middlefield Road is generated by land uses within the local area;
Through traffic is slightly higher southbound on Middlefield Road in both AM and
PM peak periods;
Over 90 percent of all traffic on Middlefield Road during the midday peak period is
locally generated.
Table 2
Traffic Distribution (Percentage of Vehicles entering study zone)
AM Peak Hour Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Middlefield NB
Local Through Local Through Lo~al Through
84%16%93%7%83%17%
Middlefield SB 79%21%94%6%73%27%
Travel Time Comparison
Drivers select their travel routes based, in part, upon perceived travel time. When multiple routes are
available, most drivers will attempt to select the route with the shortest perceived travel time. This
perception can be affected by other factors such as number of stop signs or signals, posted speed
limits, levels of congestion and other factors that may or may not significantly impact actual travel
times.
To evaluate the potential for diversion oftratiic from Middlefield Road to other parallel routes, travel
time runs were made during PM peak travel periods on December 4.and 19, 1995. The results are
summarized in Figure 2 and Table 3. The findings are:
Travel time along other possible routes is almost 2 minutes or 50 to 60 percent higher
than along Middlefield Road~
Aprt125, 19.06 6 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Table 3
Average Travel Times
Travel Route Between Northbound Southbound
Middlefield Oregon Expressway Charleston Rd 3: I 1 3:3 5
Louis Oregon Expressway Charleston Rd 5:05 5:08
Ross/Louis Oregon Expressway Charleston Rd 4:56 4:52
Cowper/Meadow/Middlefield Oregon Expressway Charleston Rd 5:05 5:34
Waverly/Meadow/Middlefield Oregon Expressway Charleston Rd 5:20 5:21
Ap~l 2$. 1996 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
3:11 TRAVEL TIME
Mohaddes Associates, Inc,
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MIDTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY
FIGURE 3
Travel Routes & Times
3. Findings and Conclusions
The focus of the Midtown Study-is to identify potential site and access improvements that can
implemented to enhance the attractiveness and success of the existing Midtown Retail Center. The
traffic study focusses on three project access and circulation issues:
Can traffic signal control alternatives be implemented to enhance access (particularly
left turn access) into the center?
Can the cross section of Middlefield Road be reduced to one lane in each direction
to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment without adversely impacting traffic
conditions on Middlefield Road?
Can circulation and parking patterns be improved on-site to enhance access to existing
and future retail uses?
The data collection and analysis presented in the previous section of this report was conducted to
address issues 1 and 2 above. Responses to both of these issues are provided in this section of’this
report. Issue 3 was addressed through input to the project architect and is reflected in site plans being
developed for the property owners.
Issue 1:Can traffic signal control alternatives be implemented to enhance access
(particularly left turn access) into the center?
Options:la.
Xb.,
Relocate the existing pedestrian signal to the primary access
driveway serving the center to provide signalized left turn and
pedestrian access.
Relocate the existing pedestrian signal to the primary access
driveway serving the center to provide signalized control of
all auto and pedestrian movements.
Discussion:While the existing traffic signal provides improved pedestrian safety, its
location near an unsignalized intersection creates an unusual traffic control
environment and does not improve auto access to the center. Relocation of
the traffic signal to the primary center driveway, created as part of the planned
site improvements, would retain a safe pedestrian crossing while adding
improved access and safety for vehicles accessing the site.
Option la is not practical. Once signalized access is provided, it must provide
clear allocation of right of way for all movements. Since left turn access into
and out of the retail center is anticipated, signalization of all movements will
be required.
9 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Recommendation:
Issue 2:
Options:
Discussion:
Option lb is feasible, however, the driveway intersection is within 400 feet
of the existing signalized intersection at Colorado Avenue. Traffic signals in
proximity can result in significant operational problems. Queues from one
intersection can back up into the adjacent intersection degrading operation at
both. This problem is particularly significant when heavy side street traffic
demand exists at one or both of the intersections. Signalization of the
Midtown Retail Center driveway is considered feasible since cross street
demand at Colorado Avenue and the Center driveway are expected to remain
light. The resuks of conceptual analysis of coordinated traffic signal operation
are provided in Appendix C.
