HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 421-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2009
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 421:09
SUBJECT: Approval of the Conceptual Alternatives for the Santa Clara County
Roads and Airport Department Oregon Expressway Improvement
Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregon Expressway is part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, and is designed to
relieve local streets of commuter and other non-neighborhood traffic. Oregon Expressway
connects US 101 to State Route 82 (EI Camino Real) and to Interstate 280. In 2003, the County
adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study that provided a long-term plan for
the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system. The plan included specific
improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant Street and US 101. The study area for
this project is illustrated in Figure 1.
Currently, the signalized intersections along Oregon Expressway have less-than ideal lane
configurations and operate with relatively older equipment, which restrict the opportunities to
optimize the signal timing patterns. Most of the signalized intersections operate with split
phasing, meaning the two side-street approaches to Oregon alternate green phases. The County
would like to improve the efficiency of each independent intersection and also improve
coordination between all traffic signals within the Oregon Expressway corridor by implementing
protected left tum lanes and phases, which allows for the pedestrian crossing phases to occur
simultaneously. Currently, most local approaches to Oregon Expressway have lanes that are
shared by both left and through moving vehicles.
The County recommends several improvement measures (Attachment A) that would allow for
more efficient phasing operations, and would result in lower cycle lengths and increased
opportunities for coordinating traffic flow between each signal. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the County proposals and is in agreement with the County
except for the recommendations for the plan at Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway and at
Ross Road and Oregon Expressway, as described further in this repOrt~
CMR: 421:09 Page lof6
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the following actions
to the City Council at the nine intersections included as part of the Oregon Expressway
Inlprovement Proj ect:
1. Support the preferred conceptual improvements as recommended by the Santa Clara
County Roads and Airports Department (County) for implementation as part of the
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project at the following intersections:
• West Bayshore Road
• Indian Drive
• GreerRoad
• Louis Road
• Cowper Street
• Waverly Street
• Bryant Street
2. Support PTC's recommended conceptual improvement for Middlefield Road which
includes no widening of Middlefield Road and limits the northbound approach to one
through lane only. Staff considers both the PTC's recommended improvements and an
alternative which requires widening the street by five feet on the north-west quadrant as
acceptable with the widening alternative as more beneficial for traffic operations and
safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
3. Support the secondary alternative improvement for Ross Road which would include
signalization of the intersection to provide a protected pedestrian and bicycle crossing of
Oregon Expressway and facilitate the implementation of a bicycle boulevard along Ross
Road.
4. Direct staff to work with the County, the neighborhood stakeholder groups, and the Palo
Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC) to develop detailed design plans and return
to the Council with a report on the final design plans.
5. Direct staff to continue monitoring traffic conditions on Oregon Expressway after
implementation of the improvements and to provide an update to the City Council six
months after implementation.
DISCUSSION
As part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement project, the County would provide signal
equipment upgrades, curb widening at some locations, and/or converting existing rolled curbs to
preferred vertical curbs. These improvements, at most locations, are necessary to convert to the
desired eight-phase signal operations. The County evaluated several different alternatives for
each of the nine intersections along Oregon Expressway and selected a preferred alternative for
each intersection.
CMR: Page 2 of6
Currently, the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway is the most congested
intersection, and is the bottleneck in the coordinated system. Improvements at this intersection
would be necessary to implement the desired coordinated signal operations along Oregon
Expressway. The optimal intersection configuration for traffic safety would require widening of
Middlefield Road to install left turn lanes while maintaining two through travel lanes in each
direction. In order to provide the additional width, four existing trees would need to be removed
on the southbound approach on Middlefield Road. This intersection has been identified in the
City's Comprehensive Plan as a deficient intersection, and the City of Palo Alto has been
collecting traffic impact fees to implement improvement measures which are similar to those
proposed by the County.
Unsignalized intersections along Oregon Expressway currently allow for full access (left and
right turns onto Oregon Expressway) and the County recommends eliminating some of the more
hazardous left turn movements to increase safety. These would provide safer, but potentially less
convenient operations. These changes to the unsignalized intersections would result in a
negligible effect on the desired signal operations and coordination along the Oregon corridor. At
Ross Road, each of the proposed alternatives provides a configuration that would be consistent
with a future Bicycle Boulevard project along Ross.
Over the past year, Transportation staffhas held regular meetings with the County to develop the
proposed improvement plans. The County has worked with Kimley-Horn Associates, a
transportation consulting firm, to prepare the operational and safety analysis, improvement plans,
and a benefit analysis. The County's report (Attachment B) shows that each of the signalized
intersections would operate with approximately the same amount or a reduction in average delay.
The Corridor analysis shows that the recommended improvements along with optimized
coordination would result in a drop in average travel time and delay, and as a result, the average
speed would increase slightly from 20 to 23 miles per hour. The traffic would continue to move
slowly, but more smoothly.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 26, 2009, the PTC voted unanimously on a 5-0 vote (Commissioners Garber and
Tuma absent) to recommend Council approval of staff's recommendation at each of the
intersections with the exception at Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway. At Middlefield
Road and Oregon Expressway, the PTC recommended limiting improvements to avoid any
widening or tree removal, rather than the County preferred alternative of widening the street five
feet.
Seventeen merrlbers of the public addressed the PTC at the August 26th meeting, and there were
approximately five written comments submitted to the City prior to the August 26th meeting. In
general, most speakers and written comments were in support of the improvements at all of the
locations; however, several concerns were raised, particularly with the potential removal of trees
and reduction of the sidewalk planting strip on Middlefield Road. In addition, there was near
unanimous support for a bicycle boulevard friendly traffic signal at Ross Road.
CMR: 421:09 Page 3 of6
Although the PTC supported the alternative with limited improvements at Middlefield Road, the
PTC raised a few concerns regarding the two alternatives proposed and discussed issues at the
other intersections. In general, the common discussion items included:
• The balance of needs of motor vehicle capacity with safer crossings for pedestrians and
bicyclists. This also included the discussion of removing trees for vehicular capacity
improvements.
• The dangers of a right-turn only lane at Middlefield road for bicyclists and pedestrians in
the northbound direction were discussed versus the widening of the north approach and
reduction of the planter strip width. A dedicated right-tum only lane is less practical for
bicyclists, and potentially creates more hazards for pedestrians waiting to cross Oregon
Expressway.
• The PTC and City Staff both support signalization of Ross Road to provide a bicycle and
pedestrian friendly crossing, which differed from the County's original recommendation.
The County's original recommendation of the unsignalized alternative was due to
funding constraints. The County is supportive of the signalization if the budget allows.
• The PTC is generally in agreement with the proposed improvements at the other seven
intersections, especially at Louis and Greer.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies
including:
Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern
end of the Bryant street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View.
Policy T -25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway spaced
by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy severe traffic
congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the
needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy T -28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's major street network
without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network.
The recomnlendations are consistent with the Council-approved priorities for the Oregon
Expressway as identified in the 2003 County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan.
The County recommendation that was supported by staff for the intersection of Middlefield Road
and Oregon Expressway, as discussed earlier, is consistent with mitigation identified in the
Environmental Impact Report for the 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan which calls for
construction of exclusive left tum lanes and two through lanes on Middlefield Road. It also is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan text describing Policy T -28 that specifically supports
proposed intersection improvements at Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway.
CMR: 421:09 Page 4 of6
RESOURCE IMPACT
This proj ect is to be funded by the County using grant funds and County match funds totaling
$3.5 million. Until the fmal design is completed and the engineer's estimate is prepared; it's not
known if there will be sufficient funds to implement all of the improvements including the
signalization of the Ross Road intersection.
The City has been collecting Stanford Research Park (SRP) traffic impact fees to implement the
improvements at Middlefield Road/Oregon and at two additional, intersections, Page MillJEI
Camino and Page MilllHanover. The total estimated cost of these improvements in 2001 was
$10 million, including $1.2 million for Oregon/Middlefield. Currently, there is a balance of
approximately $2.5 million in the SRP impact fee fund. If the OregonlMiddlefield
improvements are not recommended, the traffic impact fees can be targeted for another proj ect as
long as it will mitigate SRP trips.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The County is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental documents under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
for this project. County staff has indicated that once the preferred conceptual plan for each
intersection has been selected after input from the City Council, they will proceed with the
environmental analysis and final design phase of the project.
PREPARED BY: ~~US------------
Transportation Project Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. August 26,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (w/o
attachments)
B. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Recommendations Memorandum
C. February-April, 2009 Community Outreach Report
D. County Arborist Report, April 2009
CMR: 421:09 Page 5 of6
E. Memorandum from City Arborist dated May 27, 2009
F. August 26, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
G. Excerpt from EIR for 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan on Mitigation Measures for
MiddlefieldJOregon Intersection
H. P ABAC Recommendation Letter
1. Correspondence
1. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual
Alternatives, Draft Report dated February 4,2009, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(Hardcopies to Councilmembers only and can also be viewed at:
http://www.sccgov.org/rdal006001 Oregon Expressway 2008 0501/report1.pdf
COURTESY COPIES:
Midtown Neighborhood Association Group
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
CMR: 421:09 Page 6 of6
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Rafael Rius DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Transportation Project Engineer Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: August 26,2009
SUBJECT: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Review and
Recommendation on the Conceptual Alternatives for the Santa Clara
County Roads and Airport Department Oregon Expressway Improvement
Project
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and provide a
recommendation to the City Council on the request of the Santa Clara County Roads and
Airports Department (County) for the City's preferred Conceptual Alternatives at nine
intersections as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. Staff recommends the
Commission recommend the following actions to the City Council:
1. Endorse the preferred conceptual improvements as recommended by the County for
implementation as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project at the following
intersections:
• West Bayshore Road (Alternative 1 Modified),
• Indian Drive (Alternative 1)
• Greer Road (Alternative 1 Modified)
• Louis Road (Alternative 1 Modified)
• Cowper Street (Alternative 1 Modified)
• Waverly Street (Alternative 2 Modified)
• Bryant Street (Alternative 2 Modified)
2. Endorse the County-recommended conceptual improvement for Middlefield Road
(Alternative 3 Modified) which includes widening of 5 feet which staff considers
consistent with existing City policy. If the widening is not acceptable to the Planning and
City of Palo Alto Page 1
, I
Transportation Commission, the Commission should endorse Alternative 4 as the
preferred concept, which limits the northbound approach to one through lane only and
does not require road widening.
3. Endorse the secondary alternative improvement for Ross Road (Alternative 3) which
would include signalization of the intersection to provide a protected pedestrian and
bicycle crossing of Oregon Expressway and facilitate the implementation of a bicycle
boulevard along Ross Road.
4. Direct staff to work with the County, the neighborhood stakeholder groups, and the Palo
Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC) to develop detailed design plans and return
to the Council with a report on the final design plans and final environmental document.
5. Direct staff to continue monitoring of traffic conditions on Oregon Expressway after
implementation of the improvements and to provide an update six months after
implementation.
BACKGROUND:
Oregon Expressway is part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, and is designed to
relieve local streets of commuter and other non-n"eighborhood traffic. Oregon Expressway
connects US 101 to State Route 82 (EI Camino Real) and to Interstate 280. In 2003, the County
adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study that provided a long-term plan for
the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system. The plan included specific
recommended improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant Street and US 101. In
August 2003, the City Council endorsed the high priority recommendations in the Study for
Oregon Expressway including:
• Replacing traffic signal poles and optimizing traffic signal timing plans, with emphasis
given to ensuring pedestrian and bicycle safety
• Constructing pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized
intersections
• StUdying the addition of a tum lane on Middlefield Road and converting to an 8-phase
signal operation to enhance operational efficiency without taking right-of-way
The County secured approximately $3.5 million, including a Federal grant and County match
funding, to improve the pedestrian and bicycle safety and vehicle operating conditions along
Oregon Expressway by reducing traffic delays and improving traffic signal coordination between
US 101 and El Camino Real (State Route 82). The study area for this project is illustrated in
Figure 1.
Beginning in spring 2008, the County began holding a series of community outreach meetings
and working with City staff to develop conceptual alternatives for these improvements. Three
large community wide workshops were held in April 2008, June 2008 and March 2009, as well
as many smaller meetings with community, school and neighborhood groups. A summary of the
2009 outreach is provided in Attachment C.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Figure 1. Oregon Expressway Corridor and Vicinity Map
Source: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives (Kimley-Horn and Associates, February 2009)
Currently, the signalized intersections along Oregon Expressway have less-than ideal lane
configurations and operate with relatively older equipment, which restrict the opportunities to
optimize the signal timing patterns. To improve system-wide operations, the County would like
to improve the efficiency of each independent intersection and also improve coordination
between all traffic signals within the Oregon Expressway corridor. To improve intersection
efficiency, the intersection's signal phasing would need to be modified such that the pedestrian
crossing times (across Oregon) can occur simultaneously or be limited to one walk phase across
Oregon Expressway per cycle. This is typically achieved by having protected left tum phases,
which allows for the pedestrian crossing phases to occur simultaneously. This can only occur
there are separate left-tum only lanes at each approach. Currently, most local approaches to
Oregon Expressway have lanes that are shared by both left and through moving vehicles.
The County recommends several improvement measures (Attachment A) that would allow for
more efficient phasing operations, which would result in lower cycle lengths and increased
opportunities for coordinating traffic flow between each signal. Only the intersection at Bryant
Street would maintain shared left-through lanes; however, the pedestrian crossing would be
restricted to one-side of the street, allowing a reduced cycle length.
As part of these lane modifications, the County would also include signal equipment upgrades,
and at some locations curb widening, andlor converting existing rolled curbs to preferred vertical
curbs. At the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, the optimal intersection
configuration would require widening of Middlefield Road within the existing right-of-way on
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the north west quadrant (southbound approach), and the removal of four existing City street trees
in the planter strip. It s~ould be noted that this intersection has been identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan as a deficient intersection, and the City has been collecting traffic impact
fees to implement improvenlent measures which are sinli1ar to those proposed by the County (see
discussion under Resource Impacts).
Unsignalized intersections along Oregon Expressway currently allow for full access and the
County recommends eliminating some of the more hazardous movements to increase safety.
These would provide safer, but potentially less convenient operations. These changes to the
unsignalized intersections would result in a negligible effect on the desired signal operations and
coordination along the Oregon corridor.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A number of striping alternatives were initially considered, and after various revisions, input
from neighborhood meetings, and City staff, the County staff is recommending the following
improvements at the intersections of Oregon Expressway and:
West Bayshore Road: Addition ofa bike slot between the left and right-turn lanes, a wider
approach along West Bayshore, and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks.
At Indian Drive: A raised median eliminating left turns into or out of Indian Drive.
At Greer Road: Addition of left tum lanes, 8-phase operation, and elimination of on-street
parking within 75 feet of Oregon Expressway on the south side, and enhanced pedestrian
crosswalks.
At Louis Road: Addition of left tum lanes, 8-phase operation, elimination of on-street parking
within 105 feet of Oregon Expressway on both the north and south sides, retention of bike lanes
on Louis at the intersection and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. Existing rolled curbs would be
modified to vertical curbs.
Ross Road: Left and through movements from Ross would be eliminated, forcing right turns
onto Oregon Expressway. The striped crosswalk would be eliminated, but pedestrian access
would still be allowed via an unmarked crosswalk. This configuration would be amenable to
future signalization.
Middlefield Road: Addition of left tum lanes, with one through lane and one shared through-
right tum lane, and enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. Each lane would be narrow and
substandard. The intersection would operate with eight-phases, and the removal of four trees
along Middlefield Road on the north-west quadrant would be necessary. The reduced alternative
would provide one northbound left-tum lane, one through lane, and a dedicated right-turn only
lane; however, it would not require any tree removal.
Cowper Street: Addition of left tum lanes, 8-phase operation, and enhanced pedestrian
crosswalks.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Waverly Street: Left and through movements from Waverly would be eliminated, forcing right
turns onto Oregon Expressway. The striped crosswalks would be eliminated, but pedestrian
crossings would still be permitted via an unmarked crosswalk.
Bryant Street: A bike slot would be provided for the southbound approach and the west
crosswalk would be removed, forcing pedestrians to cross only on the east side of the
intersection. The remaining crosswalks would be enhanced and the intersection would operate
with split ,phasing; however, the southbound movement would not be required to maintain the
minimum pedestrian crossing times.
Over the past year, Transportation staffhas held regular meetings with the County to provide
comments as the proposed concept plans were developed. The County has worked with Kimley-
Hom Associates, a transportation consulting firm, to prepare the operational and safety analysis,
concept plans, and a benefit analysis. The County's report (Attachment E) shows that each of
the signalized intersections would operate with approximately the same amount or a reduction in
'average delay. The analysis shows that the recommended improvements along with optimized
coordination would result in a drop in average travel time and delay, and an average speed of 20
to 23 miles per hour. The traffic would still move slowly, but more smoothly.
Table 1 summarizes the estimated intersection levels of service for both the existing conditions
and the proposed alternatives.
Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Scenario Average Volume to Average Volnmeto
Intersection Capacity LOS Intersection Capacity LOS
Delay (sec) (vIc) Delay (see) (vIc)
Oregon Expressway at Existing 17.5 0.68 B 19.2 0.80 B
w. Bayshore Road Alternative 1 M 17.5 0.68 B 18.8 0.77 B
Oregon Expressway at Existing 17.4 0.68 B 18.6 0.53 B
Greer Road Alternative 1M 21.8 0.68 C 21.2 0.51 C
Oregon Expressway at Existing 28.3 0.72 C 20.8 0.58 C
Louis Road Alternative 1M 26.9 0.70 C 26.1 0.55 C
Existing 64.0 0.95 E 61.8 0.82 E
Oregon Expressway at Alternative 3M 45.7 0.85 D 43.2 0.74 D Middlefield Road
Alternative 4 46.2 0.85 D 45.0 0.72 D
Oregon Expressway at Existing 15.4 0.67 B 17.2 0.54 B
Cowper Street Alternative 1 15.1 0.64 B 18.2 0.61 B
Oregon Expressway at Existing 20.3 0.73 C 19.4 0.63 B
Bryant Street Alternative 2M 22.3 0.69 C 21.1 0.60 C
Source: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives (Kimley-Hom and Associates, February 2009)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Table 2 summarizes the estimated corridor-wide performance measures. Scenario 1 includes all
of the recommended improvements without the widening and tree removal at Middlefield Road.
Scenario 2 includes all of the recommended improvements including the removal of four trees
and widening of Middlefield Road. Although the two scenarios result in similar peak period
operations, the widening of Middlefield Road to accommodate two northbound through lanes
would be better suited to handle fluctuations in travel demand patterns.
Table 2: Oregon Expressway Corridor-Wide Performance Measures
Total % Total % Total % Average %
Time Travel Difference Difference Difference Difference
Period Scenario Time From Delay From Stops From Speed From
(hour) Existing (bour) Existing (II) EIj~tinl I
(mpb) Existln&
Existing 870 -495 -28,722 -20.6 -AM Scenario 1 744 -14.5% 369 -25.5% 27,891 -2.9% 12.6% Peak 23.2
Scenario 2 747 -14.1% 369 -25.5% 28,167 -1.9% 23.2 12.6%
Existing 759 -399 -34,341 -20.3 -PM Scenario 1 675 -11.1% 312 -21.8% 26,748 -22.1% 15.8% Peak 23.5
Scenario 2 672 -11.5% 312 -21.8% 26,841 -21.8% 23.6 16.3%
Source: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives (Kimley-Hom and Associates, February 2009)
DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES
In general, a majority of the proposed crossing improvements have been reviewed by City staff,
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (P ABAC), PTA traffic safety committees and several
neighborhood groups. With the exceptions of the intersections at Ross Road and at Middlefield
Road, they reached a general consensus regarding the recommended conceptual improvements
and proposed operations.
Ross Road:
Ross Road at Oregon Expressway is an unsignalized intersection with full access to all
movements of vehicles, and provides a marked pedestrian crosswalk on the south side. Ross
Road is currently identified as a future bicycle boulevard in the City's Bicycle Transportation
Plan. The major impediment to designating Ross as a bicycle boulevard is the lack of a protected
crossing of Oregon Expressway at present. The County recommended Alternative 1 would
restrict vehicles approaching Oregon from Ross to right-turns only. The pedestrian crosswalk
would be removed, although pedestrians would still be allowed to legally cross when safe
(unmarked crosswalk). It is generally believed that marked crosswalks can, in some instances,
provide a false sense of security for pedestrians. By removing them, pedestrians would be
required to cross using more caution. The proposed layout would be designed in such a way that
it is consistent with the City of Palo Alto's bicycle boulevard concept and that a future signalized
intersection could be implemented. Without the signalized intersection, the proposed layout
would require bicyclists to either tum right onto Oregon Expressway with the vehicles, or to
dismount and walk across Oregon similar to pedestrians.
Alternative 2, recommended by City staff, provides for the installation of a traffic signal to
facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings of Oregon. The design is comparable to the layout of
the Embarcadero/Bryant intersection, including through bicycle lanes on the side street but only
City of Palo Alto Page 6
right turns out of the side street for vehicles. This alternative would create the opportunity to
designate Ross Road as a bicycle boulevard and provide a less traveled, safer alternative to
Middlefield for bicyclists of varied proficiencies, including Jordan Middle School students and
potentially Garland Elementary School students if the school is reopened by the PAUSD in the
future. This alternative is favored by all groups, but may be constrained by available
County funding for the entire project.
Middlefield Road:
Middlefield Road at Oregon Expressway is the intersection that controls the cycle length and
timing operations in a coordinated timing program for the entire corridor. Therefore, adding left
tum lanes and reducing cycle lengths at Middlefield Road is the only way to improve the
coordinated timing programs and reduce delay and congestion on Oregon Expressway. The
County has narrowed the options to two alternatives, Alternative 3 Modified and Alternative 4.
Both of these options would require narrow, substandard, 9-foot or 9.5-foot lanes. Narrow lanes
of these widths are currently located on Middlefield Road at Colorado Avenue. It should be
noted that both alternatives provide a better solution to the existing conditions and would allow
for reduced cycle lengths and optimized coordination along the Oregon Expressway corridor.
Alternative 3 Modified -The County recommends this improvement plan for this intersection. It
would require widening of the north approach of Middlefield Road by 5 feet to accommodate left
tum lanes and two through lanes in each direction of Middlefield. This would result in the
necessary removal of 4 existing trees (3 Sweet gum and 1 Chinese tallow) and the full use of the
approximately 2 feet of City right-of-way currently behind the sidewalk. The removal of the
trees would result in a narrow (two-foot) planting strip and a replacement of the existing trees
with smaller sized ones. This option would improve the intersection Level of Service from LOS
E to LOS D and provide the most traffic operational benefits.
Alternative 4 - A secondary alternative is provided that could be accommodated without
widening or tree removal; however, it would result in only one northbound through lane and a
northbound right tum lane onto eastbound Oregon Expressway. This second alternative would
operate almost as well with the same Level of Service change from LOS E to LOS D with
slightly higher intersection delay but would still provide an improvement over the existing
operating conditions.
Altenlative 3 is consistent with the Mitigation Measure CIRC-5 identified in the Environmental
Impact Report for the 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan which calls for construction of exclusive
left tum lanes and two through lanes on Middlefield Road (See Attachment C). The mitigation
measure also included widening of Middlefield on the west side of the SQuthbound approach as
well as a second westbound left tum lane on Oregon Expressway to southbound Middlefield
Road which is not part of the County improvement plan for this intersection. This improvement
was identified to reduce the traffic impacts in 2010 and improve the intersection level of service
from LOS F to LOS D. The City has been collecting Stanford Research Park Traffic Impact
Fees to implement this improvement since 1989.
Transportation staff agrees with the assessment that the Alternative 3 Modified that includes
widening (and removal/replacement of four trees) is optimal for traffic operations and is
City of Palo Alto Page 7
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan transportation assumptions. The no-widening alternative
is less effective, but would be preferred over the existing conditions.
The County has provided an Arborist Report (Attachment D) assessing the proposed removal
and replacement of the four trees. The trees were judged to be in moderate to good condition.
The City's Managing Arborist has reviewed the report and has concluded that the 5 foot wide
planting strips are valuable assets to the City and the proposed narrow 2 foot wide planting strip
is inadequate to provide a good replacement tree (Attachment E). Staff, however, considered the
improved traffic operations resulting from the widening, would offset the reduced tree canopy in
this area ..
Bryant Street:
At Bryant Street, there are currently crosswalks on both the east and west sides, crossing Oregon
Expressway. As part of the proposed concept plan, the west crosswalk would be removed, and
pedestrians would need to cross on the east side of Bryant. Due to the narrow nature of Bryant
Street, left-tum only lanes are not possible without widening, which isn't considered feasible at
this location. Due to the limited amounts of space and a large redwood tree on the south-west
comer, providing a west crosswalk would not be ideal. In addition, the proposed layout would
allow for a bicycle slot between a right-tum only lane and the shared through-left lane,.which is
ideal considering that Bryant Street is a bicycle boulevard. P ABAC has reviewed the proposed
layout and is in support of the plan that provides a bicycle slot in the southbound direction and to
eliminate one crosswalk.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis conducted of several alternatives and input from neighborhood groups and
PABAC, staffrecommends the approval of each of the County recommended improvements
with the exception of the recommended improvements at Ross Road and Middlefield Roads. At
Ross Road, staff recommends the installation of a traffic signal consistent with our bicycle
boulevard guidelines.
At the intersection with Middlefield Road, staff recommends the Alternative 3 Modified which
would require the removal of 4 existing trees and reduction of the existing planting strip to two
feet. This alternative would allow fora second northbound through lane (shared with right-tum
movements). If the widening is not acceptable, then staffwould alternatively recommend
Alternative 4, which limits the northbound approach to one through lane only.
Staff would work with the County to revise the concept plans during the final design process,
and ifnecessary, will continue to monitor and make adjustments to address issues.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies
including:
Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern
end of the Bryant street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Policy T-2S: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway spaced
by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy T -27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy serve traffic
congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the
needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists.
The recommendations are consistent with the Council-approved priorities for the Oregon
Expressway as identified in the 2003 County Expressway Planning Study Implementation Plan.
The recommendation for the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, as
discussed earlier is consistent with Mitigation Measure CIRC-S identified in the Environmental
Impact Report for the 1996-2010 Comprehensive Plan which calls for construction of exclusive
left tum lanes and two through lanes on Middlefield Road.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
This proj ect is to be funded by the County using grant funds and county match funds totaling
$3.S million. Until the final design is completed and the engineer's estimate is prepared, staff
will not know if there are sufficient funds to implement all of the improvenlents including the
signalization of the Ross Road intersection.
The City has been collecting Stanford Research Park (SRP) traffic impact fees to implement the
improvement at Middlefield Road/Oregon and two additional intersections, Page MilllEI Camino
and Page MilllHanover. The total estimated cost of these improvements in 2001 was $10
million, including $1.2 million for OregonlMiddlefield. Currently there is a balance of
approximately $2.S million in the SRP impact fee fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The County is the lead agency for preparation of the environmental documents under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
for this project. County staff have indicated that once the preferred conceptual plan for each
intersection has been selected after input from the City Council, they will proceed with the
environmental analysis and final design phase of the project.
NEXT STEPS
Upon P&TC recommendation, the project would be forwarded to the City Council for
recommendation of the conceptual alternatives to be included in the project scope. The County
will pursue the environmental clearance and final design during 2010 and 2011 and report to the
County Board of Supervisors in 2011. County staff will schedule public meetings in 2010 to
share the detailed plans with the community prior to construction.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. July 8, 2009 Transmittal from County Roads and Airports to Curtis Williams with
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
B. Excerpt from EIR for 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan re Mitigation Measure for
Middlefield! /Oregon Intersection
City of Palo Alto Page 9
C. Oregon Expressway Community Outreach Report for February -April 2009
D. County Arborist Report, April 2009
E. Memo from City Managing Arborist
F. Additional Public Correspondence
G. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic -Traffic Analysis of Conceptual
Alternatives, Draft Report (February 4,2009, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.) for
Commissioners only. Report may be downloaded from:
http://www.sccgov.org/rdaJ006001 Oregon Expressway 2008 0501lreportl.pdf
COURTESY COPIES:
Midtown Neighborhood Association
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
Prepared By: Rafael Rius, Transportation Project Engineer
Reviewed By: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official
DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: ~ ttA;:1 Unc<fv? ~ t5 (/l. Curtis Williams, Director
City of Palo Alto Page 10
County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airpons Departn1ent
101 SkYPorl Drive
San Jose. California 951 10-1302
(408) 573-2400
July 8, 2009
Curtis Williams
Interim Director
Department of Planning and Community Ellvironnlent
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTAC-H'MENT B
Subject: Oregon Expl'essway Improvement Project -Proposed Conceptual Altel'natives
Dear Mr, Williams:
We have developed the attached conceptual altelnative improvement plans for each of the nine
intersections within the project limits. Based on extensive public input and traffic analysis, the
County proposes to implement the following alternative for each intersection:
• Baysl)ore Road: Altelnative 1 Modified
• Indian Drive: Altetnative 1 Modified; Altell1ative 2 is also feasible.
• Greer Road: Alternative 1 Modified
• Louis Road: Alternative 1 Modified, including gutter pan modifications if sufficient
funds are available.
• Ross Road: Alternative 2 Modified. This altetnative allows for the future addition of a
bicycle/pedestrian signal consistent with the City of Palo Alto's bicycle boulevard
concept on Ross Road (Alternative 3).
• Middlefield Road: Alternative 3 Modified, which we consider to be the alternative with
the most operational benefits relative to landscaping impacts. Alternative 4, which is also
feasible, preserves the existing landscaping strip on all four quadrants but is less
attractive operationally.
• Cowper Street: Alternative 1 Modified
• Waverley Street: Alternative 2 Modified
• BI'yant Street: Altelnative 2 Modified
We request that the City fOlmal1y advise us of its preferred alternative for each intersection. All
of the altell1atives identified above were reviewed by stakeholders such as P ABAC, County
BPAC, Ohlone PTA and MRA as indicated in the attached letters. Following City action, we
\viII proceed to develop a construction bid package for the proj ect including plans, specifications
and estinlates. Construction of the inlprovenlents is' subject to availability of funds.
Board of Supervisors: Donald I'.'Gagn, George M. Shirakawel. Delve Cortese, Ken Yeager. Liz Kniss
Acting Coun1y Executive: Gary A. Graves
Ol'egon Expressway Impl"Ovement Project -Proposed COIU:cl)tllal Alternatives p. "L/'l.
We would like to ackno'vledge the pal1icipation and cooperation of City of Palo Alto staff,
particularly Ms. Gayle Likens, during the public outreach process and conceptual alternative
developnlent.
Please call Ole at (408) 573-2492 or the County Traffic Engineer, Masoud Akbarzadeh, at (408)
494 .. 1336 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dan Collen
Deputy Director, Infrastructure Developtnent
Attachments: Proposed Conceptual Alternatives and Renderings
Support letters
cc: Supervisor Liz Kuiss
Gary Graves, Acting County Executive
Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive
MJM, MA, AP, file
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
Alternative 1 MODIFIED
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Legend
c::J EXisting Sidewalk
Remove Existing Striping
-K---*--)(--
~or
/fl'..
~
Pros
Remove Existing Curb
Existing CurblEdge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
""""1."Tmproved bicycle detection and timing
2. Enhanced pedestrian crossing with wheel
chair ramps
3. Pedestrian countdown signals
Cons
None
GRAPHIC SCALE
b-w..-.....w
( ..... ,
1 iIIrIIII_ 40 ft.
Oregon Expressway and West Bayshore Road
CI~=-_m
Revised 1129/09
Legend
_ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
c::J Existing Sidewalk
• Proposed Landscape Median
Remove Existing 5tJi:>ing
EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement
+ or-n ~
Pros
Proposed Striping or Marking
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
""""['""Eliminates potential collisions
2. Enhances safety for all modes of traffic
Cons
"""TNo left tum from Oregon Expressway to Indian Dr.
2. No left tum from Indian Dr. to Oregon Expressway
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
Pros
"""1."Auows left turns from Oregon Expressway
2. Provides new sidewalk connection to
nearby signalized intersections for safer
expressway pedestrianlbicyde crossing
3. Improves intersection traffic safety
Cons
""""1:"Prohibils left tums from Indian Dr.
GRAPHIC SCALE
L--wLJ-J'
( II n:rr) 1 t.ah _ 4G ft.
Oregon Expressway and Indian Drive
~=~ ~~le'<:~.lnc.
Revised 1129/09
Legend -c:::J
~*-
~or
/'fl'-.
rJ ~
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
Existing Sidewalk
Remove Existing Striping
Remove EXisting Curb
Existing CurblEdge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
Pros
1.Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown
signals
2. Left tums from both directions of Greer Rd. are
served first followed by through movements
3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and
opposing through movements
4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and
pedestrian/bicycle movements
5. Allows for more orderty flow of traffic in all directions
6. Improved signal displays
7. Straightened crosswalks
8. Separate left and through lanes
9. Intersection jog is reduced
10. Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon
Expressway
11. NeW/Enhanced wheel chair ramps
Cons
"""1."Left tum or through traffic queue may occasionaly
exceed the short tum-pockets on Greer Rd. and
blocktraflic
2. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both
sides of Greer Rd. !2!!!!. of Oregon Expressway
GRAPIDC SCALE
bw.-LJ-.J
( ....... )
llaDb.4O ft.
Oregon Expressway and Greer Road
~=n~ ..
Revised 1129/09
~I
'-. su ~:
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
Legend -c:J
-&,01'-
~
rJ r~ ~ V.
Pros
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
Existing Sidewalk
Remove Existing Sbiping
Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
""""1:"Enhanced pedestrian crossings with
countdown signals
2. Left turns from both directions of Louis Rd. are
served first followed by through movements
3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and
opposing through movements
4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and
pedestrian movements
5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all
directions
6. Improved signal displays
7. Straightened crosswalks
8. Separate left and through lanes
9. Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce
speed of right tuming vehicles
10. Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon
Expressway
11. New/Enhanced wheel chair ramps
12. Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the
intersection
Cons
1.Parking to be prohibited fQr 105 feet on both
sides of Louis Rd. north and south of Oregon
Expressway, respectively
GRAPHIC SCALE
t-.-tJ--i
(DIllEr)
l.11:1aJl-40 A.
Oregon Expressway and Louis Road
~=~~&
Revised 1129/09
Existing
RIH·IA I·A _~regon expressway renderings
February 2009 I Draft
Traffic improvements
• Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions by
separating left and through lanes in both directions on Louis Road
• Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right
turning vehicles
• Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection
Pedestrian amenities
(Expanded at comers)
• Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals
• Straightened crosswalks
• New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps
• Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and through movement
and left tum traffic and pedestrian movements
Community constraints
• Parking to be prohibited for I 05 feet on both sides of Louis north
and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively
Existing
Proposed !:-:~ ... ;:.~:}
RIM-I-AlA Ore g 0 n ex pre ssw a y r en de r~ __ ~~ _______ ._. ________ .
February 2009 I Draft
Traffic improvements
• Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions by
separating left and through lanes in both directions on Louis Road
• Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right
turning vehicles
• Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection
Pedestrian amenities
(Expanded at corners)
• Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals
• Straightened & shorter crosswalks
• New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps
• Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and through movement
and left turn traffic and pedestrian movements
Community constraints
• Parking to be prohibited for 105 feet on both sides of Louis north
and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively
Legend -r--"1 L--I
~or
/f"l'..
~
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
Existing Sidewalk
Remove Existing Sbiping
Existing CurblEdge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
i"':~
Pros
"'1':'"Allows left tums from Oregon
Expressway
2. Provides new sidewalk for
pedestrians to go to nearby
signalized intersections to cross
Oregon Expressway safely
3. Reduces potential collisions and
enhances safety but to a lesser
extent to Altemative 3
4. It does not prevent to convert the
intersection into a Bicycle
Boulevard (similar to
Embarcadero/Bryant) in the future
Cons ~rohibits left turns coming out from
Ross Rd.
2. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to
cross Oregon Expressway
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
f.7}
Pros
"'1':'"Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway
2. Eliminates potential collisions
3. Enhances safety for all modes of traffic
4. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians
5. Provides a signal with special bicycle detection and
timing at bicycle slots for bicyclists and pedestrians
to cross Oregon Expressway, but no vehicular
through or left tum movement out of Ross Rd.
(consistent with Bicycle Boulevard
concept)
Cons """i':"'iiJ"0 left turn from Ross Rd. to Oregon Expressway
2. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon
Expressway
3. Parking to be prohibited for about 70' on both sides
of Ross Rd. south of Oregon Expressway
NOTE: Alternative 1 is no longer being considered.
GRAPHIC SCALE
t-.. '-LJ-.J
( mnzr) lllla.b. _ ID IL
Oregon Expressway and Ross Road
~~~K
Revised 1129109
Existing
Proposed
..... R.I .... I.A.I.A .... Oregon expressway renderings
February 2009 I Draft
(;.;~.
Ross Road
Alternative 2 Modified
Looking North
Revised on March 27, 2009
Traffic improvements
• Allows left turn from Oregon Expressway & increases safety
Traffic constraints
• No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Expressway /
Prohibits left tums coming out from Ross
Pedestrian amenities
(Expanded at corners)
• Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized
intersection to cross Oregon Expressway safely
• 5 foot sidewalk to and from Middlefield Road (by another project)
Existing
-RI -H-IAIA -Oregon expressway renderings
February 2009 I Draft
Ross Road -Alternative 3
Looking North
Revised on March 27, 2009
Traffic improvements
• Enhances safety for all modes of traffic
• Allows left tum from Oregon Expressway
• Bicycle slots for bicyclists with special bicycle detection and timing
Traffic Constraints
• No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Expressway /
Prohibits left tums coming out from Ross
Pedestrian amenities
(Expanded at comers)
• Provides new sidewalks for pedestrians
• Straightened and shorter crosswalks
• Provides a signal for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Oregon
Expressway
• New wheelchair ramps
Community constraints
• Parking to be prohibited for about 70 feet on both sides of Ross
South of Oregon Expressway
f
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
Pros
T'Most efficient signal operation
2. Most flexible attemative
3. Best lane-line configuration
4. Provides best overall traffic flow on both Oregon and Middlefield Road
5. Removes existing offset -No offsets
6. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway
7. Improves intersection level of service by a grade
8. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd.
9. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals
10. Left tums from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served frst followed by through movements
11. Continues to eliminate conflicts between left tum traffic and opposing through movements & left
tum traffic and pedestrians
12. Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modal traffic for all directions
13. Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield Rd.
14. Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide
15. Reduced congestion will help minimize cut through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods
Cons
--:;:--Requires 3' reduction of landscaping strip for a short distance on the northwest side, resulting in
loss of 4 trees to be replaced by new planting and trees within newly created buffer
2. Narrower lanes -similar to Middlefield/Colorado and Middlefieldl8ryson
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Legend --c:J
..e-or -
/l"l"--n ~ •
Proposed Landscape Strip
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
Existing Sidewalk
Remove Existing Striping
Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
EXisting Tree
GRAPHIC SCALE t-. wlJ--j i
(_Jar> 1 ..... A.
Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road
~=~~&
Revised 7/7/09
Proposed (~~.~, .•..
RIHIAIA Oregon expressway renderings
February 2009 I Draft
Middlefield Road
Alternative 3 Modified
Looking North
Revised on April 6, 2009
Traffic improvements
• Most efficient signal operation which minimizes delay at
intersection and system-wide on Oregon expressway
• Improves intersection level of service by a grade
• Multi-modal traffic for all directions
• Left turns from both directions on Middlefield are served first
followed by through movements eliminating conflicts
• Separate left and 2 through lanes on Middlefield
Traffic constraints
• Narrower lanes
Pedestrian amenities
(Expanded at corners)
• Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals
• Straightened crosswalks
• New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps
Community constraints
• 5 feet reduction of landscape strip on the northwest side -
new planting in 2 foot buffer
"'"'
Pros
"""'1:"Tncludes no widening
2. Maintains existing landscaping strip as is
3. Provides efficient signal operation
4. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on
Oregon Expressway
5. Improves intersection level of service by a grade
6. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd.
7. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals
8. Left tums from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are
served first followed by through movements
9. Continues to eliminate conflicts between left tum traffic
and opposing through movements
10. Dedicated right tum lane on northbound Middlefield Rd.
Cons
--:r:-iii"arrower lanes
2. Creates an offset of apprOXimately 5' in both directions
on Middlefield Rd.
3. One through lane on northbound Middlefield Rd.
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
Alternative 4 -[::::J
~ or-
~
Legend
rl ~
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
EXisting Sidewalk
Remove Existing Striping
Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
Existing Tree
GRAPHIC SCALE
tw.-.+tJ--J
Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road
~=~~m
Revised 2/3/09
Existing
Proposed
RI·HIA·IA -Oregon expressway renderings
February 2009 I Draft
(.:;c-_~)
\.. ... .1: ••
Middlefield Road -Altemative 4
Looking North
Traffic improvements
• No widening
• t10re efficient signal operation which minimizes delay at
intersection and system-wide on Oregon expressway
• Improves intersection level of service by a grade
• Multi-modal traffic for all directions
• Left turns from both directions of Middlefield are served first
followed by through movements eliminating conflicts
• Dedicated right turn lane on northbound Middlefield
Traffic constraints
• Narrower lanes
• One through lane for northbound Middlefield
• Offset of 5'6" in both directions
Pedestrian/ Community amenities
(Expanded at comers)
• Maintains existing landscaping strip as is
• Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals
• Straightened crosswalks
• New / Enhanced wheelchair ramps
OPTION 2
SIDEWALK PLANTING OPTIONS ..... '~ c;~' .. ;.~u:i.. .. -~.~~ ~!d~iM;~ ,~ ~~~!-;-" -_.))\
Agapanthus 'Tinkerbell'
Ulyofthe Nile
Height: 2' tall
Notes : very tough and
adaptable, low maintenance.
-..,.. . +-
--. .,.:;;11 ... -~'~', :, '(~'/:';" -:wr-,
'~-.. .. '
~,'_ . ...,... :\' .'
• -_A '':=~ NEW TREE
Dietes iridioides (vegeta)
Fortnight Lily
Height: 3' tall
8 TREE REMOVE
Notes: very tough and
adaptable, low maintenance.
• PLANTING AREA
HemerocaJlis spp,
Day Lily
Height: 2'-3' tall
Notes: very tough and
adaptable, low maintenance.
RIH-I·A·IA Oregon expressway ren~~r:ing~ ___________ _
February 2009 I Draft
TREE OPTIONS
Middlefield Road
NW Sidewalk Options
Pyrus caleryana 'Chanticleer'
Ornamental Pear
Height: 40' tall
Spread: IS' wide
Notes: Narrowly pyramidal in form
or more columnar. Fall color varies
from orange to reddish purple.
ker rubrum 'Sowhall'
Red Maple
Height: 60' tall
Spread : 15' wide
Notes: Narrow, cone shaped,
with orange-red foliage in fall.
Lagerstroemia x fauriei
Crape Myrtle Hybrids
Height: 25' tall
Spread: IS' wide
Notes :Narrow, fast growing
excellent flower display
with orange-red foliage in fall
Middlefield Road
NW Sidewal~ Options
OPTION I OPTION 2
EXISTING CONDITION
..... RJ..,..I.A.I.A .... Oregon expressway renderings
-I February 2009 I Draft
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
.'~~".
,61'
r!i.
Alternative 1 MODIFIED
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Pros
""""1:'Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals
2. Left turns from both directions of Cowper St. are served first followed by through
movements
3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing traffic
4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and pedestrianlbicycle movements
5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions
6. Improved signal displays
7. Straightened crosswalks
8. Separate left and through lanes
9. Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway
Cons
1.Left turn or through traffic queue may occasionally exceed the short tum-pockets
on Cowper St. and block traffic
2. Parking to be prohibited for about 60 feet on Cowper Sl south of Oregon
Expressway
-c::::J
~or
/fl"-
Legend
~
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
Existing Sidewalk
Remove Existing Sbiping
Remove Existing Curb
Existing CurblEdge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
GRAPHIC SCALE
bw.-LJ--j
(11' ...... )
S all-40 ft.
Oregon Expressway and Cowper Street
~~::::.._&
Revised 1129/09
r-!:.
--~-"-""';":~:
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
I iii f,c~
.--:.:} ..... -":~.i,X
..-.,:,..t
-';~.~ ~Kjl~
Pros
"""'1:"Allows lefttums from Oregon Expressway
2, Provides new sidewalk connection to
nearby signalized intersections for safer
expressway pedestrianlbicycle crossing
3, Improves intersection traffic safety
4. 5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle
travel way) in the eastbound direction
Cons
--:;:-Prohibits left tums coming out from
WaverleySt.
x x x ·rn:~---------c-'~-_-, ----.---cc--', _, __ ~--y7~~
3. No through traffic on Wavertey SI. to cross
Oregon Expressway
Legend
_ Proposed SidewalklConcrete Island
c:::J Existing Sidewalk
.. or-
/fl'..
K
Remove Existing Striping
EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
GRAPHIC SCALE
'b -u-;
(1 .. _1')
1 t:.lI. -40 a.
Oregon Expressway and Waverley Street
~=~~&
Revised 2/3/09
-c=J
.or-
/f"l'.
Legend
~
Pros
Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island
Existing Sidewalk
Remove Existing Striping
Remove Existing Curb
Existing CurblEdge of Pavement
Proposed Striping
NewlEnhanced Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Signal Equipment
Existing Signal Equipment
""""1:"Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals
2. Vehicular movements from one direction of Bryant Sl
are served first followed by movements from other
directions on Bryant Sl
3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing
left and through movements
4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and
pedestrian/bicycle movements
5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for aU directions
6. Improves signal displays
7. Improves crosswalk alignment
8. Enhanced bicycle detection and timing on southbound
BryantSl
9. Northbound approach remains as is
10.5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the
eastbound direction
Cons
1.Qi,e crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two
crosswalk option is not recommended as it will cause
long wait time to cross Oregon Expressway)
GRAPHIC SCALE
bw_..I;;;;ii-1 1000." -
(Ium) 1 t.h. 40 a.
County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
~"ft",""'A""ded
Oregon Expressway and Bryant Street
~=~~m
Revised 2/3/09
Nora Chung
From:
Sent:
Elizabeth Schwerer (liz@laysoft.com1
Friday. April 03,20094:35 PM
-------------------... ---------
To: planning.commisslon@cityofpa.loalto.org; gayle.Ukens@CityofParoAlto.org
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Ii:z.kniss@bos.sccgov.org; comments@oregonexpressway.info; Ann Crichton; Miriam
Sedman; Ellen Ronan
Subject: Oregon Expwy Improvement Pjt: Ohlone Elem School support
Dear Gayle and Commissioners:
Please join us and the Ohlone Elementary School community in supporting the improvements to Oregon Expressway's intersections
with Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads that are recommended by the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department in the
"Draft Report for the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Traffic Analysis for Conceptual Alternatives" of February 4, 2008 and
also illustrated on their website www.oregonexpressway.info. We feel grateful to the project staff for making pedestrian and bicyclist
safety a priority for these intersections. Please also support the elimination of left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive,
which Is shown as "Alternative 1 (modified)" for that intersection.
We are a sub-committee of the Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee. In response to several accidents in which membe!
of the Ohlone school community were struck by cars while crossing Oregon Expressway on foot or bicycle, we studied Oregon
Expressway's intersections closest to Ohlone and developed a set of recommended pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements for
Louis. Greer. and West Bayshore Roads, as well as an automobile suggestion for Indian Drive. We are delighted to see that the
county's recommendations include all of the pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements we identified and one of the alternatives for
Indian eliminates automobile left turns.
With the PTA Executfve Board. Site Council, and Principal Susan Charles, we unanimously endorse the following improvements to
Oregon Expressway's Intersections with Louis, Greer. and West Bayshore Roads, all of which are reflected In or consistent with the
county's current recommendations for these intersections:
At the intersections of both Louis and Greer Roads with Oregon Expressway
1) Change the signals so that cars do not make Jeft turns onto Oregon Expressway at the same time as pedestrians are
crossing.
2) Square the corners of the Intersections to slow drivers making right turns.
3) Straighten the crosswalks and remove the median islands from them.
At the intersection of Louis Road and Oregon Expressway
4) Eliminate roll-away sidewalks along Louis Road's northbound approach to the intersection; they encourage drivers to
create an extra driving lane on the sidewalk.
At the intersections of both Louis and West Bayshore Roads wIth Oregon
5) Trim vegetation that blocks drivers' views of pedestrians.
At all intersections from Loujs to West Bayshore Roads
6) Install accessible. pedestrian~ and bike~frlendly push~button poles for walk signals.
At the intersection of West Bayshore Road and Oregon Expressway
7) Redesign the pedestrian tanding on the median between Oregon Avenue and Oregon Expressway.
A majority of us also recommend. at the intersection of Indian Drive and Oregon Expressway
8) Eliminate left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive because of the danger of automobife collisions. especially
during the evening rush hour.
Thank you.
Sincerely.
Ann Crichton
Ellen Ronan
Liz Schwerer
Miriam Sedman
343 Oxford Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94306
.co Palo Alto City Councllmembers
Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
6/25/2009
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann & Alex Crichton [mailto:acrichto(lv,pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, September 01,20086:09 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: liZ@laysoft,com
Subject: Oregon Expressway -Please help make this conidor safer -We support the changes
proposed
Hi Arthur,
It was nice to see you again at the Midtown Residents Association's
(MRA's) town nleeting on the Oregon Expressway project.
I want to make sure that the Palo Alto Planning Commission hears a supporting voice for the
improvements proposed by the City and County for Oregon Expressway. This road is dangerous
for all involved and we hear of accidents and near misses, on a regular basis. Our neighborhood
and Elementary School want to see improvements in traffic safety and would be very upset to
loose the funding for this important project.
Our PTA Traffic Team from Ohione Elementary school have been working with the City and
County since 2003 for Oregon Expressway safety improvements. We have gotten signatures from
about 200 parents at Ohlone who come to school every day from different parts of the city and
must navigate Oregon Expressway. We all know of someone who has gotten into an accident,
been hurt, or very badly flightened because of the poor design of this road. We aU want to see
improvements in its design.
Our committee has worked on a safety improvements from Louis Rd. to the Bayshore. The
improvements for these intersections have a lot of support from our neighborhoods and school.
The engineering improvements will make it easier for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians to drive
and cross Oregon Expressway safely.
We have contacted the MRA and feel that they have not adequately represented our constituency
and are working with the MRA leadership to make sure that their traffic team include our voice.
We feel that there is significant more work that can be done to resolve the issues at Middlefield
and that the MRA traffic team can provide better communication and partnership with the City
and County to resolve the debate.
We would be upset if your Committee felt that there was not enough support for the changes.
Our community needs for Oregon Expressway to become safel', Our community will be enhanced
when these improvements are completed.
We look forward to hearing from your office and learn what we can do to further support the
Oregon Expressway Project.
Sincerely,
Ann Crichton
OhIone PTA Traffic Team Member
1062 Cardinal Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 291-5442
ROADS & f\lRPORTS DEPT I
Gayle Likens, Chief Transportation Official ROAD r1A1HTEt4ANCE
Transpo~ation Division, Department of Planning & CommunitvnBtliirQmtlfJff ta: 2t.
250 Hamilton Avenue ZUd9 "AI( I I
Palo Alto, California 94301
March 15, 2009
RECEIVED
Dear Gayle,
Thank you and your staff for supporting us in this negotiation with the County.
The new proposals are far superior to the previous ones.
Of the alternatives offered at the Jordan community meeting for the Middlefield
Road intersection, Alternative 4 is the one we wholeheartedly support. The issue
is not so much one of removing and replacing trees, although that is also
significant, but of decreasing the planting strip along the sidewalk. This strip
provides both real and perceived protection from the traffic. ht addition, it is in
compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies and programs regarding urban
design for streets and sidewalks (emphasis added):
POLICY T -23:
Eneou.-age pedesb1an-friendly design features such as sidewalks, st1'eet ta·ees. on .. street
parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting arehitectul'al
details.
PROGRAM T-32:
Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near CQrng}:s, bollards,
and /andsct;lJling to create protected areas.
Although the County engineers prefer Altenlative 3, it was not clear why ..
According to one of their charts, only one second would be gained in this
scenario! The two through lanes rapidly decrease to onei the further from the
school this can happen, the safer it is for school children.
Please continue to support this alternative.
In addition, we have seen the letter from the Ohlone School group, and we
support their positions as well_
dith Wasserman, for
FRED (Friends of Realistic Expressway Design)
xc: vMasoud Akbarzadeh
Michael Murdter
Liz Kniss
Scott Strickland
Mayor Peter Dreckmeier
Planning & Transportation Commission
Introduction
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Comrnunity Outreach Report #3
(February -April 2009)
ATTACHMENT C
The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department is conducting the planning phase for a project
to make operational improvements along Oregon Expressway. The goal of this project is to improve
conditions for all modes of travel both along the expressway and crossing the expressway. Extensive
community outreach is a key component of the planning phase.
On April 3, 2008, the first community workshop was held to receive input about the public's
experiences in using and crossing Oregon Expressway and the types of improvements they would like
to see. This was followed by a month-long open comment period where additional comments were
received bye-mail, telephone, and fax. A full report on the results of the April 2008 community
outreach process is provided on the project website: www.oregonexpresswav.info.
On June 9, 2008, a second community workshop was held to receive comments on a range of
alternatives for nine intersections. These improvement alternatives were developed in direct response
to the comments/concerns receiving during the April community outreach process. The Midtown
Residents Association (MRA) hosted a similar community meeting on August 28, 2008. An open
comment period where additional comments were received bye-mail, telephone, and fax extended
through mid-October 2008. A full report on the results of the June-October 2008 community outreach
process is also provided on the project website.
March 4, 2009, Community Workshop Overview
On March 4, 2009, the third community workshop for the project was held at Jordan Middle School.
At this workshop, staff presented a set of refined conceptual plans for the nine intersections included in
the project. The purpose of the workshop was to receive input about the conceptual plans which staff
could use in developing final recommendations.
Advertising for the workshop was the same as for the previous workshops. Over 3,206 postcards were
mailed to residents living near the expressway. Notices were posted in both local newspapers (Palo
Alto Daily and Palo Alto Weekly). E-mails were sent to various community/neighborhood groups
asking them to notify their Inemberships about the workshop. In addition, an e-mail notice was sent to
the project e-mail list, which included all participants in the public outreach process who have
provided an e-mail address.
A week prior to the workshop, the proposed conceptual plans and draft traffic analysis report were
posted on the project website.
The workshop began with a poster session where all conceptual plans (included alternatives for some
intersections) were displayed around the room. Displays also included renderings for some of the
intersections. The poster session was followed by a staff presentation on the proposed conceptual
plans for each intersection. The presentation included videos illustrating current problems at the Louis
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 1 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
intersection and traffic simulations for the Middlefield intersection. After a question-and-answer
period involving all workshop participants, project staff remained available to respond to individual
questions and comments. All participants were encouraged to provide comments using a questionnaire
form. One hundred thirteen (113) residents and 14 city/county staff attended the workshop.
Comments provided before and after the workshop were submitted bye-mail, telephone, fax, and mail.
Comments were received from the time the conceptual plans and. draft traffic analysis report were
posted on the website in late February and for a month after the workshop through early April 2009.
Public Input Report
Approximately 117 questionnaires, e-mails, and phone calls were received between late February and
early April 2009. In addition, the Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee, along with the
PTA Executive Board, Site Council, and School Principal, submitted an e-mail related to intersections
serving their school community.
This report summarizes the main comment themes regarding the conceptual plan alternatives for each
intersection. It does not attempt to list every single comment. Some respondents provided their
comments through multiple forums; therefore, although the report can provide an order of
magnitude for the number of similar comments submitted, precise numbers counting each
individual's comments only once cannot be provided. None of the input mechanisms used a
scientifically representative sample process. All comments summarized in this report represent the
opinions of those who chose to participate and are not considered statistically valid for projecting the
data out to the general population.
The report is organized by intersection, describing the conceptual plan alternatives presented and
summarizing the comments for that intersection. The last section summarizes comments received that
were not intersection specific.
Next Steps
Since the March 2009 workshop, County staff has been working to further refine the alternatives and
develop recommendations. The County's recommended alternatives will be provided to the City of
Palo Alto in July 2009. Next opportunity for public input will be provided at the City Planning
and Transportation Commission. The current project schedule is as follows:
August 26, 09
Fall 2009
2010-2011
2011
City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation
Comn1ission Review of Project Scope
City of Palo Alto City Council Approval of Project Scope
Environmental Clearance, .LJ'-',H'<::::1J and Construction
County Board of Supervisors Approval of Project to Advertise
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 20f13 Community Outreach #3
West 8ayshore Drive intersection
Current Configuration
Signalized T -intersection with West Bayshore telminating at Oregon Expressway. There is a
crosswalk on the west side of the intersection to provide access to the frontage road north of the
expressway.
List of Alternatives
• Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (lM).
Alternative 1 improves pedestrian/wheelchair curb ramps and the landing area at the frontage road,
including trit:nming back some of the shrubbery for improved visibility. It also improves bicycle
detection and timing, including adding a bicycle slot on the West Bayshore approach to Oregon
Expressway. Alternative 1M includes minor changes to the bicycle slot striping and adding the
removal of the median island nose at existing crosswalk.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M.
Summary of Comments
This intersection received 18 comments, with 90% of the respondents indicating support for the
improvements in Alternative 1M. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee also
expressed support for Alternative 1M. The only write-in comment expressed by more than one person
was continued concern for making the landing and entrance onto Oregon Avenue safer for bicyclists,
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 3 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
Indian Drive Intersection
Current Configuration
Unsignalized T -intersection with Indian terminating at Oregon Expressway. There is a stop on
Indian. A median opening on Oregon allows left turns from Oregon and Indian. No pedestrian
crossing or access to frontage road north of the expressway exists at this location.
List of Alternatives Presented
• Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (1M).
Alternative 1 closes the median with landscaping to elin1inate left turns from Oregon and Indian
and limits Indian to right-in and right-out access. Alternative 1M includes minor changes to the
"pork chop" islands on Indian Drive.
• Alternative 2 was developed based on comments from the June-October 2008 community outreach
process. It leaves the median open to allow left turns from westbound Oregon onto Indian and
limits Indian to right-in and right-out access.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternatives 1M and 2.
Summary of Comments
This intersection received 26 comments. The respondents were equally divided among supporting
Alternative 1M, supporting Alternative 2, and opposing both alternatives. The Ohlone Elementary
School traffic safety committee expressed support for Alternative 1M. Some of those opposing both
alternatives suggested using signage to restrict movements at certain times instead of changing the
intersection and/or providing "Keep Clear" striping on eastbound Oregon Expressway in the
intersection.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 4 Community Outreach #3
Greer Road Intersection
Current Configuration
Signalized intersection with pennissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Greer, left tum vehicles
do not have their own signal phase and must yield to oncoming vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles,
waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the turn safely). Crosswalks jog at an angle on
the north side of the median. Access to the frontage road from Greer north of the expressway is open.
List of Alternatives Presented
• Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (lM).
Alternative 1 provides separate left tum and through lanes at intersection approache~ in both
directions of Greer, allowing for protected left tum (8-phase) signal operation (left turns from both
directions of Greer have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the
through movements) . .It also straightens crosswalks. Implementation would require parking to be
prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer south of Oregon Expressway. Alternative 1M
includes minor striping changes on both sides of Greer Road and installation of a bulb-out on the
northwest corner.
• Alternative 2 (split or 6-phase signal operation) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from
consideration based on community feedback.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M.
Summary of Comments
The Greer intersection received 25 comments, with 850/0 of the respondents indicating support for the
improvements in Alternative 1M. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee also
expressed support for Alternative 1M. Write-in comments made by more than one person included: a
few comments that it looks good/is essential for safety; a couple of comments asking for bike lanes on
Greer; a couple of respondents expressing concerns that the improvements would negatively affect
Oregon Expressway traffic; and, a couple of requests to slow right-turning traffic or post "no right turn
on red" signs.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 5 of13 Community Outreach Report #3
louis Road Intersection
Current Configuration
Signalized intersection with pennissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Louis, left tum vehicles
do not have their own signal phase and must yield to oncoming motor vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the tum safely). Crosswalks jog at an
angle on the north side of the median. Bicycle lanes are provided on Louis. Access to the frontage
road from Louis north of the expressway is closed.
List of Alternatives Presented
• Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (lM).
Alternative 1 provides separate left tum and through lanes at intersection approaches in both
directions of Louis, allowing for protected left turn (8-phase) signal operation (left turns from both
directions of Louis have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the
through movements). It also tightens the radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right-
turning vehicles and straightens crosswalks. Implementation would require parking to be
prohibited for about 105 feet on both sides of Louis north and south of Oregon Expressway.
Alternative 1M includes maintaining the existing bicycle lane on Louis.
• Alternative 2 (split or 6-phase signal operation) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from
consideration based on community feedback.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M.
Summary of Comments
The Louis intersection received 33 comments, with 90%) of the respondents indicated support for the
improvements in Alternative 1M. The Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee also
expressed support for Alternative 1M. Write-in comments were generally supportive, with most
stating the proposal was great and improves bicycle/pedestrian safety.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 6 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
Ross Road Intersection
Current Configura .1on
Unsignalized intersecLion with stop signs on Ross. median opening on Oregon allows left turns
from Oregon and Ross. There is a crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. Access to frontage
road from Ross north of the expressway is open.
List of Alternatives Presented·
• Alternative 1 (closing median) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration
based on community feedback.
• Alternative 2 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M).
Alternative 2 reconfigures northbound and southbound Ross to allow right-tum exits only (no left
turns or crossing Oregon). It includes eliminating the crosswalk. Alternative 2M allows left turns
from Oregon Expressway onto Ross Road at all times.
• Alternative 3 was developed based on comments from the June-October 2008 community outreach
process. It demonstrates potential future implementation of a bicycle/pedestrian signal consistent
with the City of Palo Alto Ross Road bicycle boulevard concept. Building on the Alternative 2M
configuration, it involves adding a bicycle/pedestrian crossing signal, bicycle slots with signal
detection for bicycles to cross Oregon Expressway, and a pedestrian crossing on the west side of
the intersection.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternatives 2M and 3.
Summary of Comments
The Ross intersection received 60 comments, second only to Middlefield in the number of comments.
Thirteen percent (13%) of the respondents supported Alternative 2M, 60% supported Alternative
and 180/0 wanted no changes to the intersection. There were many write-in comments. The common
themes in the write-in comments were as follows:
• Some Alternative 3 supporters indicated that Alternative 3 would give bicycle riders an alternative
to using Middlefield. A few respondents stated that this alternative would support the future re-
opening of Garland Elementary and several indicated it was better for bicycles and pedestrians.
• Several respondents expressed concerns that adding a bicycle/pedestrian signal in Alternative 3
would slow down Oregon Expressway unnecessarily and could lead to more back -ups on Oregon
and neighborhood streets. A few respondents suggested just putting up signs to restrict through
and left turns during peak hours rather than changing the intersection.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Page 7 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
Middlefield Road Intersection
Current Configuration
Signalized intersection with split phase (6-phase) signal operation (all vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian movements from one direction of Middlefield are served first followed by movements from
the other direction). Middlefield has four lanes (two lanes each direction) on both sides of the
intersection. Access to the frontage road from Middlefield nort~ of the expressway is closed.
List of Alternatives Presented
•
•
Alternative ,I from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration based on community
feedback due to the impact on the landscape strips and existing trees.
Alternative 2 fron1 the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M) .
Alternative 2 adds left-turn pockets on both directions of Middlefield allowing for 8-phase signal
operation (left turns from both directions of Middlefield have their own signal phase, or green
arrow indication, separate from the through movements). The right-hand lane at the southbound
approach to the intersection is for through and right turns while the right-hand lane at the
northbound approach is designated for right turns only. Northbound across the expressway would
be a single seventeen-foot lane providing a wide shoulder for bicycle use at the northeast comer.
Room for the nine-foot left-tum pockets is provided by reducing other lanes to ten feet wide at the
northwest, southwest, and southeast comers and reducing the landscape strip on two sides of the
intersection: five-foot reduction on the northwest side and three .. foot reduction on the southeast
side. The reduction of the two landscape strips would require removing a total of eight trees.
Alternative 2M provides dual curb ramps at each comer and modified lane widths to provide
additional pedestrian buffer on the northwest side of the intersection.
• Alternative 3 remains unchanged from the June 2008 workshop. It adds left-tum pockets on both
directions of Middlefield allowing for 8-phase signal operation (left turns from both directions of
Middlefield have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from the through
movements). The right-hand lane at the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection
is for through and right turns. Room for the nine-foot left .. tum pockets is provided by reducing
four existing lanes to nine feet wide and a five-foot reduction in the landscape strip on the
northwest side. The reduction of one landscape strip would require removing a total of four trees.
• Alternative 4 was developed based on comments from the June-October 2008 community outreach
process. It is similar to Alternative 2M in lane configuration but would not widen the roadway on
either side of Middlefield Road reSUlting in no impacts to existing trees. It provides narrower lanes
and offsets for traffic traveling through the intersection.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternatives 2M, 3, and 4.1
1 Shortly after the community workshop, the conceptual plan for Middlefield Alternative 3 was revised
to provide more detail for the northwest comer of the intersection and proper labeling. The revised
plan was renamed Alternative 3 Modified (3M). Alternative 3M does not have any major design
changes from Alternative 3 but should help with public understanding of this alternative. Alternative
3M is available for viewing on the project website at www.oregonexpressway.info.
Oregon Improvement Project 8 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
Summary of Comments
The Middlefield intersection received comments, more than double all other intersections except
Ross. Thirteen petcent (13%) of respondents supported Alternative 2M, 18c supported Alt:::mative 3,
and 71 indicated support for Alternative 4.· Only one responde:lt indicated ;'No" to all altelnatives
and a couple of write-in comments indicated some concern about making any changes. Some of the
themes of the write-in comments and support for the alternatives included the following:
.. Most Alternative 4 supponters indicated support only for Alternative 4 stating that it was a good
balance for improving traffic and saving the landscaping it was least disnlptive. Many of the
respondents also liked the dedicated northbound right tum lane. Some respondents felt that the
narrower lanes will help calm or slow traffic on Middlefield.
• A few supporters of Alternative 4 indicated that Alternative 2M would be their second choice
because 2M offers a dedicated northbound right-turn lane like Alternative 4.
• Supporters for Alternative 3 were generally opposed to Alternatives 2M and 4 because they felt
two northbound through lanes was the best configuration for the interchange it was the most
flexible and efficient for meeting traffic demand.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 90! 13 Community Outreach Report #3
Cowper Street Intersection
Current Configuration
Signalized intersection with permissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Cowper, left tum
vehicles do not have their own signal phase and must yield to ol1coming motor vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the tum safely). Cowper has two
lanes (one lane each direction) on both sides of the intersection. Access to both frontage roads from
Cowper (north and southwest of the expressway) is open.
List of Alternatives Presented
e Alternative 1 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 1 Modified (1M).
Alternative 1 provides separate left tum and through lanes at intersection approaches in both
directions of Cowper, allowing for protected left tum (8-phase) signal operation (left turns from
both directions of Cowper have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, separate from
the through movements). It also straightens crosswalks. Implementation would require parking to
be prohibited for about 60 feet on the east side of Cowper south of Oregon Expressway.
Alternative 1M includes minor changes to the frontage road "stop" line striping.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 1M.
Summary of Comments
The Cowper intersection received 20 comments, with 70% of the respondents indicating support for
the improvements in Alternative 1M. Most of the write-in comments were from those opposed to the
improvements with the most frequently cited concern being that adding a left-tum lane will increase
cut-through traffic and/or speeding.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 10 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
Waverley Street Intersection
Current Configuration
Unsignalized intersection with stop signs on Waverley. A median opening on Oregon allows left turns
from Oregon and Waverley. There are crosswalks on both sides of the intersection. Access to the
frontage road from Waverley north of the expressway is open.
List of Alternatives Presented
• Alternative 1 (closing median) from the June 2008 workshop was dropped from consideration
based on community feedback.
• Alternative 2 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M).
Alternative 2 reconfigures northbound and southbound Waverley to allow right-tum exits only (no
left turns or crossing Oregon). It includes eliminating the crosswalks. Alternative 2M allows left
turns from Oregon Expressway onto Waverley Street at all times.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 2M.
Summary of Comments
The Waverley intersection received 34 comments, with 55% supporting the improvements in
Alternative 2M and 40% opposing Alternative 2M. Most of the write-in comments were from those
opposed to Alternative 2M with the most common concerns being that it would increase traffic on
other streets, they want to be able to cross Oregon Expressway at Waverley, crosswalks should remain,
. and signage should be used to restrict movements at certain times instead of changing the intersection.
A few respondents indicated preference for the dropped Alternative 1 (closing the median), and a
couple of respondents requested a traffic signal at Waverley.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 11 of13 Community Outreach Report #3
Bryant Street Intersection
Current Configuration
Signalized intersection with pennissive left tum (5-phase) signal operation (on Bryant, left turn
vehicles do not have their own signal phase and must yield to oncoming motor vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicycles, waiting until there is a sufficient gap in traffic to make the turn safely). Crosswalks jog
at an angle on the north side of the median. Access to the frontage road from Bryant north of the
expressway is open.
List of Alternatives Presented
• Alternative 1 (8-phase signal operations/protected left turns) from the June 2008 workshop was
dropped from consideration based on community feedback. .
• Alternative 2 from the June 2008 workshop was enhanced and called Alternative 2 Modified (2M).
Alternative 2 provides two lanes on southbound Bryant at the intersection with one for left/through
traffic and one for right turns, allowing for split phase (6-phase) signal operation (all vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian movements from one direction of Bryant are served first followed by
movements from the other direction). It also straightens the crosswalk on the east side, eliminates
the crosswalk on the west side, and provides a bicycle slot at the southbound intersection.
Alternative 2M maintains the northbound leg of Bryant as is.
Presented at March 2009 workshop: Alternative 2M.
Summary of Comments
The Bryant intersection received 23 comments with 80% of the respondents indicating support for the
improvements in Alternative 2M. There were few write-in comments. Three of the write-in comments
were about the bike island where one thought it was a hazard and two liked it, including one asking
that an island be provided in both directions. A couple of respondents also expressed concerns that
longer signal times for Bryant will cause delays for Oregon Expressway traffic.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Page 12 of13 Community Outreach Report #3
General Comments (not specific to an intersection)
Of the nearly 30 general comments not specific to an inte;:section, three subj e':t areas received multiple
comments: opposition to the entire project, bicycle use of Oregon Expressway, and constructing new
sidewalks/pedestrian paths.
Opposition to Entire Project
A few respondents indicated opposition to the entire project and all its potential improvements. Some
comments related to these positions were as follows: the focus should be to promote commute
alternatives to the single occupant automobile; the proposed improvements will increase traffic delays
on Oregon Expressways and lead to more rear-end accidents; and, all that is really needed to improve
conditions is more traffic speed enforcement.
General Bicycle Related Comments
A few comments were made regarding the proposed 5-foot paved shoulder for bicycle use from Bryant
Street to Cowper Street on the south side of Oregon Expressway. Some respondents expressed
concerns that it was too dangerous to bicycle on Oregon Expressway and another stated a preference
that a sidewalk be provided rather than the bike shoulder.
Sidewalks on South Side of Oregon Expressway
At the community workshops, a map of a proposed pedestrian route plan along Oregon Expressway
was shared. This map was developed as part of the 2008 Update to the 2003 Comprehensive County
Expressway Planning Study, where pedestrian route maps were developed for all eight expressways.
F or Oregon Expressway, the map includes the Oregon Avenue frontage road for pedestrian travel
along the north side of the expressway and a mix of existing sidewalks, frontage/parallel streets, and
proposed new sidewalks for the south side. The improvement alternatives for the unsignalized
intersections (Indian, Ross, and Waverley) included filling in four sidewalk gaps along the south side
to connect pedestrians from the unsignalized intersections to the nearest signalized intersections for
access to the north side of the expressway. The locations of these four segments are: 1) between Greer
and Indian; 2) between Ross and Middlefield; 3) between Tasso and Cowper; and, 4) between Anton
and Waverley. These sidewalks would be constructed as part of the Oregon-Page Mill pavement
rehabilitation project, not as part of the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. The map also
indicated that any new sidewalk between High Street (at Alma entrance) and Waverley would be very
long term and dependent on pedestrian travel demand and/or redevelopment.
There were 7 comments total related to the sidewalks/pedestrian paths as follows:
• Greet to Indian One comment indicating support.
• Ross to Middlefield One comment in support and one in opposition.
• Tasso to Cowper and Anton to Waverley -Two respondents indicated opposition to any sidewalks
between Middlefield and Bryant. Two respondents indicated support for these sidewalks and
requested that sidewalks extend through to Bryant for pedestrians traveling westbound to access
the signalized crossing at Bryant.
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Page 13 of 13 Community Outreach Report #3
HORTICULTURE I ARBORICUL TURE I URBAN FORESTRY
April 13, 2009
Aditya Advani
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
225 Miller Ave.
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Subject: Arborist Report
Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway
Mr. Advani:
ATTACHMENT 0
SCI ENCE
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey is assisting in the design of streetscape improvements on
the northwest side of Middlefield Road at Oregon Expressway, in Palo Alto. There are
existing City street trees on the northwest Side of Middlefield Rd. within the project limits.
You asked that I examine the trees, evaluate their health and structural condition and assess
the impact of the proposed project. You also requested that I review replacement tree species
and provide comments on the use of structural soil. This report summarizes my assessment
and recom mendations.
Survey Methods
Trees were ~urveyed on March 25,2009. The survey included five (5) street trees on the
northwest side of Middlefield Rd. identified by the County of Santa Clara Roads & Airports
Department. Only those trees identified by the County were included in the survey. The
survey procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Tagging each tree with an identifying number (#51-55) and recording its location
on a map (tree #55 was assigned a number but was to small too tag);
2. Identifying the tree as to species;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade;
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 -5:
5 -Excellent condition: a healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and
symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 -Good condition: tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback,
minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 -Fair condition: tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch
dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that
might be mitigated with regular care.
2 -Poor condition: tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of
medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be
abated.
1 -Very poor condition: tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches
and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects
that cannot be abated.
HortScience, Inc. I 2150 Rheem Dr., Suite A I Pleasanton, CA 94588
phone 925.484.0211 I fax 925.484.5096
Arborist Report,' Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway
HortScience, Inc.
Page 2
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "good", "moderate" or "poor". Suitability
for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and
its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
Good: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects
than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more
intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life
span than those in 'good' category.
Poor. Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that
cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline,
regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have
characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally
are unsuited for use areas.
Observations at the Site
The five (5) street trees were located in a landscape strip between the sidewalk and curb. The
planting area was approximately 5.5' wide. The trees were numbered starting at Oregon
Expressway north towards Garland Drive. The sidewalk near trees #51-54 had been raised
and the curb was displaced. At tree #55 the sidewalk and curb appeared to be in good
condition. Descriptions of individual trees are included in the attached Tree Survey Form and
locations are shown on the Tree Survey Map.
Trees #51-53 were sweetgum (Uquidambar
styraciflua) (photo 1). Tree #51 was located
on the side of 699 Oregon Ave., and #52-53
were at 2370 Middlefield Rd. The
sweetgums were mature in form and
development. Trunk size varied from 15" to
22" in diameter. Trees #52-53 were in good
condition. They had good form and
structure and a full crown. On tree #53 a
15" west facing stem over the street has
been repeatedly hit by trucks creating a
large wound. Tree #51 was in fair condition
and characterized by a narrow form.
Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) #54 was
located at 2360 Middlefield Rd. The tree
was semi-mature in development with an 11"
diameter trunk. It was in good condition, had
good form and a full crown (photo 1).
Red oak (Quercus rubra) #55 was located at 2342
Middlefield Rd. and was in excellent health. The
young oak had excellent form and structure, and
a 4" diameter trunk (photo 2). Foliage from the
prior year's growth was still attached to the tree, a
common characteristic of the species.
Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway
HortScience, Inc.
Page 3
Suitability for Preservation
In selecting trees to preserve on project sites, our goal is to select individuals that have the
potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. To that end, we evaluate the
suitability for preservation of each tree, considering the following factors:
v
v
v
v
v
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury,
demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil
compaction than are non-vigorous trees.
Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot
be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where
damage to people or property is likely.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts
and changes in the environment. In this case, sweetgum, Chinese tallow and red oak
all have moderate tolerances to site disturbance.
Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited
physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better
able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
Species invasiveness
Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always
appropriate for retention. This is par;ticularly true when indigenous species are
displaced. The species surveyed are considered non-invasive, and they rarely
reproduce in a landscape setting.
Good
Tree Suitability for Preservation
These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the
potential for longevity at the site. Two (2) trees were rated as having
good suitability for preservation, Chinese tallow #54 and red oak #55.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may
be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense
management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those
in the "good" category. All three sweetgums #51-53 were rated as having
moderate suitability for preservation.
Poor Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in
structure that cannot be abated with treatment. No trees were rated as
having poor suitability for preservation.
Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Middle'field Road NW side at Oregon Expressway
HortScience, Inc.
Page 4
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of
construction activities and the quality and health of trees. Potential impacts from construction
were evaluated using the Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road Alternative 3 Modified Plan,
provided by the County of Santa Clara Roads & Airports Department (revised April 6, 2009).
The plan depicted the proposed widening of Middlefield Rd. on the west side, in the direction
of trees #51-55. The street would be widened and a new curb, sidewalk and landscape strip
would be constructed. The Plan showed the location of the trees.
Using the plan, potential impacts from construction were estimated for each tree. The
proposed plans showed trees #51-54 in the new south bound lane on Middlefield Rd. The
widening of Middlefield Rd. would start approximately 5' south of tree #55.
Based upon my assessment of the plans, I recommend the preservation of red oak #55.
Preservation of this tree is predicated on the impacts being within the tolerances of the tree
and on the implementation of specific recommendations in the Tree Preservation Guidelines
(next page).
I recommend the removal of the remaining four (4) trees (#51-54) due to impacts from
construction.
Proposed Street Tree Planting
The proposed widening of Middlefield Rd. on the west would create a 1.5' wide landscape
strip between the new sidewalk and curb. A tree grate (1' wide x 4' long) would be installed in
the sidewalk at each tree location to provide more space for street trees. The l' wide tree
grate would increase the size of the planting area to 2.5' wide at tree locations.
The existing tree palette on Middlefield Rd. consists mostiy of mature London plane and
sweetgum, and young red oak and red maple, in the 5.5' wide landscape strip. These are all
deciduous and large growing species. The new 2.5' wide planting area, at tree locations,
cannot accommodate the future growth of the trunk and root system of these large trees. As
an example, the size of their trunk/root collar at ground level will exceed the size of the new
planting area as they mature. The growth and development of the trunk/root collar, buttress
roots (ie. large structural roots) and surface roots (eg. sweetgum and red maple) would
damage the new street, curb and sidewalk.
Based on the 2.5' wide planting area I recommend the use of smaller size trees. I recommend
the following three options for deciduous species.
Crape myrtle hybrids (Lagerstroemia x faurieij
A small flowering tree distinguished by their flower color. Mature height to 25' by 15' wide.
Excellent flower display in the range of white, coral pink, red and lavender. Fall colors include
yellow, orange and red. Growth rate is fast, approximately 18-24" or more per year.
Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' or 'Redspire')
A medium-sized tree that may reach 30-40' in height with a 15-20' spread. Chanticleer has a
narrowly pyramidal form, and fall color is orange to reddish purple. Redspire is oval to
pyramidal in form, and fall color is yellow and red. White flowers in spring. Growth rate is
relatively fast once established, about 18-24" per year.
European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata')
A medium-sized tree to 30-40' in height with a 25' spread. A symmetrical tree that is formal in
appearance, with a narrow to oval form. Fall color is yellow to orange. Growth rate is
moderate at 12-18" per year.
Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Middlefield Road NW side at Oregon Expressway
HortScience, Inc.
Page 5
Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance
of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to
extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather
than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and
grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. These
impacts can be minimized by coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to tree #55 from development and
maintain its health and vitality through the construction phases.
Design recommendations
1. Tree Preservation Guidelines, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be
included on all plans.
2. Any changes to the plans affecting the tree should be reviewed by the Consulting
Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to,
improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation
plans and demolition plans.
3. Keep edge of construction a minimum of 5' from the tree in all directions.
4. TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established around the tree. No grading, excavation,
construction, or storage of materials shall occur within the TREE PRO'rECT'ON ZONE.
No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed
in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Spoils from excavation, construction and trenching,
shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, either temporarily or
permanently. The limits of the TREE PROTECTION ZONE may be adjusted following
design changes. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be one continuous zone, and is
defined as follows: back edge of existing curb on east; l' back of existing sidewalk on
west; dripline on north; minimum of 5' south of trunk.
5. Do not apply lime to the soil for compaction purposes. Lime is toxic to roots.
6. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and
labeled for that use.
Pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. Fence the tree to be retained to enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to
demolition, grubbing or grading. Fence shall be 4ft. orange construction fence with
steel posts embedded in the ground. Fencing shall remain until all grading and
construction is completed. We suggest placing two (2) weather proof signs on the
fencing that read uTREE PROTECTION ZONE KEEP OUT".
2. Encourage the property owner to maintain their normal irrigation schedule for the tree
during construction.
Arborist Report, Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Middle'fleld Road NW side at Oregon Expressway
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
HortScience, Inc ..
Page 6
1. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE unless approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water, sewer or irrigation shall
be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE unless approved and monitored by the
Consulting Arborist. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be
placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, either temporarily or permanently. Any
modi'flcations must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
2. All demolition, grading and construction within the dripline of the tree shall be done
using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to'
the tree and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
3. If roots 1" in diameter and greater are encountered the tree will require root pruning at
the edge of the TREE PROTECTION ZONE by cutting all roots cleanly to the depth of
construction. Roots will be exposed by either: pulling soil away from the tree with a
small back hoe or digging by hand. Roots shall be pruned at undamaged tissue and
perpendicular to the root, with pruners, loppers or hand saw as required.
4. If injury should occur to the tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as
possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
5. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or
stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
If you have any questions about my observations, evaluation or recommendations, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
#JJJ&tIi;
Michael D. Santos
Certified Arborist WE-3877
Registered Consulting Arborist #430
Att. Tree Survey Form
Tree Survey Map
HortScience Tree Survey
SCI'ENCE
TREE ADDRESS SPECIES SIZE
No. DIAMETER
(in inches)
51 699 Oregon Ave. Sweetgum 15
52 2370 Middlefield Rd. Sweetgum 19
53 2370 Middlefield Rd. Sweetgum 22
54 2360 Middlefield Rd. Chinese tallow 11
55 2342 Middlefield Rd. Red oak 4
CONDITION SUITABILITY
1=POOR FOR
5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION
3 Moderate
4 Moderate
4 Moderate
4 Good
5 Good
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
Middlefield Rd. NW side at Oregon Exp.
Palo Alto, CA
March 24, 2009
COMMENTS
Narrow upright form; sidewalk raised; curb,
gutter and street displaced; 5.5' wide planting
strip.
Codominant at 10'; full crown; 5" west facing
branch over sidewalk with decay; sidewalk
raised; curb, gutter and street displaced; 5.5'
wide planting strip.
Codominant at 11'; full crown; 15" west
facing stem over street hit by vehicles
resulting in large wound; root collar next to
sidewalk; sidewalk raised; curb, gutter and
street displaced; 5.5' wide planting strip.
Good form; full crown; trunk divides at 7' into
two stems; sidewalk raised; curb, gutter and
street displaced, likely by previous tree; 5.5'
wide planting strip.
Untagged; good young tree; excellent form
and structure.
Page 1
(:-0
° .~
GO
~.
/ Q "t~"' 6-9" O/~
(approximate
location)
'-V;S.
. /~
yO"
51
Tree Survey Map
Middlefield Road
Northwest Side
@ Oregon Expressway
Prepared for:
Royston, Hanamoto,
Alley & Abey
Mill Valley, CA
March 2008
~
No Scale
Notes:
Base map provided by:
County of Santa Clara Roads
and Airport Department
Santa Clara, CA
Numbered tree locations are approximate.
: .. :.:: ....... : ... ~ •.. . .
: .. : .. ~::
~.~.'T #E14¢~
2150 Rheem Drive I Suite A I Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone 925-484-0211 I Fax 925-484-0596
ATTACHMENT E
Ljkens, Gayle
From: Krebs, E(c
Sent: \Necmesc8y, i\lay 27, 2GC9 9:4,:.~ f\~'J!
To: Rius, Rafael
Cc: Likens, Gayle; Kennedy, Sean
Subject: RE: Draft Arborist Report -Oregon expwy improvement project
Rafael,
My first reaction to a proposed loss of City trees is always going to be negative. The homeowners along
Middlefield Road, who will be directly impacted, should be included in on the planning of this Significant change to
their property frontages.
The draft arborist's report provided by Hort Science is accurate in its description of the trees and the impacts
resulting from the proposed construction. The recommendations do not provide adequate planting sites or
canopy replacements for future trees. The proposed plan would place trees with lower canopies too close to
vehicular traffic in the street and pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. This would create a conflict with traffic on both
sides of the trees. The draft report describes this conflict on tree # 53, (pg 2 Observations at the Site).
Generally, when a project proposes changes to the public property I feel it is my obligation as the City Arborist to .
ensure that the impacts and resulting mitigation measures represent an improvement to the public property. Even
if the existing trees were in poor condition I would still consider the 5' planting sites valuable assets to the City.
The proposed 2.5' planting strip with the l' wide tree grate is an inadequate replacement for the 5' wide existing
planting strip and the replacement trees would not provide enough canopy to replace the existing canopy.
The project should provide adequate/viable planting sites and more trees or a tree species capable of replacing
the existing canopy or the City should consider not replacing the trees at all. One might argue that if the proposal
exhausts all possible planting scenarios given the public property constraints and is still an inadequate plan, then
is it wise to plant trees that would result in liabilities such as the conflicts with traffic.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Krebs
PW Managing Arborist
1SA Certification #WC-0829
Member of American Society of Consulting Arborists
ATTACHMENT F
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 August 26, 2009
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Oregon Expressway Improvement Project: Recommendation to City Council on the request
8 by County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department for the approval of the proposed
9 Concept Alternatives at nine intersections as part of the Oregon Expressway hnprovement
10 Project.
11
12
13 Chair Garber: That brings us to our first item of the regularly scheduled meeting, which is
14 actually item number two, the Oregon Expressway hnprovement Project. Recommendation to
15 City Council on the request by County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department for the
16 approval of the proposed Concept Alternatives at nine intersections as part of the Oregon
17 Expressway hnprovement Project.
18
19 Before we get started I have to declare that I have to recuse myself from this item and I will not
20 be participating on it because I happen to live within 400 feet radii of one of these items so I
21 cannot participate on it.
22
23 Also, Vice-Chair Tuma has to leave the meeting as well for personal reasons. So the Acting
24 Chair will become Commissioner Holman and the Vice-Chair or as I have been corrected the
25 timekeeper will become Commissioner Lippert. We will make that change and they will carry
26 this item forward.
27
28 Commissioner Holnlan: Thartk you and thank you for your patience while we rearrange
29 ourselves here. If there are more speaker cards to come if they could be provided to the Staff and
30 then the Staffwill forward them since we do not have a Secretary at this time.
31
32 Then does Staffhave a presentation?
33
34 Ms. Caporgno: Before I introduce Rafael who is going to give the presentation I just wanted to
35 mention that we have from the County Road and Airports Department with us tonight Dan
36 Collen who is the Deputy Directory and Ananth Prasad who is the Senior Civil Engineer. After
37 Rafael gives a presentation they may want to just briefly some comments to the Commission but
38 they are not here for a presentation, but will be here for questions if you have any of them. With
39 that I would like to introduce Rafael Rius who is our Transportation Project Engineer and has
40 been working with Gayle Likens on this project. Rafael.
41
42 Mr. Rafael Rius, Transportation Project Engineer: Thank you Julie. I am here to give a brief
43 summary of the Oregon Expressway hnprovement Project.
44
Page 1
1 A little bit of background. This project covers Oregon Expressway between US 101 and EI
2 Camino Real and is approximately 1.6 miles with six signalized intersections and three
3 unsignalized intersections that are being analyzed for improvements.
4
5 A little bit of background. A 2003 Comprehensive Expressway Planning Study was adopted and
6 it was intended to provide a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County
7 expressway system with the following objectives: to improve coordination along Oregon
8 Expressway to reduce delay and enhance efficiency of the intersection operations, and to
9 improve the safety of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The Oregon Expressway Improvement
10 Project secured a $3.5 million federal grant to implement the improvements. Thus far there have
11 been three community meetings and several meetings with stakeholder groups such as the
12 Midtown Neighborhood Group, PABAC, and the Ohlone PTA. Now they are ready to present
13 the concept plans to you.
14
15 The current traffic on Oregon Expressway is roughly 40,000 vehicles per day on a weekday and
16 24,000 vehicles on a typical weekend. Between January 2003 and July 2008 there were 200
17 collisions and the majority of them were rear end type collisions. The intersection with the
18 highest volumes crossing Oregon Expressway was at Middlefield Road. Currently Middlefield
19 is the bottleneck and controls the whole corridor in terms of coordinating and cycle lengths.
20
21 The general strategies for part of this project are to upgrade the traffic signal equipment and
22 improve the coordination. To change the side street lane configurations and signal phasing
23 patterns. To channelize pedestrians to safer crossing areas, and improve the actual crossing
24 facilities, and straighten out the crosswalks. The main intent is to improve the safety of
25 pedestrian and bicycle crossings, and also restrict some side street movements at the unsignalized
26 intersections where they are currently allowed to tum left or go through Oregon Expressway.
27
28 A summary of our recommendations. We do endorse the County's recommendation for
29 improvements at eight of the nine intersections, which include West Bayshore, Indian, Greer,
30 Louis, Cowper, Waverley, and Bryant. We also endorse the recommended improvements at
31 Middlefield Road, which does include the widening and removal and replacement of four trees.
32 We did want to also mention that we understand that there might be some other issues other than
33 traffic. So there is another alternative that is also acceptable.
34
35 At Ross Road the County's current recommendation is to keep it as an unsignalized intersection
36 and the Staffs recommendation is to signalize it and it would be consistent with the bicycle
37 boulevard that is planned for Ross Road.
38
39 The other recommendations are to direct Staff to work with the County, the neighborhood
40 groups, P ABAC, and so forth to develop detailed design plans for implementation. Also to
41 direct Staff to continue monitoring the traffic after implementation and report back within six
42 months.
43
44 At the various public meetings several comments were continually raised and they include: that
45 the improvements should focus on pedestrians and bicyclists' safety, the improvements should
46 eliminate conflicting movements with left tum vehicles and pedestrians or left turns through
Page 2
1 opposing vehicles. The proposed improvements at Middlefield should minimize impacts on the
2 landscaping strips, trees, and it should also be noted that the early proposals for Middlefield had
3 much more widening and removal of up to 13 trees and the County has worked hard to reduce
4 that down to an option that removes four trees and zero trees.
5
6 The early concepts for Bryant and Louis needed major modifications based on the public's input.
7 The public also felt full median enclosures at Waverley and Ross were too restrictive but in
8 general they were okay with it at Indian.
9
10 Just to summarize the individual intersections, at West Bayshore Road the plan is to widen and
11 include a bicycle slot between the left and right tum lanes. At Indian they are proposing to
12 extend the median through the intersection, which would allow only a right tum in and a right
13 turn out. At Greer Road they would add left turn lanes and improve the pedestrian crossings.
14 The signal operation would be converted to eight-phase, which includes protected left turns.
15 This would elinlinate the left turn conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. It should also be noted
16 that Greer is a school commute route to Jordan that is heavily used. Similarly, Louis is also a
17 school route. At Louis there are similar improvements, the left turn lanes, and the eight-phase
18 operation. There are currently rolled curbs at Louis, which would be converted to vertical curbs.
19 Currently there are cars that drive up onto the sidewalks when making right turns, and again
20 elinlination of the left tum conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians. At Cowper Street the
21 improvements would include left turn lanes and eight-phase operation, and also the pedestrian
22 crossing improvements. At Waverley Street the intent would be to remove the through and left
23 turns out of Waverley onto or across Oregon Expressway, and also to remove the marked
24 crosswalks. At Bryant Street a new bike slot would be provided for the southbound approach.
25 The intersection would still operate with split phasing but there would only be one crosswalk, the
26 west side crosswalk would be removed, and that would still allow for the split-phased operations
27 to work with the coordinated system.
28
29 On to Ross Road, the County's recommendation to keep it as an unsignalized intersection but
30 allow left turns off of Oregon Expressway. It would remove the left turns from Ross onto
31 Oregon Expressway and also the through movements forcing vehicles to turn right. Bicyclists
32 would also need to turn right or they would need to dismount and walk across. The
33 configuration that the County proposes does allow for future signalization that is compatible with
34 the bike boulevard for Ross.
35
36 Staff's recommendation is a third alternative which includes the signalization and the bike slot
37 and is consistent with the bike boulevard project. It will provide a protective pedestrian crossing.
38 Right now it is probably limited to funding constraints otherwise it is in general the favorite
39 alternative of most.
40
41 Here you can see Alternative 2, which is currently proposed by the County, unsignalized and
42 provides a right turn only lane, the crosswalks are removed. Alternative 3 shows a modification
43 that fits in with the previous Alternative but it is signalized still forcing the right turns from Ross.
44 There is a protected bike slot and a protected crosswalk. This configuration is very similar to
45 what is currently out at Bryant and Embarcadero. At Middlefield Road both the County and
46 Staffwere in agreement for recommending Alternative 3, which would require widening of five
Page 3
1 feet, provide left tum lanes, and improve pedestrian crossing. It would allow the eight-phase
2 signal operation. It is consistent with the mitigation measures that are identified in our City
3 Comprehensive Plan to construct left turn lanes and allow two through lanes in each direction of
4 Middlefield Road. Again, this would require widening and reducing the planting strip from four
5 feet to two and a half feet, and it would replace four existing trees with smaller size ones. There
6 is a fourth alternative which wouldn't require any widening but there would only be a single
7 northbound through lane. The current peak hour traffic volumes show that both work roughly
8 the same but there are fluctuations where there might momentarily large demands of northbound
9 through traffic, which could cause longer queues and backups. Alternative 3, which is
10 recommended would provide more flexibility to accommodate that. Also, there would be an
11 offset with Alternative 4 in the southbound lane of about five feet.
12
13 This is Alternative 3, the modified version, which shows you can see in the bottonl picture there
14 is a left tum lane, a through lane, and then it is actually a through and a shared right turn lane.
15 The current peak hour demand may cause that right turn lane to operate almost exclusively as a
16 right tum lane but it does have the flexibility to allow through traffic if the demand calls for it.
17 Then no widening alternative, Alternative 4, that right lane would have to be a right turn only
18 lane because there is not enough room for receiving two lanes on the other side with the addition
19 of the left tum lane. Again, there is the offset and that is why you would see a line painted
20 across the intersection coming in the other direction.
21
22 The County prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The findings of that report show that the
23 intersection of Middlefield would improve from currently deficient levels to acceptable levels
24 with either Alternative 3 or 4. The other signalized intersections would operate roughly the same
25 conditions even though you are adding a left turn phase. The main point is that the safety of
26 those intersections would improve.
27
28 The average speeds could increase from what they are currently at, 20 miles an hour, to 23 miles
29 an hour during the peak periods. This could come from enhanced coordination along the
30 corridor. The improvements at the unsignalized intersections would probably have a minimal
31 effect on the way the corridor as a whole operates in tenns of traveling up and down Oregon.
32
33 In conclusion, again, Staff is in agreement with each of the County's recommendations with the
34 exception of Ross Road where Staff recommends the signalization alternative. We concur with
35 the County for the recommended improvements at Middlefield Road from a traffic perspective it
36 allows the most flexibility. However, if widening cannot be accommodated we would
37 recommend Alternative 4 over the do nothing alternative, which is currently at an unacceptable
38 level. We are available for any questions and so is the County Staf£
39
40 Ms. Caporgno: I don't know if anyone from the County would like to offer any comments
41 before we tum it back over to the Commission.
42
43 Mr. Dan Collen, Deputy Director of the County Roads and Airports Department: Thank you. I
44 don't have a lot to add I just wanted to say that we deeply appreciate the involvement of the City
45 Staff at each step of the way helping us through this process. I want to say thank you to the
46 participants in this process including Commissioner Keller, who was at each of our meetings,
Page 4
1 and thank tl~e residents and citizens of Palo Alto for participating in our process and openly
2 sharing your concerns, trusting us to process that information and work through the alternatives
3 which we refined at each step of the way to fine tune a produce, which we think will well serve
4 the citizens of Palo Alto and the users of Oregon Expressway at the same time. So I will make
5 myself available, to answer the questions. Thank you.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Before you leave, I believe there is a question for you. Commissioner
8 Lippert.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Could you just briefly comment on the Staff s recommen,dation in terms
11 of alternatives and how the County feels about it.
12
13 Mr. Collen: I think that we are basically in alignment. The only difference between what we .
14 had proposed for Palo Alto consideration and what Staffhas suggested instead is that Ross where
15 the City Staffis recommending the Alternative 3. We only propose Alternative 2 as a matter of
16 timing and perhaps a matter of funding. We don't know what all the final costs are going to add
1 7 up to be but we know that adding a new traffic signal will have cost for the proj ect. So we felt
18 that the first step was to setup the intersection to function as if it was going to have the bike
19 boulevard treatment, and not implement the bike boulevard improvements until such a time as
20 the bigger bike boulevard project went forward. So for us is it nlore just a nlatter of timing. If
21 the City is prepared to move forward with that improvement at this time then we will certainly
22 try to incorporate that into the project. Like I said, it is just now a matter of costing everything
23 out and prioritizing and seeing where we are.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Does City Staffhave anything else to add?
28
29 Mr. Rius: Not at the moment.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller had submitted some questions. If the Staffwould
32 care to go over those that would be great.
33
34 Mr. Rius: We received five questions and I would like the County to help in answering numbers
35 one, three, and four. We can answer question number two. I am not sure if we have them
36 available anywhere. The first question is what are the approximate projected costs of each
37 proposed option by intersection.
38
39 Mr. Collen: This was a conceptual plan development at this time. It has not been costed out yet.
40 We wanted to focus on what the desired improvements were and we will put the cost numbers on
41 later. We do know from general experience that an intersection rebuild or redo of the traffic
42 signals can cost on the order of $200,000 to $250,000 per intersection. So we are talking about
43 nine intersections needing some kind of treatment. When we extend that out that is real close to
44 where we think we are in terms of the amount of money that will be available for the
45 construction contract. So we are real close right now we think but the bidding environment
46 changes from season to season and year to year. So right now the snapshot says we are looking
Page 5
1 good but we really need to get into a more detailed development of construction plans, maybe a
2 30 percent level to get a much better handle on what the anticipated costs will be.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: With respect to that question, presumably if we used Option 4 on
5 Middlefield Road that would be cheaper than Option 3M. So one of the interesting questions
6 that we would since the cost of the Ross Road Option 3 versus Option 2 depends largely on
7 cost one of the issues is that if Option 4 is cheaper than Option 3M by sufficient amount that it
8 pays for the signalized intersection at Ross Road then that might sway the Commission one way
9 or the other. Similarly, ifin tenns of the tradeoff for West Bayshore whether we make
10 improvements on that considering there are almost no bicyclists taking that route versus moving
11 that improvement over to Ross Road, those are the kinds oftradeoffs I think we need to
12 understand.
13
14 Mr. Collen: I think it is early to make those decisions because we don't have the cost figures to
15 really say that we need to tradeoff location A for location B. I don't think that we need to make
16 those tradeoffs at this time. Our rough estimate is projecting out with a rough dollar per
17 intersection estimate everything should be covered. So we are not at a point of tradeoff yet.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. The next one?
20
21 Mr. Rius: The second question is what are the constraints on spending the City of Palo Alto
22 funds?
23
24 Ms. Gayle Likens. Consultant: The Stanford Research Park Impact Fee Ordinance specifies the
25 use of the funds and how they can be used. I will quote from it in an abbreviated fonnat for the
26 sections that are applicable. The monies in the fund shall be eligible for expenditure only for the
27 capacity improvements at the designated intersections including Middlefield and Oregon as
28 being one of the four, or for alternative improvements or alternative intersections that are
29 detennined by the Chief Transportation Official subject to the approval of the City Council to
30 provide adequate feasible alternative mitigation of those impacts addressed in the EIR that are
31 proposed to be mitigated by the capacity improvements, etc., etc. So at this point the alternative
32 improvement that is recommended for Middlefield is totally consistent with the description of
33 the impact and mitigation in the EIR. Any change to that we would have to evaluate and discuss
34 with our City Attorney's Office and report to the City Council and make a recommendation to
35 them. We are not prepared at this point to make a detennination as to how the funds could be
36 used alternatively.
37
38 Mr. Rius: Question nUITlber three is what trees are being removed for this project, including on
39 the Oregon median, and what are the proposals for the replacement?
40
41 Mr. Collen: The only trees that would be proposed to be impacted by this project would be the
42 four trees that are involved with the Alternative 3, Modified on Middlefield. There is no impact
43 on trees in the median of Oregon.
44
45 The question about replacement is addressed in the Arborist Report that we had done. That
46 report worked out three alternatives. I don't think we are limited or bound to those three
Page 6
1 alternatives. I think they are just a starting point and as we go into design then we could work
2 much closer with Palo Alto Staff and the residents to come up with an acceptable plan.
3
4 Mr. Rius: Question number four is what are the prospects of replacing damaged landscaping on
5 the south side of Oregon caused by the sidewalk project? .
6
7 Mr. Collen: There were some trees that were removed by the sidewalk construction that is
8 shown in your handouts as by another contract, well that was the contact. It was worked through
9 conceptually in our Expressway Plantling Study Update that was completed in 2008. Then it waS
10 also included in the discussion at the community meetings in the development of the project
11 description. For ease of construction we put it into the paving project for timeliness as well. It
12 just was an opportunity and it also allowed us to address the routine accommodation as a part of
13 a paving project to bring in some pedestrian facilities at the same time. So there were some trees
14 that were impacted by the proj ect. The most significant impacts actually resulted from trenching
15 irrigation, which we included in the project at the request of Palo Alto Maintenance Staff. We
16 were happy to include that in the project but it did have some impacts. We are currently offering
17 and working with the Palo Alto Staff right now on some replacement plantings that could be
18 done with the current contract or I suppose left over and rolled into this follow on contract.
19
20 Mr. Rius: The fifth question is if we can comment on the Middlefield Road intersection any
21 preference by some on the alternatives. The statistics on Table 1 in the report does not show
22 much difference between the two alternatives and should we require additional statistics on
23 differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: I think there might be a clarification of that question from the author.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I actually verbally gave that question to Zariah so it was transcribed
28 and doesn't have my usual way of writing questions. My understanding is if you look at
29 Middlefield Road it appears that Table 1 basically indicates there is not much difference in
30 timing from Alternative 3M and Alternative 4. But when you look at this big fat report it
31 appears that the main difference is that there are more people on the northbound side going
32 straight then turning right. There seem to be relatively few pedestrians by your data but there
33 apparently are a lot of bicyclists. So perhaps the fine point to put on this question is if you can
34 compare one through lane and one right lane versus two through lanes with respect to the
35 pedestrianlbicyclist conflict on the logical east side crossing Oregon Expressway because the
36 number of bicyclists according to your data is as many as 33 in the PM rush hour and that is
37 about half as how many take Bryant Street in that location, which is actually amazing data for me
38 to see. So I am sort of wondering the extent to which that bicyclist/pedestrian conflict makes
39 that right turn lane better as a right turn lane or right tum lane better as a through lane.
40
41 Mr. Collen: I think the analysis will tend to average things out and not show much difference.
42 What Alternative 3 gives you is more flexibility. You have the ability for any particular cycle of
43 the signal if most of the cars are going through. They can balance in the lane stacking as
44 opposed to having to stack in one lane with very few right turns. Or if there are right turns that
45 need be accommodated they can use the right lane that is a shared through and right. So by
Page 7
1 being a shared through and right then it gives you more flexibility to deal with the situation that
2 occurs with any particular cycle of light.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: In an ideal world that makes sense but since I am approaching
5 northbound probably from Marion or whatever the next street is and if I am heading northbound
6 I ne~d to know which lane I should take. I don't know whether there are going to be right tum
7 people ahead of me who are prevented from making a right tum because a pedestrian or bicyclist
8 shows up at that intersection. So it is hard for me to make that decision and I can't move over if
9 I am already at the interchange. So that is where the question arises.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Gayle.
12
13 Ms. Likens: Another aspect of this Alternative 3 versus 4 for bicyclists, and Middlefield is
14 largely an adult cyclist commuter route not withstanding those bicyclists that may be on the
15 sidewalk, but in the Alternative 4 the curb lane becomes a right turn lane. Therefore all
16 bicyclists who are turning north would need to merge over into the through lane and that is less
17 desirable at a major intersection like this. We recognize that Alternative 3 does have narrow
18 lanes, nine and a half foot lanes. So the cyclists are going to have to take the lane but to make
19 that merge over into the through lane is another maneuver that is less desirable for the through
20 cyclists.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, unless there are any burning clarifying
23 questions we have 17 speakers so I would like to get to the public. With the public's and
24 Commission's forbearance if there is anybody here who has a snlall child that would like to
25 come and speak first, if they have turned in a card. If you have a small child with you and you
26 need to speak first if you would identify yourself, and if you have already turned in a card.
27 There are two? You will have three minutes. What is your name, sweetie?
28
29 Miss Anuva Benwasy, Palo Alto: To dear City of Palo Alto, having lots of trees is a really good
30 idea. Please do not cut trees in front of my house. Think of the little children like me who love
31 biking, roller blading, and walking. I love Palo Alto. Please keep it green and safe. Thank you.
32 Anuva Benwasy, second grade. Thi~ is a picture I drew for City of Palo Alto.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much. Nice job. Does your dad want to speak as well?
35 And you have turned in a card? So if you would come forward and identify yourself.
36
37 Mr. Andy Benwasy, Palo Alto: I live on Middlefield Road. To the City of Palo Alto, we, that is
38 me, my wife, and Anuva live in the last house on the northwest side of the intersection of
39 Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway, which is pretty much going southbound. We moved
40 into this beautiful tree-lined neighborhood, section of Palo Alto, just in April 2009. We bought
41 this house particularly for its greenery, proximity to Jordan, and for its kid-friendly surroundings.
42 We have a seven-year-old daughter, Anuva, who has dreams of growing up here and cycling to
43 Jordan when she is ready for middle school.
44
45 While there is certainly merit in improving the traffic patterns it is extremely important to do it in
46 a responsible manner that takes into account the people most affected by it. One of them us who
Page 8
1 lives right on that intersection. We researched immensely before considering several other
2 places before we moved into this neighborhood we love, and would like to nurture it with love
3 and care for several years to come. To find out the very reason we moved here is now
4 challenged pains our heart. Taking away a pedestrian, a bike, and kid friendly section and trees
5 in front of our beloved house is like defeating the purpose and roots on which this whole
6 neighborhood is built on. We implore that you consider this pretty seriously. Please do not take
7 away a kid friendly sidewalk and turn it into a place where our daughter cannot even think of
8 . stepping out without fearing her safety. Let's all resolve to spare all to the ones who are most
9 effected by this process, which is people who live close to Oregon Expressway. We have
10 confidence in you, confidence in the Palo Alto officials, and we know you will do what is best
11 for Palo Alto in the long term. We think there can be nothing else best for Palo Alto than to be
12 able to preserve, protect, and grow including the children friendly community, bike and people
13 friendly sidewalks, and its great heritage. Thank you.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I thought there was somebody else who had a small child
but I guess not. If you will come forward and identify yourself. I am going to assume the public
is fine with this. You will have three minutes.
Ms. Priya Satia, Palo Alto: I live on the southeast side of the Middlefield-Oregon Expressway
intersection. I just wanted to start by thanking you for listening to our comments and thanking
the County as well for involving us in this process. Although as one of the emails that you
received mentioned this particular discussion came as somewhat ofa surprise to many of us. We
had not received much notice about it or about the results of the previous meeting at the school
on Middlefield.
I just wanted to state as strongly as I can that Alternative 3, 3M it is called now, for Middlefield
is absolutely unthinkable for the people who live near that intersection. Even for people who
live within blocks of it as you can see from some of the emails you got. It is just a maj or safety
issue. The way the County in these discussions have characterized Middlefield is that it is a
bottleneck for traffic. But for people who live within the area Middlefield's real identity is that it
is the place that has all the recreation sites, all the schools, all the shops. It is the main
thoroughfare for the entire neighborhood from the Junior Zoo to the Children's Library, the ice
cream store, the schools, the parks, everything is there. Kids move along those sidewalks in
packs. There are strollers, and I have a double stroller because I have two small children under
the age of four as do many of the people on my block. So that is the identity of Middlefield for
those of us who live there.
Those land strips are absolutely essential buffers. You feel just absolutely naked at the idea of
living there without those land strips as wide as they are now. It just seems very, very
dangerous.
We strongly prefer Alternative 4 as many of us said at that last meeting. The concern with that
however is that it still involves three lanes on the northbound side. Many of us were curious why
there had been no consideration of widening the road by taking space from the southwest side of
that intersection where there is only one house that seems to be kind of unoccupied. I don't
know what the status is of that house. There is a big church with a lot of lawn space at the front
Page 9
1 of it. It seems like a useful option that has not for some reason been in play at all. So we would
2 really prefer if there are going to be three lanes at all that the street be widened in that direction,
3 and that we have some statistics about impacts on accidents, impacts on traffic in that area so we
4 have some sense of whether this is just going to turn into a dangerous zone for cars and people or
5 not.
6
7 The last thing is I just want to repeat what the child said earlier. This is a time, a moment, where
8 we should be thinking green. I do think we should improve that intersection. The signals are
9 horrible. The curbs are horrible. The curb cuts are horrible. But the VT A is starved for money
10 right now. I don't know how the bureaucracy works and how funds get appropriated for
11 different things. I have been talking to the VTA and one of your Council Merrlbers about the 35
12 bus and we would rather see money invested in that type of improvement than in shoving more
13 cars in Middlefield Road. Thank you.
14
15 Commissioner Holnlan: Thank you. So we will start at the top of the order of cards. Sheri
16 Furman will be first followed by David Fryberger. We are putting the drawing into the public
17 record.
18
19 Ms. Sheri Furman. Palo Alto: Good evening. I want to point out that although the Midtown
20 Residents Association has met with City Officials and County Officials and facilitated meetings
21 with residents we are not taking a particular position on this because there are varied opinions.
22 So we will continue to meet with them as a stakeholder but tonight I am speaking just for myself
23 as somebody who has lived in Midtown for 30-plus years.
24
25 I just have some points for you to consider during your deliberations. I said before, because I
26 have spoken on this topic nlany times, that although the County considers Oregon an expressway
27 it really isn't one in the typical sense of the words. At 35 miles per hour it is more like a
28 boulevard. We need to balance the County's desire to move traffic between 101 and EI Camino
29 as quickly and efficiently as possible but the residents need to be able to· get across town. The
30 more emphasis we place on Oregon as a commuter corridor the bigger the divide Oregon creates
31 between North and South Palo Alto.
32
33 While I do appreciate the substantial safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, keep in
34 mind that providing for school crossings at Ross, Louis, and Greer will necessitate sufficient
35 time for kids to cross, not just the normal pedestrian walking. The kids will take longer. So keep
36 that in mind.
37
38 The Middlefield issue is a tricky one. Do we not remove trees and instead have substandard
39 lanes? Keep in mind that the VTA Route 35 bus goes down Middlefield so very narrow lanes
40 could be problematic.
41
42 Restricting turns to and from Oregon forces traffic onto neighboring streets. I ask that you
43 continue to allow left turns onto Indian and Waverley and Ross if you don't choose to add a
44 signal, to provide residents a way of getting into to the neighborhood without further stacking up
45 at signalized intersections. I also ask that you seriously consider limiting parking restrictions
46 along the streets crossing Oregon to specific commuter times rather than 24 hours a day, seven
Page 10
1 days a week. Residents should not be penalized simply to make things more efficient for a few
2 hours a day.
3
4 A final comment. Both the 101 auxiliary lane project and metering lights at Oregon/I 01 are
5 desperately needed and will become reality in the next couple of years. Yet it is unclear how
6 they coordinate with the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. I don't know if they are
7 going to cause further delays or what but it again is something to keep in mind. Please consider
8 incorporating some of these comments into your recommendations to Council, particularly the
9 limited parking restrictions. Thank you.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Could you please restate your comment about the parking restrictions?
12
13 Ms. Furman: Well, what I am saying is consider having the parking restrictions only during the
14 peak AM and PM commute times. So on weekends if somebody has a party people can park in
15 front of their house when traffic is less frequent. So something isn't in effect at three in the
16 morning and all of that. That is the idea behind that. Because some of these are 150 feet.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Understand. Okay, thank you much. David Fryberger followed by
19 Betsy Fryberger.
20
21 Mr. David Fryberger, Palo Alto: I have been a physicist at SLAC for over 40 years and I am
22 speaking as a long time Palo Alto resident and a member of FRED, an acronym standing for
23 Friends of Reasonable Expressway Design. FRED consists of a group of Palo Alto residents
24 who came together out of concerns and questions about the Oregon Improvement Project. We
25 have gathered over 500 signatures from supporters.
26
27 I will talk mainly about the Middlefield alternatives. The traffic study by Kimley-Hom and
28 Associates assigns the Middlefield intersection a Level of Service of E, the lowest LOS of all the
29 Oregon intersections. LOS scale ranges from A, which is the best to F, which is the worst. The
30 County is carrying forward two alternatives for Middlefield, 3M, which they favor, and 4, which
31 is favored by FRED as well as over 70 percent of the respondents of the Jordan meeting. City
32 Staff also favors 3M but as we have just heard it does not appear to oppose 4. The K-H traffic
33 study includes simulations and evaluations of these two alternatives and compares them to the
34 existing situation. In the Staff Report for this meeting Tables are furnished for this comparison.
35 This has been discussed before and I am really backing up what has already been said.
36
37 Table 1 on page 5 indicates both alternatives improve the Middlefield LOS from E to D, and
38 detailed examinations of the criteria found in Table 1 indicates that 3M and 4 are both
39 significantly better than the existing situation but they are essentially comparable to each other.
40 In fact in some cases 4 is slightly better than 3M.
41
42 In Table 2 on page 6 the three corridor wide simulations to enable comparison between 3M and 4
43 for Middlefield Road are given. The three are existing. There is scenario one, which is
44 Middlefield 4 plus all the other intersections, and scenario two which is Middlefield 3M and all
45 the other intersections. Again, we see that both scenarios one, which includes 4 and scenario
46 two, which includes 3M, are essentially comparable. That is the results of the traffic study and
Page 11
1 simulation do not indicate a superiority of 3M over 4, but show that both are significantly
2 superior to the present situation. Thus it appears to me that from a traffic improvement point of
3 view favoring 3M over 4 for Middlefield Road is without proper technical or analytical support.
4
5 Finally, I would like to point out a problem with the tree and sidewalk options for Alternative
6 3M, and I was surprised to find out there were three options instead of the two that are on the
7 website of the County. At present there are 11 feet from curb face to lot side edge of the
8 sidewalk, six feet of this comprises a six-inch curb plus a five and a half foot planting strip. The
9 remaining five feet are the sidewalk. In Alternative 3M these 11 feet have to accommodate a
10 five-foot widening of the pavement, a six-inch curb, and a two-foot planting strip, and a five-foot
11 sidewalk. This is not possible without encroaching on the homeowner's area on the lot side or
12 installing a narrower sidewalk. I consider this problem not sufficiently addressed in the data we
13 have. Thank you.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Betsy Fryberger followed by Nancy Moss.
16
17 Ms. Betsy Fryberger, Palo Alto: I am a long time resident with my husband, David, on
18 Middlefield Road. I have been a Curator at the Cantor Art Center at Stanford. I am about to
19 retire. I have been on the City's Tree Task Force, on the Board of the Gamble Garden, and
20 caring about trees really goes back to my childhood experiences in Chicago where we lived near
21 Lincoln Park. So I continue to plant and care for City strips on Middlefield hoping to encourage
22 other residents to beautify the space and care for the trees. At Stanford one of the exhibitions I
23 organized was about garden history and actually the catalog was recognized in reviews in the
24 New York Times and the Los Angles Times as among one of the top garden pUblications of the
25 year. So from my historical perspective about Olmstead and urban planning I 'really just want to
26 emphasize the importance of trees and green space to help civilize urban areas as well as small
27 neighborhoods. That is why I anl disturbed by Santa Clara County's plan to widen Middlefield.
28 This is in opposition to some of the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
29
30 I want to thank and acknowledge the City Arborist, Eric Krebs, whose comments are found very
31 late on in that long Staff Report you have received, about doing away with the trees on the west
32 side of Middlefield. He states the recommendations of the County do not provide adequate
33 planting sites or canopy replacenlents for future trees.
34
35 So here is what I would hope Palo Alto's priorities should be. One is to reduce our carbon
36 footprint. It is well known that cutting down trees raises the C02 content. Reduce automobile
37 traffic by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle usage. Reduce the possibility of traffic accidents
38 by promoting a safety barrier between street and sidewalk. Many students as well as other
39 pedestrians use these sidewalks. I see the County failing to advance any of these priorities.
40
41 Palo Alto is a well-educated and forward-looking community, and we should be a leader in
42 facing such tough issues and reaching decisions that send positive messages. We should not
43 settle for endorsing out of date ideas detrimental to our environment. We urge you to reject 3M
44 and vote for Alternative 4.
45
Page 12
1 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. The next speaker is Nancy Moss and we don't start the
2 timer by the way until you are set and have stated your name, and when the yellow light goes on
3 you have a minute left.
4
5 Ms. Nancy Moss, Palo Alto: Okay, thank you. Since 1980 I have lived next to Middlefield
6 Road on Garland. Since 1978 I have worked as a health and medical scientist at the National
7 Institute. for Child Health and Human Development. I am currently at San Francisco State
8 University.
9
10 From a public health and safety perspective, especially with the needs of our children in mind,
11 Alternative 4 is the only viable option for the Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway intersection.
12 We cannot support narrowing the sidewalk and widening Middlefield in close proximity to the
13 homes of families with young children, and in an area heavily used by children and young people
14 going back and forth to school at Jordan, Walter Hays, Ohlone, and to buy snacks and hang out
15 at Midtown. Families with preschool children, as you have heard earlier, live in the immediate
16 area where the County proposes to remove street trees and narrow the existing sidewalk.
17
18 So let's look at the health effects of traffic exposure on people of all ages, as published in the
19 peer review literature. These are all from medical journals in the National Library of Medicine.
20 First of all, long-term exposure to road traffic noises increases sleep disturbance, daytime
21 fatigue, hearing loss, and the prevalence of respiratory disorders. Specifically, proximity to
22 heavy traffic exacerbates the symptoms of asthma in young children, and increases the risk of
23 cardiovascular disease especially deep vein thrombosis among adults. It decreases immune
24 function among women and reinforces the negative impact of stress on health.
25
26 Parkland in the neighborhood as Betsy suggested can improve well being. Also, and in
27 particular, traffic density at intersections combined with a presence of retail establishments and
28 educational sites is associated with child pedestrian casualties varying by time of day and day of
29 the week. Now this month, August 2009, just by chance the American Academy of Pediatrics
30 Con1ll1ittee on Injury, Violence Prevention, and Poison Prevention issued the following
31 statement, which is very pertinent to the current County plan for Oregon Expressway and
32 Middlefield Road. Each year approximately 900 pediatric pedestrians, younger than 19 years,
33 are killed in traffic accidents. In addition, 51,000 children are injured and 5,300 of them are
34 hospitalized because of their injuries. Parents should be warned that young children often do not
35 have the cognitive perceptual and behavioral abilities to negotiate traffic independently. I would
36 suggest that that is particularly true where you have a sidewalk strip that has been narrowed or
37 where traffic flows have been increased. Most importantly, and this is the message for Palo
38 Alto, the AAP says it supports community and school-based strategies that nlinimize a child's
39 exposure to traffic especially to high-speed, high-volume traffic. How could the City of Palo
40 Alto fail to prioritize family and child safety/well being over traffic? Thank you.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Judith Wasserman is next followed by Elly Duncan.
43
44 Ms. Judith Wasserman. Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners and temporary Chair Holman.
45 I am the last FRED speaker here today and I wanted to first thank the County for actually
46 listening to us, because their proposals were far worse originally. As far as we are concerned at
Page 13
1 the Middlefield Road intersection there is just this one item of the trees and narrowing, it is not
2 so much narrowing the sidewalks as narrowing the division between the traffic and the
3 sidewalks.
4
5 There are a couple of things that I didn't understand about the Staff Report on why they prefer
6 3M, although you did explain about the bicyclists coming northbound. When you get to the
7 north side o( Oregon Expressway you lose that second lane. So the question is are you going to
8 merge after you cross in the more residential area and create all this conflict in that one block
9 where you have to create one lane out two, or are you going to sort the traffic on the south side
10 and have everybody decide what they are going to do before they make the crossing, which
11 seems to me to make a lot more sense because the closer you get to the school crossing the more
12 kids you have sort of screwing around trying to decide whether they are on the sidewalk or on
13 the street. The middle name of all junior high school students is 'oblivious.' They just don't pay
14 attention to who is coming or where they are. They just walk in groups and talk to each other.
15 That was my big concern with that particular concept.
16
17 Then specifically about the Comprehensive Plan, about a year ago I sent you an analysis of how
18 the County proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. All of these quotes are taken from
19 the Transportation Element. Forget all the nice things about how we are tree loving, green,
20 sustainable, whatever the Transportation Element says that you should develop comprehensive
21 roadway design standards that emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety. That effective use of the
22 traffic carrying ability of the major street network should be effective without compromising the
23 needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy T -39 says prioIitize pedestrian, bicycle, and
24 automobile safety over vehicle level of service at intersections. I have one more quote about the
25 residential arterials. It says the City's objective is to address the desires of residents of these
26 streets who would like to have slower speeds, safer conditions for bicycles and pedestrians, and
27 aesthetic improvements. So thank you very much. FRED favors 4.
28
29 Comnlissioner Holnlan: Thank you. Elly Duncan followed by Elizabeth Schwerer. Elly
30 Duncan is not here. Elizabeth Schwerer followed by John Ciccarelli.
31
32 Ms. Elizabeth Schwerer, Palo Alto: Hi I am speaking on behalf of the Ohlone Elementary
33 School community as represented by the PTA, Executive Board, the Site Council, and the Traffic
34 Committee. We described our request in detail in an email we sent this committee in March of
35 this year. Those requests pertain to the intersections at Louis, Greer, Indian, and West Bayshore
36 roads. Several nlembers of the Ohlone conlmunity have been struck by cars while crossing
37 Oregon Expressway on foot or bicycle on their way to school. Because of these accidents we
38 studied the intersections closest to Ohlone to understand what made them unsafe. Louis and
39 Greer are really the ones of those that are most traveled by people getting to Ohlone.
40
41 If you look at those intersections you can see that the way they are structured in combination
42 with their traffic loads actually functions to distract drivers' attention away from bicyclists and
43 away from the crosswalks. We met with County Engineers in an early phase of this project to
44 talk to them about the safety problems we see and we are just so grateful, we are extremely
45 grateful, that their recommendations for those four intersections reflect all the engineering
46 improvements that we believe are needed at those four intersections.
Page 14
1
2 So what we are asking the City and County now is to move forward as quickly as possible on
3 these safety improvements because even in the last few months there have been more injury
4 accidents at those intersections. Thank you.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. John Ciccarelli followed by Mike Aberg followed Pam
7 Radin.
8
9 Mr. John Ciccarelli, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Holman. I am a long time former resident of
10 Palo Alto up until about 2006. Former owner of 2321 Ross smack dab between Garland and
11 Oregon. I make my living as a bicycle planning consultant and I was one of the co-authors of the
12 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Plan.
13
14 I think it is useful to look at a bit of history, as to why. I am going to speak mostly towards the
15, Ross Road intersection. Oregon Expressway split the city in the 1960s and we as citizens and
16 planners have been trying to stitch it back together ever since. It split Midtown. Over time
1 7 crossing improvements have been enacted at Bryant and Louis, incremental improvements to
18 make it easier to get across the street that was not there before. Oregon even striped shoulders
19 that function as a de facto bike lane. The 2003 bike plan looked at improving crossings of
20 Oregon including a bicycle boulevard concept for Ross, which makes sense not in the Oregon
21 context, but citywide.
22
23 A Ross Road bicycle boulevard makes a lot of sense. It is important to think of it not as just
24 Ross Road access but Ross, Newell all the way to Woodland, to University Circle, all the way to
25 Menlo Park via Chaucer and Pope, all the way to the south end of town to the Baylands, an
26 environment that doesn't exist elsewhere in the east side of Midtown. Louis has bike lanes. It is
27 a fine street to bicycle on but it is not a place where you take your little kid out that is still a little
28 wobbly. Bryant is. Ross best serves the heart of Midtown, the shopping, the restaurants, the
29 YMCA. It is by far the closest alternative and that is why it makes the most sense. But beyond
30 serving Midtown it does have this cross-town function. It has potential to be just as good a
31 three-mile corridor in combination with Newell and the north end branches as Bryant is on its
32 side of town. Jordan, the schools, the fields, the Lucie Stem Center, the Main Library, the Art
33 Center, the Ross YMCA, Mitchell Park, University Circle for the lawyers that work there. So it
34 is important to get Ross going and seize this opportunity.
35
36 Alternative 2 for crossing Oregon on Ross is insufficient. It doesn't provide for a bicycle
37 through movement. I urge you to support and fund Alternative 3 including immediate signal
38 coordination with Middlefield. Fix the right tum island on the south side. The design blocks the
39 bicycle through movement in the eastbound direction. Consider adding an east leg pedestrian
40 crosswalk as well as a west leg. Then start to work on enhancing Ross as a bike boulevard. All
41 you need to do to connect it to Jordan is to make it possible to get from Garland to the California
42 end of Jordan. Longer term you can do better by knitting Newell together with Ross. Thank
43 you.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Mike Aberg followed Pam Radin followed by Jeff
46 Weitzman
Page 15
1
2 Mr. Mike Aberg, Palo Alto: Hi live on Moreno Avenue right in between Middlefield and Ross
3 Road. I use Ross Road almost every day or at least three times a week as part of my bike
4 commute down to Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale. I strongly support Alternative number 3 for
5 Ross Road. I think that is the right thing to do.
6
7 One of the things is we don't have a bike boulevard type of thing on our side of Middlefield. I
8 guess that would be the east side of Middlefield. I think Ross Road could also serve as a really
9 good alternative to Middlefield Road if we are talking about the tough crossing on Middlefield
10 and Oregon.
11
12 I guess another thing to consider is if we were going to make a bike boulevard on Louis, well
13 there are already bike lanes on Louis. I go down Louis as a bicyclist but I wouldn't take my kids
14 down Louis so much. I think Ross Road would be a lot better, more kid friendly way to go.
15
16 I am just going to read through a couple of bullet points here and then I will get off the stage and
17 let other people talk. Like I said before Ross is my bike commute down to Lockheed Martin,
18 Sunnyvale. The Ross light at Oregon would open up the bike commute to North Palo Alto from
19 the South and also it would open up Midtown a lot more for the folks up in North Palo Alto.
20 Placing Ross bike and pedestrian crossing, all three, also allows North Palo Alto access to other
21 things besides Midtown like the new Mitchell Library, the Ross Road YMCA, the new Jewish
22 Community Center, and also the Baylands. Ross is a calm commute compared to Louis Road.
23 Louis is a connector street with greater traffic. I think I have said my piece. I could probably
24 say a lot more but please support Alternative number 3 for the Ross Road crossing. I think it
25 makes a whole lot of sense and I think it is something that Midtown has needed for a long time.
26 Thanks.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Pam Radin followed by Jeff Weitzman and then Tatiana
29 VanHouten.
30
31 Ms. Pam Radin, Palo Alto: Hi. I am here just to support Ross Road and to thank the County for
32 all the great work they have done. Thank you.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: Jeff Weitzman followed by Tatiana Van Houten.
35
36 Mr. Jeff Weitzman, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Ross Road, about six houses south of Oregon. I have
37 listened to everybody's comments today and really appreciate the thoughtful comments that
38 everybody has made and a lot of the work that they have done. I would urge this Commission to
39 think of this system as a whole. I think looking at things in isolation is probably the biggest
40 mistake you can make.
41
42 I have heard the well-organized and well-articulated arguments from people who are supporting
43 Alternative 4 for Middlefield Road. I am not going to purport to tell you what to do but I will
44 point out that significant compromise has been made by the County in response to a lot of the
45 concerns already at the Middlefield intersection.
46
Page 16
1 The number one priority for this project has to be thought of as a pedestrian and bicyclist effort.
2 That is throughout the system not just at the Middlefield intersection. The stacking up of cars at
3 Middlefield causes significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The cut-through traffic
4 on Ross has not been mitigated by the bumps. I am sure the same is true of Cowper. All the
5 arguments you have heard, and I won't repeat them, for making Ross Road a bike boulevard are
6 excellent. My children travel it all the time to get to school. Being able to safely travel down
7 that road is important but not possible if people can't feel safe. A bike boulevard has to include
8 reduction of vehicular traffic. If we don't fix the entire system the traffic that now stacks up all
9 the way to Louis during rush hours and causes drivers to come flying down our streets will make
10 it incompatible with being a quiet and usable bike boulevard. We have to compromise and we
11 have to find the most flexible, most improvement in the Middlefield intersection, or all the other
12 improvements are for naught, including anything we want to do on Ross.
13
14 Finally, with respect to Ross and all good arguments for the bike boulevard. The signalized
15 intersection at Ross would represent, especially for those of us who live nearby somewhat of a
16 sacrifice in the increased signalization in the area, the loss of parking that my neighbors would
17 experience, which would cause cars to stack up along the sidewalks elsewhere. We are willing
18 to make that sacrifice but not in vain. So if you are going to put signals in there we need a bike
19 boulevard down Ross. There is the slight matter of the fact that you can't actually get to the
20 most of North Palo Alto by crossing Oregon. So the crossing there has potential positive
21 impacts, to me the most impact for a Ross Road bike boulevard runs south of Oregon and the
22 effect that it could have there. But we are willing to have that signalized intersection and the
23 sacrifice it represents but not for no gain whatsoever. You need figure out a way to make that a
24 bike boulevard if we are going to have that signal. Thank you.
25
26 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Tatiana VanHouten followed by Christine Czarnecki.
27
28 Ms. Tatiana Van Houten, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Marion Avenue between Cowper
29 and Middlefield. I have lived there since 1972. Over the years as traffic stacks up on
30 Middlefield I have noticed our cut-through traffic has increased. Cars roar down Marion and
31 make a right turn on Cowper so that they can turn left at Cowper and avoid the backup on
32 Middlefield. We on Marion are very concerned that putting a left turn signal on Cowper onto
33 Oregon Expressway is going to make it easier for the cut-through traffic, decrease their time to
34 get through, and they will start cutting through much more. So I have waited at Oregon, on
35 Cowper at the signal and I have never seen a backup on Cowper. I don't see any reason for
36 putting in a left hand signal there. I am really quite sure that it is going to increase the traffic and
37 the traffic during the rush hour goes very fast on that block on Marion.
38
39 I appreciate your listening to our input and also the County. Thank you.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Christine Czarnecki followed by Eric Anderson.
42
43 Ms. Christine Czarnecki, Palo Alto: Good evening to the Commission. I live next door to
44 Tatiana VanHouten on Marion Avenue, which is one block or half a block south of Oregon
45 Expressway between Middlefield and Cowper. She has already expressed the problem we have
Page 17
1 with the cut-through traffic. I also would like to urge you to please just forget about the left hand
2 tum lane from Cowper onto Oregon Expressway. It is wholly unnecessary.
3
4 Since we moved here in December of2001 I have had to deal with that intersection every day,
5 several times a day. First to take my daughter to Paly for years and now that she is a college
6 grad to take her over to the train on University to catch the 8:05 train to the city and then back
7 again when I pick her up in the evening. I have never ever had a problem on that left tum from
8 Cowper onto Oregon. I am there right now at five of 8:00 or ten of 8:00 every morning and there
9 is no problem. There is never a stack up. Anything you do on that intersection is a waste of
10 money and unnecessary in terms of the amount of traffic during rush hour because I am out there
11 all the time during those times.
12
13 The other thing is we want to do the least amount to encourage any pulling off of traffic onto
14 Cowper or from Cowper people cutting through. We have a terrible problem with the cut-
15 through on Marion.
16
17 Lastly I just wanted to say I really encourage you to use Alternative 4 for Middlefield because
18 the last thing in the world we need in Midtown is to lose more trees. To have that denuded
19 section will just make it look very conlffiercial and very un-residential, very un-Palo Alto.
20 Thank you so n1uch for your time and thank you for your consideration of our comments.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for coming. Eric Anderson followed by Penny ElIson.
23
24 Mr. Eric Anderson, Palo Alto: Hi. I live on Middlefield Road and I want to talk about the
25 Middlefield intersection. I also prefer Alternative 4. I think it would be a shame to lose the trees
26 and I also have concern about narrowing the sidewalks that there could be safety issues.
27
28 I am also a cyclist. I was confused by the Staff comments explaining -I understand cyclists will
29 have to merge if there is only one lane going northbound. What I don't understand is you kind of
30 have to merge anyway if you have to go around cars that are waiting to tum right. that is
31 something an adult might do to make that decision but a lot of kids or something would already
32 be on the sidewalk or they would be in the same situation as if there were two lanes going
33 forward. So I didn't understand the explanation for that. Thank you.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Penny ElIson followed by Bob Herriot followed by Ann
36 Crichton.
37
38 Ms. Penny ElIson. Palo Alto: Hello. I am speaking as the Chair of the Palo Alto Council of
39 PTA's Traffic Safety Committee delivering this statement. The Committee supports the City of
40 Palo Alto Staff recommendations regarding the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project.
41
42 Generally speaking an expressway is no place for school bound children. Unfortunately some
43 students ofOhlone, Jordan, and Palo Alto High School for those students crossing Oregon is a
44 necessity. We appreciate the County's collaboration with City Staff. I want to thank them
45 tonight for the great work both City Staff and County Staff did to improve the expressway
46 crossings that serve Ohlone.
Page 18
1
2 While the engineering limitations of an expressway make it impossible to create an ideal school
3 route we thank the engineers for maximizing the safety improvements that were possible
4 particularly at the Louis Road intersection. These changes also will benefit other pedestrians and
5 bicyclists who must use the expressway crossings throughout the day, while improving or
6 maintaining Level of Service at nearly all intersections. This required excellent engineering
7 work and we appreciate the solutions.
8
9 If the school district draws future Garland attendance boundary across Oregon the Ross Road
10 Alternative 2 with no signalization, no marked crosswalk, and no bike lane will provide a
II" conlpletely inadequate school crossing on an expressway that serves 40,000 cars per day. We
1 t would not support Alternative 2 design as an appropriate element neighborhood school commute
13 route.
14
15 Alternative 3 is safer but still inadequate to meet an elementary school neighborhood
16 population's needs. It is our hope that the school district will not create a precedent by drawing
1 7 an elementary school attendance boundary across Oregon Expressway. That said the Traffic
18 Safety Committee supports the City of Palo Alto recommendations and we ask that you direct
19 Staff to continue to work with the City School Traffic Safety Committee, as I am sure they will
20 anyway, as detailed design plans are developed. Thank you. Good night.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for coming. Bob Herriot followed by Ann Crichton
23 followed by Booker Morey.
24
25 Mr. Robert Herriot, Palo Alto: I live on Byron Street about three blocks north of Oregon
26 Expressway so this doesn't affect me all that much. I also suggest you see some email I sent
27 earlier today with some comments that are different than what I am going to say.
28
29 The first thing I would like to say is it would appear the County diq not send any cards out the
30 way they have been sending them to people to let them know about these meetings. They
31 presumably have a huge mailing list of people who are interested in this project. I have been
32 getting postcards from them but nothing this time. I went to their Oregon Expressway.info
33 website and there was no evidence of this meeting or any updates to their literature from March,
34 and yet I think they have made some changes, at least some recommendations. So I question
35 what happened there. There might have been more people here tonight if they had gotten a
36 postcard.
37
38 The big question that I have not seen answered is sort of what the benefits are of this. It is clear
39 that intersections like Middlefield need some improvements and there are some others that need
40 improvements but there also seem to be other improvements that are not necessarily needed. I
41 have not seen the County really address the issues of how much accident prevention will occur or
42 how much reduced time there will be for people transiting the expressway.
43
44 Let me first get to Middlefield. Middlefield I think is probably the most difficult intersection. It
45 is really trying to tum a sow's ear into a silk purse, which is not possible at least not with the
46 amount of real estate we are willing to give up. So given that all the solutions are really bad
Page 19
1 probably 4 is the least bad just because it doesn't take away any trees. There are really pros and
2 cons with the laning in terms of right turns and straight ahead. The one concern I really have
3 with the diagram for Middlefield is I don't think the left turn lanes are nearly long enough or the
4 no parking zones on the north side are long enough. Traffic frequently backs up at commute
5 hour, the five 0' clock timeframe or thereabout, all the way to North California from Oregon
6 Expressway. I don't see any change the left turn lane may affect. You may get people blocked
7 in where they miss cycles because the le'ft turn lane is not long enough.
8
9 With regard to Waverley, Indian, and Ross I would suggest everything stay the same. I don't see
10 any reason to change things. With regard to Ross Road people have been advocating a light. I
11 would say only if you can somehow push through that block to North California otherwise the
12 light does nothing. You have to go to Middlefield or Louis anyway.
13
14 One thing I would say about lights like Cowper I don't think a left turn needs to be at places like
15 Cowper or Bryant. I can see there might be a need at places where there are schools like up at
16 Louis and Greer. There is also the parking issue that was addressed. What I would suggest the
17 County look at is a new way of dealing with left turns and that is a left flashing arrow. The email
18 I sent you has a URL of where that information is. The flashing yellow essentially says you can
19 make a left tum now but you have to yield to traffic. So the idea is that you could have only a
20 full red arrow/green arrow during school times when kids are coming and going but during the
21 rest of the day when the traffic is quite light you would never to the red arrow, you would always
22 have the flashing yellow arrow for the left turns whenever it was green straight ahead. So I
23 would suggest that the Planning Commission look at that idea. I think it has been tried out in a
24 lot of places around the country. In some sense it solves the problem of having this eight-phase
25 light that takes up way too much time and will waste a lot of people's time. Thanks.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Ann Crichton followed by Booker Morey.
28
29 Ms. Ann Crichton, Palo Alto: Good evening and thank you to the Traffic Planning Committee
30 for allow us an opportunity to speak tonight. It is a pleasure. As a long-term traffic safety
31 advocate I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight on behalf of the recommendations from
32 the County as well as the great work that the Staffhas done on this particular work.
33
34 I have advocated for safe changes along Oregon Expressway for approximately eight years, from
35 the time that I took on the Traffic Safety Committee position at Ohlone Elementary School and
36 observed first-hand as a resident close to this particular thoroughfare that it was a particularly
37 dangerous and out dated engineered expressway to allow for safe multi-modal crossing as well as
38 navigation along the thoroughfare trying to get from one end of the community to the other. So
39 as a part of the Traffic Safety Committee I was witness to many accidents both as a resident as
40 well as with the Traffic Safety Committee with Ohlone Elementary School. I participated in the
41 many community outreach activities that not only happened in the comnlunity prior to the
42 County's engagement but during the County process as well as the Staffprocess. I would like to
43 give testimony to the level of outreach and community solicitation that was done to come up
44 with these recommendations. I really want to applaud both the County and the Staff for reaching
45 out and trying to reach compromise to listen to what the community had to say.
46
Page 20
1 So in particular I support what the County has recommended both at the Louis intersections, the
2 Greer intersections, I also represent my community, which is 60 households off of Indian in
3 recommending the closure of the left hand turn lane on Oregon Expressway onto Indian, as well
4 as improvements to the Bayshore intersection. These are absolutely necessary changes for both
5 pedestrians, bike safety both for children and for adults alike, as well as for automobile traffic.
6 Again, I support the recommendations that were made in this particular set of recommendations.
7
8 I thank the excellent for all those people who have been involved over the eight years that I have
9 participated in trying to affect positive change. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to
10 speak to you all.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Booker Morey followed by Daria Walsh.
13
14 Mr. Booker Morey, Palo Alto: Hi, I live on Cowper one block on the cheap side of Oregon at
15 the comer of Marion. We now have pretty heavy traffic during the weekdays between seven in
16 the morning and nine in the morning. We share it with Middlefield and we share it with
17 Waverley. A lot of it is the commuters. You heard it from the folks living on Marion about the
18 cutoff, which certainly does happen. a lot of it seems to be traffic going to any of the five
19 schools that are south of Oregon either taking the kids to school or the less full cars coming back
20 to their homes.
21
22 Now we all have to share in our civic responsibility of dealing with the traffic. I just want to
23 plead with you to make it as fair as possible. For those folks who are now comfortable using
24 Waverley as a way to cross Oregon Expressway or to make a left hand tum, why take away that
25 option? You are simply going to force them back down onto Cowper Street. So all I anl doing is
26 asking for some fairness. For those folks that are comfortable using that intersection let them
27 continue to use it, don't take away their ability. That's it.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Daria Walsh and then ifElly Duncan is here.
30
31 Ms. Daria Walsh, Palo Alto: Hi. I am interested in talking a little bit about a couple of the
32 proposed and recommended alternatives. To be honest I have not had as much time to look at it
33 as I wanted. I have been following this. In particular one thing that has popped out at me is the
34 one on Bryant where for some reason in several of the intersections that are bike friendly they
35 are eight-phase lights and at Bryant it is a six-phase. It is one of the things that I would like just
36 some answers on why that one is in particular six phase because I think bicyclists going through
37 could use a straight green light rather than having to compete with the lefts on that. Perhaps I
38 don't understand what the six phases are there.
39
40 The other one that I wanted to address is Ross Road where I would support Alternative 3 as well
41 with the signal. The only concern I have there is once the kids get across there, and granted the
42 report talks a lot about kids going to Jordan and Garland and doesn't mention the hundreds of
43 kids that already go across at Louis and Middlefield to go to Paly right now. Those kids are
44 crossing at Ross and then they are going down to Middlefield and riding on the sidewalk with all
45 the pedestrians that are also going to Jordan at that time. So it is just one piece that seems a little
46 bit like it is not conlpletely figured out what happens once they get over on the other side of
Page 21
1 Ross. I love the idea of a pretty much bicycle-centered intersection there at Ross but I would
2 like to see something else happen on the other end because there really isn't a place for those
3 kids to go right now.
4
5 The last thing I would like to say is about the Louis intersection, which looks great. That is
6 going to be a great way for people to cross there. But there are some places where it doesn't
7 seem like they are addressing the pedestrian visibility as much on Louis Road, which is one of
8 the big concerns that we have right now, in particular in the southeast comer of Louis Road.
9 Right it is a very difficult place to see pedestrians and I am not sure that is that well addressed
10 with the current alternative that they are choosing. Thank you.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Did Elly Duncan return? Seeing not we will take about a
13 seven-minute break and then we will come back. Can we come together again? Commissioners.
14 So if we could ask the members of the public to take their seats we can get going again.
15
16 Commissioners, since we skipped the clarifying questions we will do clarifying questions first
17 and also if you happen to have questions for any members of the public while they are here
18 hanging in with us. So first would be if you have any questions for members of the public. Does
19 anyone have questions for members of the public? Commissioner Keller? Commissioner
20 Fineberg? Okay.
21
22 Commissioner Keller has participated in a lot of these meetings, attended a lot of them so I am
23 going to cut him a little bit of leeway, but we are going to limit the first round of questions and
24 comments to three minutes. Questions first.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So the first question is since there is a shortage of
27 County money that can go towards the Ross Road traffic light and you said that the City money
28 can go towards the Middlefield Road intersection, can the City spend its money on the
29 Middlefield Road intersection and thereby save County money to pay for Ross?
30
31 Ms. Likens: That would be something that would be at the discretion of the City Council. I
32 don't think that we know the answer to that now. I think we don't know if the County would
33 actually need any funding to implement the project as recommended by Staff at the present time
34 because they don't have detailed cost and they won't know until they further into the design. So
35 I think as Mr. Collen mentioned it is a little premature to be trying to figure out how everything
36 gets funded. We don't know whether the budget that the, County has is sufficient or not.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Would it be within our purview to recommend that if there is
39 a shortfall in money that that fundability be used? Okay, thank you. I took that as a yes.
40
41 My second question is there was a comment about the sidewalk on 3M on the logical northwest
42 comer, the one where the road is widened. Firstly, I understand that that road is being widened
43 there because of the alignment with the south approach to Middlefield Road. The north side is
44 41 feet and the south side if 46 feet wide, and that that five feet difference is an offset from the
45 northwest comer. Maybe this is a County question. Are the sidewalks going to be moved on
Page 22
1 that? There was a question by a member of the public with respect to whether all the numbers
2 add up and is the sidewalk planned to be moved or is the sidewalk in the same spot?
3
4 Mr. Collen: I would like to introduce Ananth Prasad our Project Engineer and a Senior Civil
5 Engineer with the traffic engineering section. I think he can comment most specifically to the
6 detail questions on the width or the movement of the sidewalk.
7
8 Mr. Ananth Prasad, Project Engineer, Santa Clara County: Thank you members of the
9 Commission. With regard to the sidewalk where discussion about narrowing the sidewalk we
10 are not narrowing the sidewalk. There is going to be a movement of the sidewalk but the
11 sidewalk width will remain exactly at five feet, which is current with the existing sidewalk. We
12 have to move it. There is some right-of-way behind the sidewalk and we show that we are using
13 one foot of that two-foot space we have behind the sidewalk.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: So just like in front of my house there is a piece of land that belongs to
16 the City that is in front of my property line between that and the sidewalk. Here there is two feet
17 of land that belongs to essentially the City between the owner's property line and the sidewalk
18 and you are going to halve that distance.
19
20 Mr. Prasad: Yes.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Weare going to make rounds. Commissioner Fineberg.
25
26 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with a process question about the Staff
27 recommendations. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission endorse three sets of
28 items. Ifwe are looking at pages 1 and 2 in the Staff Report it is one, two, and three. Then on
29 number four Staff is recommending that the Commission direct Staff to work with the County,
30 the neighborhoods, and stakeholder groups, P ABAC to develop detailed design plans and return
31 to the Council with a report on the final design plans and final environmental document. I am a
32 bit stuck on how we can simultaneously recommend items one to three and four because if we
33 are recommending specific options, whatever they might be, then how can we also recommend
34 that Staff, the County, and various groups come up with another plan that may be completely
35 different and may be far, far better but completely in conflict with items one, two, and three. So
36 I don't see how we can do both.
37
38 Ms. Likens: I think I can clarify that. What we are asking is that you support the direction to the
39 Council for us to work with the County as they develop their detailed designs based on the
40 concept plans that are approved for implementation. To share those with the Bicycle Advisory
41 Committee as they are developing these plans. To share them with the community, the County
42 plans to hold community meetings, and to have the public still involved as the design plans are
43 further refined in detail. Then we would bring those back to the Council with the environmental
44 clearance from the County at a later date. The idea is not that we are going back to the drawing
45 board, that anyone is going to come up with other concepts, but perhaps it was the way that the
46 recommendation was worded that was unclear.
Page 23
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. So specifically, not because I am advocating for this but
3 just for the purposes of this discussion, let's say we vote for 3M at Middlefield and the citizenry
4 en mass continues to want 4. Does that mean that the County is still going to be sitting down and
5 working with citizen groups who are going to be advocating for 4? How do they get past that?
6 Or does that then give County mandate to say 4 is done it is off the table you are doing 3M?
7 How would that situation play out? I am not advocating for that but just as an example.
8
9 Ms. Likens: I believe that the process that we are in is to seek your recommendations to the City
10 Council. The City Council would then make a recommendation that we would forward to the
11 County as to the City's position on these alternatives and concepts. At that point the County
12 would take the City's recommendations and begin to move forward. N9w the County Staffmay
13 want to comment if there continues to be concerns from individuals or groups of individuals
14 about these alternative how they would respond. But at that point we would have a policy
15 direction from the City Council to forward to the County.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Will the meeting with City Council happen soon enough that the
18 County can continue its work not waiting for that?
19
20 Ms. Likens: I don't want to speak for the County but I think they are going to wait for the City
21 Council action before they begin more detailed design. Perhaps Mr. Collen could comment.
22
23 Mr. Collen: Yes it is our intent. We are kind of in a transition period now winding down with
24 the conceptual design. We are in a process where I don't believe we yet have the designers in
25 place to proceed with the construction drawings. So we are in a natural break point right now
26 anyway. So using this time to complete the public process with the City is just fine with us.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I have one more question in that part that is slightly different
29 but it naturally flows with it and then I will cede if that is okay. In the recommendation four
30 where we are directing Staff to work with the neighborhood stakeholder groups we specifically
31 spell out that they will continue to work with P ABAC. I would like consideration that
32 recommendation also includes direction that County and Staffwill work with the PTA Council
33 Traffic Committee so that the representation fronl the school-wide body is incorporated.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: I am looking at the diagram, Middlefield Road Alternative 4,
38 specifically where you have the trident configuration going northbound. You have the middle
39 lane in the center for straight on traffic and it would also be for cyclists. I believe it was
40 characterized earlier that it would be "adult cyclists" but the truth is that this leads to the middle
41 school so the majority of the cyclists are actually juveniles. Is that going to be problematic at
42 all?
43
44 Ms. Likens: I don't know the numbers of cyclists in terms of their ages at this intersection.
45 There are both middle schoof and adult cyclists. There could be elementary and high school
46 students that all use this Middlefield crossing.
Page 24
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The reason I ask is that I think the City Staff Report really
3 promotes this configuration over the two lane straight.
4
5 Ms. Likens: City Staff is recommending Alternative 3M as opposed to Alternative 4 at
6 Middlefield.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I just want to nlake sure of that, the 3-Modified. Okay. Then I
9 have one other question regarding Ross Road with the bike slot. The phasing for that that the
10 County proposed in terms of as the Ross Road boulevard is developed, doing the phasing for that
11 is acceptable? In other words, you plan for it but it doesn't get implemented until the boulevard
12 is fully developed?
13
14 Mr. Rius: I believe their recommendation was just to setup Alternative 2, which could lead to
15 future signalization but if that was the selected Alternative that would be the extent of their
16 improvement as part of this project.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
19
20 Ms. Likens: So our recommendation is that they include the full signalization as part of their
21 County project.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, that is what I wanted to clarify with you. Then with regard to the
24 reference to Embarcadero and Cowper, which has a slotted intersection, is that slotted
25 intersection actually sensored so that as a bicyclist pulls through into there if they were to come
26 to a stop then the light changes in a snap?
27
28 Mr. Rius: This is at Bryant Street.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Is it Bryant, oh yes. Okay.
31
32 Mr. Rius: There is detection. I am not sure if it changes immediately.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: As a cyclist it changes almost immediately. I literally come to a stop
35 and the light changes in a snap. So that is what you are proposing?
36
37 Mr. Rius: There might be some constraints related to the coordination and when it can tum
38 green for the cyclists.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: Who controls the signalization? The County or the City?
41
42 Mr. Rius: The County would control the timing and coordination along the whole corridor.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
45
46 Ms. Likens: Mr. Collen has sonle additional comments.
Page 25
1
2 Mr. Collen: Yes, we would include in-pavement detection for the bicycle as we do at several
3 other locations on the expressway system. We actually also are using an adaptive signal system
4 for the bikes so that when we have bike detection it gives a different crossing time based on the
5 bike crossing time as opposed to a car crossing time. That wouldn't apply here since it is only
6 going to be bikes, but it is also pedestrians as well. So I don't know if we would mess with that
7 or not but we do have systems to detect and also provide crossing time based on bike detection.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez.
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. By my count there are going to be four eight-phase signals
14 and two six -phase, plus whatever happens at Ross. Taking that into account and perhaps even
15 taking into account a new signal at Ross how does that affect traffic along Oregon Expressway?
16 Is it going to move more quickly because of improved signalization or is it going to be
17 gridlocked even more than it is now? Do you know?
18
19 Mr. Rius: Well, one of the six-phase intersections is at Bryant where there would only be one
20 pedestrian crossing instead of two.
21
22 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I want to talk about that too.
23
24 Mr. Rius: Okay. So you can reduce the cycle length if there were two crossings and that would
25 allow for better coordination along the Oregon Expressway.
26
27 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, but by the time traffic gets to Bryant it has lightened up
28 considerably, once it is past Middlefield. So I don't think that is the problem. But from exiting
29 101 past Middlefield is the flow of traffic going to improve?
30
31 Mr. Rius: I can let the County answer that. They are more informed about the detailed analysis.
32
33 Mr. Prasad: One of the things that needs to happen is the Middlefield. That is our bottleneck for
34 Oregon Expressway traffic flow. Currently it is very inefficient. One approach at a time gets a
35 green. We could solve both approaches with the same available time or what is being used for
36 one approach. Thereby you are having considerable savings in time and that saving can be used
37 to reduce the cycle length. Once you reduce the cycle length we can apply that to the entire
38 system because the rest of the intersections don't actually have such a high volume of cross
39 traffic. So once you have a system wide lower cycle then you are able to efficiently serve the
40 pedestrians, bicycles, as well as traffic on Oregon at a predictable speed, because now you have
41 an efficient intersection that has been improved. The Middlefield intersection is the bottleneck.
42 So the key thing for this project is Middlefield. We have to have improvements at Middlefield to
43 recognize any benefits on Oregon Expressway flow.
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: Good, thank you. I drive Oregon Expressway at least a couple of
46 times a day. Coming off northbound 101 almost every day I am confronted with traffic coming
Page 26
1 off southbound wanting to tum left on West Bayshore. Was issue ever addressed or is it being
2 addressed as part of this plan?
3
4 Mr. Rius: I'm sorry?
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: Traffic coming off of 101 that is southbound has its own exit lane
7 except for those that want to tum left onto West Bayshore. They have to immediately cut across
8 traffic to get into that left hand tum lane. Is there any mitigation for that in this plan?
9
10 Mr. Rius: This project does not have any improvements for that movement.
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: It is probably one of the most dangerous aspects of Oregon
13 Expressway.
14
15 Ms. Likens: We could ask the County to comment on that. It wasn't something that was focused
16 on during this proj ect.
17
18 Mr. Collen: To separate that movement would be a complicated effort introducing a more
19 freeway-like treatment into the Oregon Expressway environment. You would have to use some
20 sort of braided ramps or some sort of structure to address that. We didn't explore that very
21 deeply. We have been focused primarily on the intersection areas along the expressway, and
22 also the area to the east of West Bayshore Road is Caltrans jurisdiction. We assume that that
23 will be folded into some further work by Caltrans as they study that area.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: If you could identify yourself for the transcript that would be helpful.
26
27 Mr. Collen: Certainly. Dan Collen Deputy Director, County of Santa Clara.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: It is possible to close the left hand tum lane at West Bayshore, correct?
30 As a possible solution.
31
32 Mr. Collen: You could do that.
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: Since you are making improvements at Greer traffic could make a U-
35 tum to get back to West Bayshore.
36
37 Mr. Collen: I would defer to the City Staff for their input on circulation within the City of Palo
38 Alto.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Keller.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was a comment made by a member of the public with
43 respect to the desirability for merging lanes on northbound Middlefield Road past the
44 intersection. Is it normal practice at an intersection to sort of widen approaching a major
45 intersection and then narrow after? I notice this happens elsewhere. Is that a reasonable practice
46 to improve throughput through a road?
Page 27
1
2 Mr. Rius: Yes it is. Capacity through the intersection is limited by the amount of green time and
3 if you have more lanes to get through during a limited green period and once they pass the
4 intersection they not constrained by the green time and they can merge together. So that does
5 happen in other parts of the city as well as other cities.
6
7 Ms. Likens: Just a comment. We currently have that situation on northbound Middlefield at
8 Oregon right now. There are two through lanes and the two through lanes carry forward to the
9 north side of the intersection and then there is a lane drop and you merge into one lane further
10 north. I think it is before Garland now. During the detail design I am sure we would look at the
11 length of that merge and determine if Alternative 3M is approved for inlplementation how long
12 that merge would be.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what happens when people are stopped you have a
15 capacity issue of how many people can enter the intersection. When they are speeding up the
16 merging happens faster and therefore there is more capacity in some sense.
17
18 A question about where I am talking about plans 3M and 4 for Middlefield Road intersection.
19 That means that there were plans 1 and 2 and could you talk about where we went to get from
20 where you started and where we are? What kinds of modifications have you done to Middlefield
21 Road? Because I know that I went to a bunch of the meetings but I am not sure that the menlbers
22 of the Commission or some of the members of the public might be aware of what you have
23 actually done there.
24
25 Mr. Collen: Okay, thanks for the question. The alternatives were not necessarily developed in
26 series. One through 3 were explored in parallel as an array of options for the public to consider
27 and comment on, and the City to give us input on. Basically 1 involved widening at three out of
28 the four comers. Alternate 2 was at two comers, and 3 was just the one comer. Then 4 canle
29 later after the community meetings and we said let's develop a zero comer impact option and
30 look at what the tradeoffs would be of doing that. So essentially we came forward with 1
31 through 3 at the same time but as we fine-tuned them based on the comments that we got then 1
32 and 2 basically fell off the table as unacceptable based on the comments that we were receiving,
33 and 3 we modified to address some of the issues that were raised. Then it became Alternate 3M
34 and then 4 was brought in later in the process.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: In comparing designs 3M and 4 is it correct that on the southbound
37 direction, other than the offset, the lane widths are exactly the same and the only difference in
38 the two plans is the offset and how many lanes there are in the northbound direction. Is that
39 right?
40
41 Mr. Collen: I think one of the lanes is a half-foot narrower, six inches narrower in Alternate 3
42 because there are more lanes that are being accommodated.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
45
46 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Fineberg.
Page 28
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to get one idea on the record just to make sure that it
3 minimizes future confusion. A couple of days ago the School Board voted to defer the opening
4 of Garland school. In my opinion that does not in any way change the fact that there are now
5 and there will continue to be school age children crossing Oregon. It is a question of whether
6 they are private school children, public elementary school children, or middle school children.
7 That facility is used currently while it is under lease as a private school for camps in the
8 summertime. There are hundreds of parents bringing their kids and bikes there to camp in the
9 summer. It is used for after-school programs. It is used for sports fields. So regardless of the
10 disposition it is still a target for kids and parents and bikes and walking.
11
12 On a separate topic, I am concerned a little bit of the idea of un-striping some of the significant
13 pedestrian crossings at intersections. I notice recently that when I was Downtown at Whole
14 Foods the intersections there don't have stripings. My kids were stunned. They have learned,
15 we live at the comer of Louis and Greer, they have learned they walk to the comer, they walk
16 between the crossings, and they wouldn't dream of crossing mid-block. I don't know how they
1 7 would react frankly to getting to an intersection in my neighborhood and not having a crosswalk.
18 They have never seen that. So it would be a very different beast for them. It may be that there is
19 some kind of science about unmarked intersections being safer but if it is the exception and the
20 only one in the area for young minds who have learned rules and are not quite as rational I don't
21 know that it would be as safe.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: Excuse me, would Staff care to comment on that?
24
25 Mr. Rius: What you mentioned is true. I am not totally sure of the science. The County might
26 be able to answer. But often times marked crosswalks do provide a false sense of security that
27 the pedestrian has the right-of-way and cars will stop. By taking it you are promoting crossing at
28 one of the signalized adjacent intersections. If you insist on crossing it is still legal cross in an
29 unmarked crosswalk and typically pedestrians would use a lot more caution in those situations.
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: So I understand that from the Staff Report and I would agree that that
32 might be true for adults. I am saying that I don't believe it is true at least for my own two kids.
33 They, I don't think, have ever been confronted with an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection
34 south of Oregon. There might be sonle mid-block or at some of the funky cul-de-sacs that come
35 off a street, but not at a major intersection. There may be some but not where we have been
36 wandering. How am I on time? I will cede and come back later.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez, questions?
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. In the Staff Report it refers to an August 2003 City Council
41 directive on the improvements to Oregon Expressway to emphasize pedestrian and bicycle
42 safety. By and large this is accomplished in the proposed plan except at the most critical
43 intersection of Middlefield. I feel that we have not provided a safe passage across Oregon
44 Expressway for bicycles. There is not a bicycle slot. In one of the scenarios it is being proposed
45 that we merge bicycles with cars crossing the intersection. In some ways what we have now may
46 be a safer alternative for bicycles than what is being proposed in either alternative. It seems to
Page 29
1 me what is driving both alternatives is this need for an exclusive left hand turn signal only. To
2 me that isn't the greatest need of this intersection. I don't support narrowing the planting strip or
3 cutting trees. However, I don't support not addressing this critical safety need of this
4 intersection. I would like to see why this was ignored by the County, Staff, and in your
5 presentation to the community. It feels like we are locked into 3M or 4 and neither seem
6 adequate for the problem that exists.
7
8 Ms. Likens: I think that this is a package of things that there are tradeoffs for one thing.
9 Looking at improving the safety, all of these intersections are going to be improved with better
10 signalization, straighter crosswalks, no impediments to crossing the medians, better signalization,
11 and also as part of the project there will be reduced delay on the side streets including
12 Middlefield. They are very congested on Middlefield. But we do have finite width the
13 approaches on Middlefield. North of Oregon the street is 41 feet wide from curb-to-curb. South
14 it is 46 feet wide. Any additional lanes beyond what we have now have to come from the right-
15 of-way or the curb-to-curb width. Adding bike lanes at Middlefield would take up road space as
16 well, and none of the alternatives include removing a vehicular lane. That is what we have out
17 there now. We have a split phase operation and four lanes of traffic. Part of the problem with
18 the whole corridor and the delays at the major intersections are a result of having no left turn
19 lanes.
20
21 So the County's goal in this project is also to include left turn lanes, which would facilitate
22 operational improvements throughout the corridor that would also facilitate the safety
23 improvements on the side street approaches for the minor streets. So the concerns about bicycle
24 traffic I think the plan itself is maybe not optimal. Ifwe had more right-of-way and the ability to
25 add through bike lanes and change major changes at this intersection that would be a different
26 situation. We did share these recommendations with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and they
27 gave us input on their thoughts about the alternatives that were under discussion. Perhaps Rafael
28 can go into further detail about what we heard from our own advisory committee with regard to
29 the bicycle approach to this proj ect.
30
31 Mr. Rius: Regarding the Middlefield intersection the Bicycle Advisory Committee generally
32 they thought the alternatives were conlparable to what is out there right now, not necessarily
33 worse. The narrower lanes do tend to lead bicyclists to take the whole lane for themselves as
34 opposed to trying to squeeze in between cars. They did have some input regarding bicycle
35 detection and markings and possibly adding 'share the road' signs. They were understanding
36 that part of this project was to improve the crossings at Bryant and Ross nearby Middlefield.
37 They were not against the improvements at Middlefield.
38
39 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you, I appreciate that. I would just add a couple of other
40 comments about bicycle and pedestrian safety. I would look to see that at each six -phase or
41 eight-phase crossing that we have crosswalks on both sides of Oregon. I noted that you are
42 removing that from Bryant. I think if you change that right turn only it would be feasible to add
43 a crosswalk on that side.
44
Page 30
1 Then second thing I have a quick question about is is the pedestrian crossing going to be similar
2 to Homer and Alma where no cars are permitted to turn while pedestrians are crossing Oregon
3 Expressway or is it to be shared with cars? Thank you.
4
5 Mr. Rius: I don't believe there are any plans for a pedestrian only phase. Vehicles would still
6 need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. With regard to the Bryant Street crossing there
7 were several issues with this. I am trying to recall and maybe the County could chime in on why
8 the crosswalk. I know there were issues with the southwest comer and an existing redwood tree
9 being unsafe for pedestrian comer at that comer without removing the really huge redwood tree.
10 Also with it being a bicycle boulevard adding the crosswalk at the same time as trying to keep
11 one pedestrian crossing and the cycle length down there would be other sacrifices such as the
12 bike slot in the southbound direction. That was the reason P ABAC, the Bicycle Advisory
13 Committee, also was in agreement with the one side crosswalk being on the east side.
14
15 Commissioner Martinez: In this case I think the pedestrians weigh more heavily than the
16 bicyclists do. We have two crosswalks there now and pedestrians going to Alma, to the park, to
17 Caltrain, to California Avenue would cross there. They wouldn't cross on the other.side because
18 we don't provide a crosswalk to get across Bryant from the way it is proposed now. So I would
19 really urge you, I don't think it is impossible to come up with a plan to provide two crosswalks at
20 that intersection. Okay, thank you.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: To follow up on the question of Commissioner Martinez. In the plan 2M
25 does it make sense to put a crosswalk across Bryant Street on the north side of Oregon
26 Expressway? It seems like a pretty easy thing to do.
27
28 Ms. Likens: Could you repeat that?
29
30 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering in plan 2M does it make sense to provide a crosswalk
31 across Bryant Street on the north side of Oregon Expressway.
32
33 Mr. Collen: Physically it is simple enough to show a crosswalk. But the design that was
34 developed came out of discussion with the community in the community meetings, from the
35 residents nearby, comments that Rafael mentioned related to sight lines that the traffic sight line
36 was limited for the southeasterly quadrant, and that the residents reported that there was a lot of
37 late amber eastbound traffic. So the pedestrians needed to be able to get a good line of sight on
38 the traffic coming that couldn't be counted on to stop for an amber signal.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: I am not referring to a crosswalk across Oregon Expressway. I am
41 referring to a crosswalk across Bryant.
42
43 Mr. Collen: Across Bryant.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: North of Oregon Expressway, north of the service road there, north of
46 Oregon Avenue.
Page 31
1
2 Ms. Likens: You are talking about on the City's, north of the frontage road.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: That is correct, north of the frontage road.
5
6 Ms. Likens: Not at the intersection.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: That is correct.
9
10 Ms. Likens: that would be something we could consider and discuss during the design phase.
11 That would be a City crosswalk. It wouldn't be at the expressway itself. It would be an
12 uncontrolled crosswalk because you do not stop at the frontage road when you are on Bryant. It
13 is something that could be looked at and discussed. I don't know whether we would have a
14 recommendation on that at this meeting.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: Okay, well something to consider. There is a letter by Public Works
1 7 Managing Arborist, Eric Krebs. It looks confusing. I understand this statement might be a
18 question but the question mark is missing. It says, one might argue that if the proposal exhausts
19 all possible planning scenarios, this is presumably for scenario 3M, given the public property
20 constraints and it is still an inadequate plan, then is it wise to plant trees that would result in
21 liabilities such as the conflicts with traffic. I assume that is a question, is that right?
22
23 Ms. Caporgno: It sounds like it. We could confirm that with him but it sounds like it in reading
24 it. That is what we are inferring.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: So it sounds like he might be skeptical as to whether you could replace
27 the four trees that are being removed with new trees in the minimum width there.
28
29 A question for County Staff. Assuming that there was sufficient money for building the traffic
30 light across Oregon Expressway at Ross Road would the County be in favor of the option that
31 involves a traffic light at that intersection? .
32
33 Mr. Collen: We have developed the alternatives that we think are reasonable and more or less
34 interchangeable. We showed a preference for the option 2 just as a matter of timing. We would
35 I think respect the City's preferences on that. If the City is going to tell us that the City position
36 is that we should proceed with Alternative 3 at Ross.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Well, you said it is a nlatter of timing. Ifnot now when, to quote Hi! EI.
39 If we were not to build the traffic light at Ross Road when would it happen?
40
41 Mr. Collen: When the bike boulevard concept was fully developed.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: So doing a traffic light in anticipation of a bike boulevard -in other
44 words you have reservations about doing it in anticipation of bike boulevard but other than that if
45 the City wanted one for you it is just a matter of funding?
46
Page 32
1 Mr. Collen: Basically. I think that we have heard tonight from the public two different points of
2 view on that subject. So we have just identified that as a consideration.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: The fact that the distance between the traffic light currently at Bryant, at
5 Cowper, at Middlefield, and each of those distances are approximately the same as the distance
6 from Middlefield to Ross to Louis to Greer. There is sort of a rhythm there. Ross Road sort of
7 breaks the rhythm. There is a much larger gap between Middlefield and Louis Road. Do you
8 think that it is reasonable for a bicyclist wishing to or a pedestrian wishing to safely cross
9 Oregon Expressway at Ross Road to have to go to Louis or Middlefield considering that in all
10 the other locations they don't have to go nearly as far as this?
11
12 Mr. Collen: I think it depends on what the destinations are, what the attractions are, and the
13 general volume of crossing that needs to be accommodated. From a traffic point of view I don't
14 see that there is an issue with the additional light there. As an agency another light means
15 another maintenance liability for us and that is a consideration. We can easily blend that signal
16 into a timing plan. The timing plan would not be in operation all hours of the day though so
1 7 there would be times that an additional light means an additional stop for somebody. There are a
18 lot of different pluses and minuses that that could be considered.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: A couple of questions. One is the Stanford Research Park funding has
23 to do with or could be used for capacity or alternate improvements. How much money is that
24 component and what might be considered alternate improvements?
25
26 Ms. Likens: Are you asking what the budgeted item in the impact fee?
27
28 Commissioner Holnlan: Yes.
29
30 Ms. Likens: I think it was budgeted and the last time it was updated which was I think in 2001
31 for the ordinance that is currently in place as $1.2 million improvement. That was including
32 more widening than the County is proposing. In terms of looking at an alternate improvement
33 we would have to follow what the ordinance says and develop what would provide the same
34 mitigation at this intersection or other alternate intersections and I can't think of an alternate
35 intersection for Middlefield that would be proximate that would alleviate the congestion at
36 Middlefield, and then follow the course that is recommended in the ordinance, and that is to
37 develop a recommendation and seek Council approval for it.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: As opposed to alternate intersection what about alternate types of
40 improvements. Does Staff have any thoughts about what those might be or was there other
41 alternate improvenlents discussed during this whole discussion?
42
43 Ms. Likens: The alternate improvements are the one that are before you, and the precursors to
44 these that were winnowed out as being unacceptable to the conlIDunity and those largely involve
45 more widening and more loss of vegetation and landscaping.
46
Page 33
1 Commissioner Holman: I guess what I am trying to get at is were there alternate means that
2 didn't involve tree removal, widening of the street, as a member of the public said it is in conflict
3 with the Comprehensive Plan. So are there any other means like I think the signalization is
4 maximized here in this plan. Was there anything else that was feasible or was considered?
5
6 Ms. Likens: The purpose of this report wasn't to evaluate alternative improvements to meet the
7 goals of the mitigation measure for the Comprehensive Plan. What was referenced in this report
8 was how this project was consistent with the mitigation measure for Comprehensive Plan EIR.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I was referencing the Comprehensive Plan Policy that said that
11 we wouldn't widen intersections. So I am not sure if we are talking the same thing. That we
12 wouldn't widen capacity.
13
14 Ms. Likens: The Comprehensive Plan doesn't rule out completely widening, making capacity
15 improvements. It discourages widening and capacity improvements but it also directs us to look
16 at the benefits of bicycle and pedestrian safety when considering intersection improvements.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then Waverley is being proposed as having right tum only both
19 northbound and southbound as are indicated on the sheet, northbound and southbound. The con
20 is of course as indicated here is that there is no through traffic. So has any indication been made
21 or considered about what that would do to the adjacent streets in terms of increased traffic?
22
23 Ms. Likens: We would ask the County to comment on that first. I believe that they did do an
24 analysis. I think it is in the report of the impact of those restrictions.
25
26 Mr. Collen: Overall the diversion is pretty slight. Amanth will go into the specifics for you. He
27 is getting the material here. But in general the diversion is not a big number. What is interesting
28 and stands out as a number is the accident history at Waverley and the broadside accidents in the
29 accident history that we have collected. It is comparable with a much busier street so that would
30 indicate that it has a higher rate of accident. I will let Amanth speak.
31
32 Mr. Prasad: Waverley did not have a significant volume to begin with and the diverted volume
33 we are looking at is six through vehicles in the AM and five through vehicles in the PM on the
34 southbound side. On the northbound is five through vehicles in the AM, four through vehicles in
35 the PM going through. That is across. Then this is for the alternative that is proposed. So with
36 the very minor volume that traffic will be able to handle with a U-turn at the next signalized
37 intersection and that will not significantly impact because of the low volumes that are present at
38 Waverley.
39
40 What we heard at the community meeting is that the people who live on Waverley will not cross
41 during peak hours. So they are already doing those diversions anyway. So this does not impact
42 anything during the peak hours because people don't take chances crossing the expressway at
43 unsignalized locations. So they are already doing the diversions currently now.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Fineberg, you had a
46 couple more questions?
Page 34
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: I anl trying to filter how to balance the goals of why we are doing this
3 project. We are trying to get more cars through with shorter delays on Oregon Expressway. We
4 are trying to improve crossings at some of the cross streets like Middlefield. We are trying to
5 make crossings at some of those intersections safer. If we implement the bike path at Ross that
6 would be one place and the same thing might be said at Bryant, and a couple of the other
7 locations. Weare also trying to balance the needs of the individuals who are most negatively
8 impacted by the projects with the needs of the people who use the routes. We are balancing
9 public health, safety, and the beneficial aspects of trees. Weighing all of those I am coming to
10 different answers at every different intersection. I am wondering if there is some easy sort
11 mechanism that do we simply say public health and safety is more important than trees and then
12 that is the guiding rule. Or do we say at a particular intersection we will tradeoff not have speed,
13 not sacrifice safety, and keep trees? But is speed, I shouldn't say speed, but number of cars
14 going through with less delay if that is an overwhelming priority I come to a different
15 conclusion. So how do we weigh those at each -if we could talk a little bit about that in our
16 other comments, how do we weight each of those? Maybe it is more important to get cars
17 through Middlefield with l~ss delay because that is a big choking point and maybe that is a place
18 where we compromise certainly not public health but maybe trees, but then not trees at other
19 locations. I am not sure I am willing to go that route. But then are we saying we are not going to
20 get the benefits of increased throughput with lower delay. So maybe Staff can help filter that.
21
22 Ms. Caporgno: It kind of feeds into what you were saying, the City Attorney found in the
23 Comprehensive Plan Policy T-28 is make effective us of the traffic carrying capacity of Palo
24 Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also
25 using this network. Then there is an inset, which is entitled Locations of Proposed Intersection
26 Improvements. Additional turning lanes and other related changes are proposed at the following
27 major intersections in Palo Alto, and one of them is Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: So what would the conclusion be from that? How do you prioritize the
30 values at Middlefield then? Public safety first, which would mean bicycles and pedestrians, and
31 then cars afterwards? Does that talk about trees?
32
33 Ms. Caporgno: I think it is one of those things that when you look at the Comprehensive Plan
34 that this is a judgment call. I think that policy says make effective use of the traffic carrying
35 capacity of Palo Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and
36 bicyclists. So I would say that the roadway improvements are a priority but at the same time you
37 are recognizing that you are not supposed to do something to the extent that there is going to be a
38 significant effect on bicyclists or pedestrians.
39
40 As far as the tree issue I realize that we have policies in the Comprehensive Plan about
41 preservation of trees but we are talking about four trees here too, so I don't know. That is one of
42 those things that you have to weigh. It is a judgment call.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert you had another question.
45
Page 35
1 Commissioner Lippert: I do have another question before I ask my question though your
2 question was very leading. I wanted an opportunity to respond to it. I think that the priorities are
3 public safety number one, quality and character of the environment number two, and then traffic
4 number three. Level of Service as far as I am concerned is not in the equation here. These are
5 arterials and it is important that the traffic be able to move at a frequency, which is safe for the
6 pedestrians. With regard to the trees, trees not only define the quality and the character of our
7 environment and Oregon Expressway is a major boulevard, defining boulevard in our city and it
8 is defined by its trees, but the trees are a traffic calming element, important in terms of getting
9 people to slow down.
10
11 Now when you have an intersection there is no element needed to have cars slow down because
12 that is the traffic signal's job. But along mid-block the trees are very important as a traffic
13 calming measure. I want to use two very good examples. Middlefield Road in Menlo Park has
14 trees and because of that the traffic moves along at a reasonable speed, it is unimpaired, and it
15 flows very nicely. It is a very safe boulevard to move through and the experience is really one of
16 quality. The same thing happens out on Sand Hill Road where we have trees in the median.
17 Again, it slows the traffic down but it is really the traffic signal that has the traffic stop at the
18 intersection or is controlled at the intersection.
19
20 I almost used up all my time here and I want to ask my question. This is for Mr. Collen and I am
21 specifically looking at Middlefield Road, Alternative 3-Modified. What I am interested in is
22 pedestrian and bicycle safety getting through that intersection north on Middlefield Road. If I
23 look at the original diagram there is a pedestrian crosswalk. The old pedestrian crosswalks used
24 to have a diagonal line that would join up. So basically what you have is a box with the comers
25 beveled for the pedestrian. Today they take amuch more linear approach where it is the ramp
26 going to the pedestrian crosswalk that really directs pedestrians across the street. At that point
27 we have a piece of salvage that is left over in that intersection between where the traffic moves
28 and where the pedestrians are. Have you ever seen anything where that area might be striped for
29 a bicycle crosswalk where bicycles could bicycle across a major intersection like that in their
30 own north and southbound lane as such parallel with the pedestrian crosswalk?
31
32 Mr. Collen: No, I have not seen that. I would wonder how it would operate when the bicycle
33 traffic would have to rejoin the vehicular traffic on the far side of the intersection. In detailed
34 design we could consider any number of refinements or fine-tuning of these options working
35 with P ABAC and benefiting from their insight on those sorts of design questions. So I think we
36 are open to considering ideas like that but to respond directly to your question I have not seen
37 that used before, no.
38
39 Conlffiissioner Lippert: Just what I am thinking off the top of my head is simply I don't want to
40 see bicycles on Middlefield Road. I don't think Middlefield Road is a safe bicycling route. We
41 have bicycle routes or bicycle boulevards which are parallel to Middlefield Road that I ride all
42 the time. I see bicyclists on Middlefield Road and if I am driving I am in shock. I don't feel
43 comfortable with bicyclists on Middlefield Road. What I am looking at here is if there are
44 bicyclists and we are promoting them near where the middle school is a safe way for them to get
45 across Oregon Expressway and not be in conflict with the north or southbound traffic on
46 Middlefield Road. What I am thinking is if you have groups of cyclists, juveniles specifically,
Page 36
1 that are going in groups up Middlefield Road they could just very carefully just edge over to
2 towards where the pedestrian crosswalk is but you don't want them in the pedestrian crosswalk.
3 So maybe a dashed line with a medallion and a bicycle on it saying that this is a bike lane to get
4 you across Oregon Expressway.
5
6 Mr. Collen: There are a number of treatments that are out there, sharros and whatnot. I am not
7 promoting any of those right now. I have a limited experience with Oregon Expressway and
8 Middlefield but when I have been there what I have seen is particularly for the students headed
9 to the middle school are that they are riding on the sidewalk. I am not sure what the status of that
10 is with Palo Alto code or whatever, but it seemed like a practical solution. They just use the
11 sidewalk and the crosswalk in order to get over to the school without having to blend into the
12 traffic.
13
14 Commissioner Holnlan: Commissioner Martinez, did you have any more questions?
15
16 Commissioner Martinez: Just one real quick thing. Is this a package deal? Do we have to
17 accept all six proposals or variations there or can we pick and choose what we would like to see?
18
19 Ms. Likens: You have the ability to make your comments and recommendations to the Council
20 as you wish. But I think the minor streets are more independent although the eight-phase
21 operations on most of the minor streets would be necessary, or six phase, in order for the
22 coordination plans to work with the project. So leaving it as it is is probably not a good idea on
23 those side streets or minor streets.
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: I agree with that but could we trade Bryant for Ross for example to
26 make sure it gets funded?
27
28 Ms. Likens: I think at this point I would caution you about trying to figure out how it is going to
29 get funded and whether we have enough money right now. We don't know that. The County
30 doesn't know that. That would be something that we would bring back down the line if there
31 were a problem that something isn't going to fit in the budget what do we do now? That would
32 be for the County to come back to the City and talk about that, see if there is some opportunities
33 to make things happen the way both agencies would like to see them happen.
34
35 Commissioner Martinez: I agree with that. I was not proposing that we decide right now.
36 Thank you.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So firstly there was some mention by a member of the public
41 with respect to flashing arrows. I am not sure of the detail of the question but I am wondering if
42 that is worthwhile addressing now or should be addressed in the more detailed design phase.
43
44 Mr. Rius: I believe what he was referring to is there are other methods but he was referring to
45 the protective permitted phasing, where it is protected some part of the time and permitted other
46 parts of the time.
Page 37
1
2 Conllilissioner Keller: Yes, I think it was intended for off-hour use so that you didn't have all
3 the full delays in offhours.
4
5 Mr. Rius: That is correct. I know one of the primary intentions of these improvements was to
6 eliminate the conflicting movements between the left turners and the pedestrians and the left
7 turners and oncoming traffic. Other than providing the protected left tunlS during the peak
8 period it essentially would be what we have right now. Maybe Amanth can explain more.
9
10 Mr. Prasad: Thank you. If you look at the current intersection configuration other than
11 Middlefield everything else is permitted left turns. So when there is an opportunity and there is
12 no conflict left turns can happen with the green ball. If you look -at what the community has said
13 that has overwhelmingly supported they want to remove the conflict. If you leave it to people to
14 make that decision, if they are late for something they are going to take that risk. That is what is
15 happening today. We had a video clip in one of the community meetings that I recorded to show
16 how aggressive these people are. So you can leave it at some point, maybe at a rural intersection
1 7 where there is not a lot of traffic it makes sense, but in an urban setting that is not a good option
18 to leave it to people. At certain times you have to restrict because you have seen a pattern of
19 potential accidents because of their behavior. This is one the reasons that we are addressing it at
20 other locations is the safety, to enhance safety, pedestrian safety and bicycle safety with the
21 conflict from left turning vehicles.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: So to summarize, what you are suggesting is a few second delay for the
24 cars turning left is worth it for the dramatic improvement in safety provided.
25
26 Mr. Prasad: Exactly.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was a comparison also made by a member of the
29 public with respect to Waverley versus Cowper. Cowper has a traffic light. Am I reading this
30 right in this big draft report that it looks like most of the traffic from Cowper onto Oregon is
31 turning left in a northbound direction? So that is probably the most important direction. On
32 Waverley there is almost no traffic going through or turning left it is mostly cars turning right at
33 that intersection so that is useful for comparison. This is sort of an analysis question so I am not
34 sure how ~asi1y it can be answered in real time if you will. Obviously the large part of the goal
35 of this is to increase throughput on Oregon Expressway. To what extent does either Alternative
363M or Alternative 4 on Middlefield improve throughput on Middlefield so as to reduce the desire
37 for cut-through traffic on alternative streets? Is there improvement for Middlefield itself?
38
39 Mr. Collen: First let me address the perception of the goal being to increase the throughput on
40 Oregon. It is not about increasing the throughput on Oregon. It is about responding to the
41 community concern that was expressed at our very first community meeting where people said,
42 pretty overwhelmingly, can you time the lights on Oregon? We would like you to time the
43 lights. So the proj ect addresses the bottleneck location at Middlefield and then with the eight-
44 phasing at the other intersections. We will be creating the opportunity for timing the lights
45 during the peak periods. That will allow for as Amanth has presented a predictable flow at a
46 predictable speed so that we can have controlled smooth flow of traffic. But it is about reducing
Page 38
1 the stop delay, the unnecessary idling and unnecessary auto emissions, in order to make it flow
2 smoother. Not that we are planning for more of it. The benefit of improving Middlefield will
3 be, as we have shown in the LOS analysis, an improved operation. So there will be less delay
4 and a better operation of that intersection for the cross street traffic as well as the Oregon traffic.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: So the idea is that this will smooth out traffic and reduce the delay .
7 traversing Oregon Expressway and it will also improve the delay in all directions for Middlefield
8 Road, for the Oregon direction and for the Middlefield traffic.
9
10 Mr. Collen: Yes I would say that as Middlefield is bottleneck for Oregon, Oregon is a bottleneck
11 for Middlefield. So by improving that intersection operation then both flows are improved.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Okay. By improving that flow would that tend to decrease the desire for
14 people taking cut-through traffic on either Cowper or Ross for example?
15
16 Mr. Collen: I am not sure that I am the right guy to come to that conclusion, but I would think
17 that if traffic is frustrated with the queues on Middlefield and decides to take a different route, a
18 shorter queue would give less incentive to take another route. A better operation of the signal
19 with less delay for the crossing should keep people on their route rather encouraging them to find
20 some other route.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Does Staff want to add to that? I have one more question
23 and I am wondering if I should ask that now or let other people go first?
24
25 So my final question is the first question, sort of returning back to the original question. It has to
26 do with the northbound traffic on Middlefield Road approaching Oregon Expressway. The
27 question I raised earlier addresses the issue of whether there is a conflict between the right lane
28 and traffic turning right and bicycles and pedestrians going through, and understanding exactly
29 what the issue is for that. The benefits of a right tum lane there versus the benefits of that lane
30 being a through or right tum lane. That seems to be the biggest most controversial issue.
31
32 I understand that PABAC prefers improvements at Middlefield. Did they make a preference for
333M or 4 or what that not asked of them?
34
35 Mr. Rius: It was discussed in March and they didn't make a specific recommendation of one
36 alternative over the other.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so we don't know whether they prefer 3M or 4.
39
40 Mr. Rius: No.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: They just like whatever is happening over what is there now.
43
44 Mr:Rius: Yes.
45
Page 39
1 Mr. Prasad: They did comment on having a preference over 3 because having two lanes will
2 help the bicyclist to hug the curb and continue on rather than just when they approach the
3 intersection they would have to move away and move back in. If you look at the picture there
4 that is the alternative with one thr9ugh lane and that is where the bicyclist would have to ride
5 along the curb line approaching the intersection, but as they come closer because it becomes a
6 right turn only they would have to move into the through lane. They did say that is a difficult
7 move to do for the bicyclists, especially on Middlefield because there is so much traffic. Then
8 they would have to come back. So if you were to have two through lanes, if you go back to the
9 picture with two through lanes, then the bicyclist would be riding along the curb line and just to continue on. The vehicle that turns right will have to yield for the bicycle. That is typical at all
11 intersections. So that was one of the comments that they made.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: So what I am hearing from you is that the main drawback of 4 over 3M is
14 that in 4 the bicyclists who want to be on the main portion of the Middlefield roadway have to
15 move over in order to bypass the right turners.
16
17 Mr. Prasad: Correct.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: In the 3M scenario the bicyclists are hopefully given the right-of-way by
20 right turning cars.
21
22 Mr. Prasad: Well, the lanes are narrow enough. That is another thing that they like about this is
23 that the lanes are narrower. Usually if you have a 12-foot lane they would have to share with the
24 vehicles. With the nine-foot lane they cannot share so they would have to take the whole lane
25 anyway. So when they take the whole lane it is a lot better to have two lanes because they could
26 be on the curb lane and just keep going. But they would take the whole lane. They would not be
27 sharing the road with the motor vehicles with the nine-foot lane. It is too narrow to share.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Do we have any data on how many of the bicyclists are actually on the
30 sidewalk and going across the crosswalk and how many of them are on the main roadway?
31
32 Ms. Likens: We don't have statistics on that, current statistics. Typically most adult cyclists are
33 riding in the road. This is a commuter route. We have bike lanes further south on Middlefield.
34 It is a bike route in Mountain View. It is a commuter route north and south. So most adult
35 cyclists if they are commuter cyclists are probably in the lane. Casual cyclists, less comfortable
36 cyclists who are still using Middlefield probably are on the sidewalk and most students ride on
37 the sidewalks from my observations going to Jordan.
38
39 Con1ll1issioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: If I might interject just quickly. With regard to that the right hand lane
42 could have a median with a bicycle as a shared lane for automobiles and bicyclists. As a cyclist
43 myself I am not comfortable getting into a middle lane with a right hand turn. It is really
44 problematic right in the middle of two cars moving and it is very uncomfortable.
45
Page 40
1 Commissioner Keller: Could you elaborate on what you are suggesting? You are suggesting the
2 bicyclists be allowed to go straight and the cars be allowed to go right. Is that what you are
3 suggesting?
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: I am suggesting that the Alternative 3-Modified is appropriate not the
6 Alternative 4 because it is very uncomfortable for a bicyclist to be in between the right hand tum
7 and being in that straight on lane. I am an adult not a little kid and it is a very uncomfortable
8 situation. What I was suggesting is on the Alternative 3-Modified if bicyclists and automobiles
9 were sharing that right hand lane that is going straight ahead, something similar to what is done
10 on Alma Street from Homer to Hamilton.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: You mean a sharro?
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: It has a cyclist with a line going through it might be appropriate.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: I think those are technically called sharros. That is what I understand and
1 7 what I think you are referring to.
18
19 Mr. Rius: The technical term is Share the Road symbol but more commonly referred to as
20 sharros. Those are typically applied where there is parallel parking and there isn't on
21 Middlefield at this section. So by the guidelines they would not be appropriate. There are
22 exceptions to the guidelines. The signage that typically accompanies that goes on the side of the
23 road, warning signs that say to share the road are applicable even without parallel parking.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Finberg, you had one last question?
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. The Alternative 3M plan at Middlefield I would concur with
28 Commissioner Lippert's assessment that as an adult cyclist it is easier to continue straight when
29 you are at the right lane with the curb. But my question is, and I want to make sure I understand
30 from the conceptual drawing, if we are in the 3M version is Oregon Expressway must we lose
31 those islands that go in the east-west direction along Oregon Expressway? So is the pedestrian
32 then crossing the entire length of the street, both directions of traffic, without any mid-street
33 island? Must they be forced into that position? Is there any alternative for the east-west
34 direction in 3M? Does that make sense?
35
36 Ms. Likens: The current median islands currently extent into the crosswalks. They are an
37 obstacle in the crosswalks now in the middle of Oregon Expressway. So they will be cutback. It
38 is my understanding that the timing will allow for pedestrians to cross the entire expressway
39 without a median pedestrian push button.
40
41 Mr. Prasad: There will be sufficient time for a pedestrian to cross from one comer to the other.
42 There will be no need for them to stop in the middle. Having medians like what protrude now is
43 not advisable for blinds who may be crossing there and it is an obstacle that they can't see. So
44 this is the preferred design and it is in ADA compliance. This is the latest new standard and the
45 timing will be sufficient to get the pedestrian from one comer to another comer safely in one
46 cycle.
Page 41
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So I understand that it won't protrude into the crosswalk but as
3 a monl of two kids, now eight and ten, you are standing there and a shoe flies off. One went with
4 their father and you are struggling to get a kid in a loose shoe and then shopping bag flies open.
5 No matter how your signals are timed the kids are going to be taking their own time. There have
6 been occasions where I have to seek shelter in that center island. So I just want to make sure I
7 understand. It is going to be pushed back out of the middle of the crosswalk but will it still in
8 fact be there so when disaster strikes you can seek shelter, you are just to the side of the
. 9 crosswalk but it is still the same width, it is there.
10
11 Mr. Prasad: Yes. On Oregon Expressway whatever median you see will still continue to stay
12 there but it will be just out of the crosswalk that's alL
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Great, thank you.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: If I can remember I had a couple of little questions. One was again
17 having to do with the funding but there aren't any trees proposed to be added, but we have all
18 talked about trees. Is there any opportunity funding-wise or otherwise, because again I am
19 looking at alternative improvements, to add trees at the intersections? You think about the trees
20 on any of the intersections where you look. We lost one at an important comer recently because
21 it was diseased and it just totally changed the complexion of the street.
22
23 If you are going down Oregon and you look at the changes that are being made it does in some
24 regards, if nothing else just because of the very character of the streetlights, makes it look more
25 urban. So if we can plant trees we are going to help retain some of the character of what Palo
26 Alto is. So is there some possibility for that?
27
28 Ms. Likens: I think that is something that if you recommend we pass onto the County and we
29 could also do that independently. I don't know what their plans are but if they could incorporate
30 additional landscaping and vegetation within the project, and the budget would allow for it, we
31 certainly would support that.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: And we could specifically indicate trees? I had a second question but I
34 think it is gone. So we will close the public hearing and go to Commissioners for one round of
35 comments and then we will hopefully have a motion. Commissioner Martinez would you like to
36 go first? Commissioner Keller has one last question.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Is it envisioned that the $3.5 million from the County will be enough for
39 this project? What is the expected use of the $1.2 million from the City for Oregon and
40 Middlefield?
41
42 Ms. Likens: The County can respond. I think they have tried to respond that they don't really
43 know whether the budget is sufficient yet or not but they think it might be. The Stanford
44 Research Park Impact Fee we have been collecting impact fees for a long time and there is about
45 $2.5 million currently residing there. We have four projects that still need to be done: Page
46 Mill, Oregon and EI Camino, Hanover and Page Mill, and Middlefield. Those projects exceed
Page 42
1 the current available funding in the Stanford Research Park Impact Fee as we have collected it to
2 date. So to say there is exactly $1.2 million that was the estimate of the cost of the improvement
3 at the time the impact fee was updated last in 2001. There is no discreet amount in the impact
4 fee funds that have been collected currently for Middlefield/Oregon.
5
6 Mr. Collen: To clarify the project funding, the project was described as a $3.5 million project
7 and thanks to the efforts of your local Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo it was put into a federal bill
8 for surface transportation authorization. Through the earmark process $2.8 million as a federal
9 grant was made available. So the remaining $700,000 would be a County match, which we have
10 pressed forward with the project, but you know with the economy and the state budget and
11 whatnot there has been a lot of pressure on the Public Works Departments and the Road
12 Department as an agency of the County with the efforts to balance the state budget. So we are
13 committed to move the project forward but we certainly would be welcoming any Palo Alto
14 participation in helping us put together the match that is required for the federal earmark.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: So if Palo Alto wanted you to -let's just for discussion sake suppose it
17 cost $250,000 for Ross Road. suppose that everything but Ross Road was $3.5 million would
18 the County envision City of Pal 0 Alto contributing $250,000 towards Middlefield and the
19 County using their money towards Ross Road or would the County say thank you very much for
20 your $250,000, we will reduce our contribution to $450,000?
21
22 Mr. Collen: Well I think we need to cost out all of the proj ect elements and get a better handle
23 on exactly what the individual pieces are and what the sum total would look like before we start
24 looking at different alternatives. At the present moment, like I said earlier, we think that
25 financially we are in good shape. That is based on what we know right now and the very, very
26 rough estimate that we have done. We would certainly welcome assistance with putting together
27 the match for the federal grant or contribution to extend the scope of the project, either way.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: So if the City of Palo Alto wanted to extend the scope for example to
30 improve the landspaping along Oregon Expressway then that is possible.
31
32 Mr. Collen: Absolutely, yes.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: I remembered my question. One of the speakers commented about
37 making the parking I believe it was along Louis, Cowper, or Ross so that isn't a 24-hour
38 restricted parking but it is only restricted parking during peak traffic hours. Would Staffhave a
39 response on that? It was Sheri Furman's comment.
40
41 Mr. Rius: After that comment was made I briefly skimmed through the plans and it appears a lot
42 of the lanes wouldn't be sufficiently wide enough to accommodate travel and parking. A lot of
43 the travel lanes are up against the curb. So even having nighttime parking at least within the
44 limits identified as no parking, I think the extent of the no parking was minimized as much as
45 possible. So just on a quick skim through the plans I don't think that is possible but we can look
46 at it in more detail during the final design.
Page 43
1
2 Mr. Prasad: During the design we did look at or we had a longer section of no parking zone. So
3 to minimize the impact I believe at Greer we are limiting to only 75 feet. As you can see
4 typically the first 50 feet is a no parking anyway because the right turning vehicles need to get on
5 the thing and that is typical. We are extending 75 feet from the intersection so it is not much. At
6 Louis I think it is about 105 feet on one side. So since we have an eight-phase signal it means
7 we have a left turn lane and a through lane. You cannot accommodate parking like for example
8 like there is at Middlefield with two lanes. I think you have a 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM parking
9 restrictions. At night from 7 :00 PM to 7 :00 AM they can park because the traffic is low and
10 there are two lanes. This one will not support that. That is why it is limited. When we designed
11 it we made sure that we are not impacting too many residents. It is probably the first resident or
12 something. We also looked at whether they have alternate parking spots and there is plenty of
13 available parking.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. One last question. The pedestrian and bicycle underpass at
16 EI Camino is not part of this project but could it be addressed? Is it too far out of the physical
17 scope or is it because it didn't address intersections? Again, it is interlinked because of the
18 pedestrian and bicycle safety so could it be a part of the scope of this?
19
20 Ms. Likens: Are you referring to the Alma railroad-crossing underpass?
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Yes.
23
24 Ms. Likens: Okay. The County Expressway Master Plan document that was approved in 2003
25 and updated in 2008 includes one project that is not part of this high priority tier one operational
26 improvement proj ect that is currently under consideration. It is conducting a feasibility study for
27 what should be done to improve the under-crossing of the railroad tracks and Alma Street and the
28 whole interchange. That is, and perhaps Mr. Collen can comment on where that is in the priority
29 list. It was not a tier I-A project, which this one is. It was something less than that. I don't have
30 the plan in front of me but it is on the Expressway Master Plan.
31
32 Mr. Collen: I think Gayle has covered it pretty well. They were identified as separate projects
33 because the focus was different and the scopes were different, and the potential impacts were
34 different, as well as the benefits were different. The work on Oregon at the intersections
35 addresses the intersection safety, capacity, and Level of Service and whatnot. The under-
36 crossing is basically about infrastructure reconstruction. It would be a massive undertaking and
37 so it was put at a lower tier for future study, which we would propose to do when we have
38 sufficient funding to advance the entire list of higher priority projects that the County has under
39 consideration. That would be just a study to begin with because we recognize that it is going to
40 be a significant investment of money to make that happen.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: I am not looking for an answer to this but just a quick comment is that I
43 am assuming, but don't want to, that the safety of that location is checked fairly regularly
44 because there is spalling, the term for concrete when it gets wet. That concrete gets wet all the
45 time, the walls of it and such, so I am hoping that gets inspected regularly.
46
Page 44
1 So comments Commissioners, it is 10:20 so one round of comments and then hopefully we will
2 find a motion. Commissioner Martinez.
3
4 Conmlissioner Martinez: Although I appeared to be unusually hypercritical tonight, I am really a
5 nice guy. I wanted to comment the County, your consultants, our Staff for really an excellent
6 and easy to follow and well designed report. I think you did a great job.
7
8 I was thinking about the comments of the moms at tonight's public hearing. One of the things
9 that sticks out in nly nlind is the comment that cars turning right often don't see the children that
10 are there crossing the street. I would particularly want to emphasize the need to have an
11 exclusive pedestrian crossing light at Greer, at Louis, and perhaps at Middlefield where we know
12 the children are going to be crossing in great numbers in the morning and after school.
13
14 I am still struggling with what is happening at Middlefield. I feel we just don't have the right
15 solution yet. I feel that in part it is because of the requirement, I will call it, or the need
16 perceived by our Traffic Engineers to have that exclusive left turn lane on Middlefield. It is
17 causing us to find the space for that third lane, to narrow the remaining lanes, to suggest that we
18 encroach upon the planting strip and remove trees. There is a domino effect of this probably
19 rightly perceived improvement on traffic turning left. I am still not convinced that it is more than
20 a ten percent improvement, five percent, slightly better than what we have now, but at a great
21 cost. While I am willing to accept just about everything else in your report I would really
22 encourage you to give more consideration to what we are going to be doing at Middlefield Road.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller, comments.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I had the opportunity to see up close all the hard work and
27 diligence and really listening that the County and City Staff do to the public in this process. I
28 know that I went to I think all of most of the meetings and I think those were among the best run
29 and respectful public outreach meetings of those kind that I have been to. So I would commend
30 all the people involved in putting those on.
31
32 I think that the intersection at Ross Road needs a traffic light there to enable the Ross Road bike
33 boulevard to be built at sonle point. Even if the Ross Road bike boulevard isn't built redirecting
34 the students who live east of Middlefield to be able to cross Ross Road to be able to get to Jordan
35 seems to make a lot of sense independent of whether there is a bike boulevard there. Directing
36 them off of Middlefield is a dramatic improvement of safety and for that reason alone I would do
37 this.
38
39 I am somewhat skeptical about the ability to put a full bike boulevard along Ross Road. I don't
40 mean a bike route but a bike boulevard because one of the things noticed about Bryant Street is
41 that Bryant Street has traffic blocks, traffic diverters, and things like that. There are in South
42 Palo Alto where there are creeks the only way to get across the creek on Bryant Street are little
43 bike bridges and pedestrian bridges, and that doesn't exist on Ross Road so it would require
44 putting some sort of blocks along the road. I don't know if we are ready for that. That being
45 said I do think it is worthwhile putting a traffic light there for pedestrians and bicyclists.
46
Page 45
1 With respect to Middlefield Road I think that there is no easy answer. I think that certainly the
2 County Staffhas worked on trying to reduce this from their idea, which would try to make
3 enough width in both directions, and each time it has been narrowed. The most persuasive
4 argument to me for 3M is the conflict for bicyclists going northbound on Middlefield in the
5 traffic lane, that conflict with having to move over. I think that the traffic light at Ross Road is
6 somewhat of a mitigation for that problem. Most of the bicyclists that I see are actually on the
7 sidewalk and not on the roadway. It seems to me that weighing all the issues 3M seems to be the
8 best approach, I'm sorry 4M. The fourth one seems to be the best approach. I mixed it with 3M.
9 Four has the problem with the right tum lane and so four is the best approach because for one
10 thing it does not remove the trees on Middlefield Road. It doesn't require widening the road
11 right-of-way. The other thing it does is it means that when you have a person going in the right
12 hand lane who wants to go straight and is stuck behind somebody turning right who is stuck by a
13 pedestrian or bicyclist you have a problem there. So that is a sticky situation. By having a
14 dedicated right tum lane there it means that traffic can freely turn right easily on that, can tum
15 right on red when people are making left turns from Oregon onto Middlefield. It means that at
16 that intersection you won't have redirection from there onto Ross Road for people going towards
17 101.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: First of all I want to thank the neighbors, the County and City Staff for
22 coming together. I think that the proposals tonight and what I see in the Staff Report is a
23 win/win situation for everybody. I think that we are beginning to arrive at some consensus in
24 terms of approaching Oregon Expressway. When this process started out I really see that there
25 were almost competing interests and now as I see the solutions I begin to see that everybody can
26 walk away with something that is positive fronl the Staff Report and what has been
27 recommended this evening.
28
29 I am pretty much in agreement with the Staff Report and the recommendations here. I just want
30 to stress two things. Number one, I am really in support of the Ross Road Alternative 3. I think
31 that is a particularly important element and that should move forward as part of our
32 recommendation this evening. In addition to that the Middlefield Road Alternative 4 I am not a
33 proponent of, I don't support that at all. But I do support the Middlefield Road Alternative 3-
34 Modified. I think that is a really good approach here.
35
36 Now, my comments are really based on the primary thing, which is pedestrian and bicyclist
37 safety. I think if we promote Ross Road as a bicycle boulevard what it is going to do is take
38 bicycles off of Middlefield Road and allowing that to be the arterial that it needs to be for traffic
39 feeding into Oregon Expressway. What I want to do is separate out and I want to really get or
40 promote the students that are bicycling to both the middle school and Garland Elementary
41 School, whether it is a public school or private school, to take that Ross Road bicycle boulevard
42 as their main route. When I am out cycling I look for safe routes to bicycle on. I look for routes
43 that are marked. I look for routes that have bicycle lanes. I look for the measures that are put in
44 place that slow vehicular traffic. I am not going to find that on Middlefield Road. What I am
45 going to find is cars that are really trying to find the most expeditious way to get home or to get
46 to work. I am also going to find that on Oregon Expressway. But with the Ross Road element
Page 46
1 built what happens is you come up Ross Road, you hit Garland Drive, and you can go left or
2 right. You can get over to Louis Road or you can get back onto Middlefield Road and wrap
3 around and get to the middle school there. So I think that is a very important element and it
4 pretty much keeps the bicyclists off of Middlefield Road, which is what I want to try to promote.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, comments.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: I would also like to commend the County in bringing forward a very
9 good process incorporating many divergent interests and bringing forward a proposal that seems
10 to be something that offers a great amount to different groups with different interests.
11
12 On Ross Road I think it is important that there be the signalized crossing with the bike slots.
13 Ross even without being a bicycle boulevard is relatively calm compared to the adjacent parallel
14 streets. It is wider and it is lovely to bicycle on with little kids but you can't get anywhere from
15 the northern end of Ross at Oregon. So having just that safe crossing across Oregon means it
16 becomes more usable even if we do nothing else on Ross. So I would definitely advocate for the
1 7 solution 3 on Ross.
18
19 For Middlefield I would concur with Commissioner Martinez's characterization that it is not
20 quite there yet. There are some parts of the 3-Modified plan that I think are ideal and there are
21 some parts of plan 4. In 4 that right tum lane just seems awful. I can also see a scenario where
22 people will pull up to the comer, talking on their cell phone, pass the sign that says right tum
23 only, be sitting on top of the right tum arrow, drive straight across the intersection and try to
24 merge with the car that has the lane, and it will not be something that promotes safety for
25 bicycles. So I don't think that one straight lane and the two tum lanes is an ideal scenario.
26
27 I don't think anyone wants to lose trees. But ifit nleans we get the intersection right with 3M, if
28 there is any way that can be reconfigured, out of the box thinking, I can't make suggestions of
29 that tonight, but that would sort of be the best of both worlds. I think with what is on the table
30 right now the modified third plan is the ideal scenario at Middlefield.
31
32 The only other thing would be if when the motion is made if whoever makes it remembers my
33 suggestion to add the PTA Council to the list of neighborhood groups that will be involved in the
34 furthering discussions.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Keller, do you have a motion?
37
38 MOTION
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I anl going to make a nlotion and we will see how many people
41 support it. So I am going to move the Staff recommendation with the following changes. First
42 of all I am going to emphasize that we are totally in support of Ross Road alternative that
43 includes the traffic