As a minimum, proximate signalized intersections should be interconnected
so that coordinated traffic signal operation can be provided. Installation of an
traffic signal with interconnect conduit and cable can cost between $100,000
and $150,000 depending on the specific intersection conditions and control
strategy. This cost does not include any physical modifications to the
intersection (e.g. curb relocation, drainage modifications, etc.).
It is recommended that the existing, pedestrian signal be relocated to tl~e
primary driveway intersection serving the Midtown Retail Center. This traffic
signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the traffic signal at
Colorado Avenue. The site improvements planned for the Center should
attempt to locate the primary driveway as far as practical from the Colorado
Avenue intersection.
Can the cross section of Middlefield Road be reduced to one lane in each
direction to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment without
adversely impacting traffic conditions on Middlefield Road?
Reduce the cross section to provide one through lane in each
direction plus left turn lanes as required.
Retain the existing four lane four lane cross section.
The ability to reduce the cross section to provide one lane in each direction
on Middlefield Road will depend on whether the reduced capacity will be
sufficient to handle existing and future traffic demand without unreasonable
delay and whether any increase in delay and travel time 6n Middlefield Road
will divert traffic to parallel residential streets.
Levels of service were calculated for the intersection of Colorado Avenue
with Middlefield Road assuming both two through lanes in each direction and
10 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Midtown Traffic Study Draft WP # 1
one through lane in each direction. The results are provided in Table 4. Due
to the limited side street demand, one through lane in each direction on
Middlefield Road will be sufficient to accommodate existing traffic demand.
Forecasts of future traffic demand were not available for this analysis.
However, a 219 percent increase in traffic demand on Middlefield Road could
be accommodated without degrading the level of service beyond LOS D
during any peak traffic period. Increases in side street (Colorado Avenue)
demand in combination with increased tra~c on Middlefield Road would have
a more profound impact on level of service. A combined increase of 115
percent on both Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue traffic would degrade
operation to LOS D.
Travel time data collected as part of this project and the origin-destination
finding that locally generated traffic dominates existing traffic on Middlefield
Road suggest that diversion of traffic from Middlefield Road is unlikely. No
significant change in travel time is expected on Middlefield Road unless traffic
demand increases significantly. Locally generated traffic is likely to maintain
existing travel routes unless delays increase travel time by one minute or
more. This is not expected under existing traffic demand and traffic signal
control conditions.
Recommendation:
Queues at the existing signalized intersection at Colorado Avenue will
increase if the cross section is reduced to one through lane in each direction.
The resulting queue lengths are difficult to predict given variations and
occasional surges in traffic demand. Existing queues are generally three to
four cars in length during peak travel times. These queues occur relatively
infrequently since the traffic signal remains green for both Middlefield
approaches much of the time. Doubling of the queue lengths could occur with
the reduction in through lanes. Occasionally long queues on Middlefield Road
could occur when surges in cross street traffic occur. However, these queues
would quickly dissipate due to the expected good operating conditions at the
Colorado Avenue intersection.
Reducing the number of through lanes on Middlefield Road should be
considered if it remains consistent with proposed improvements to the
Midtown Retail Center site. However, since it is difficult to fully predict the
changes in traffic conditions that would result, it is recommended that the
reduction be simulated and tested using temporary or inexpensive median
treatments as part of a well defined demonstration project. For example the
cross section could be reduced by simple restdping. This would be a low cost
way to test the overall impact of reduced capacity on Middlefield Road.
11 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Midtown Tra~c Stua~Draft WP #1
Previous experience in other cities suggests that the tradeoffs inherent in the
reducing street capacity to meet pedestrian and aesthetic objectives can meet
with differing reactions from nearby residents and other commuters. More
permanent geometric features (e.g. landscaped medians) can be installed after
a successful demonstration period. If undesirable impacts result, the original
four lane cross section can be restored with minimal cost.
Table 4
Level of Service Summary For Intersection at Middlefield/Colorado
Existing Conditions Existing Conditions
with Four Lanes with Two Lanes
Peak Period Delay (see)LOS Delay (see)LOS
AM 8 B 8 B
Midday 7 B 7 B
PM 7 B 7 B
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates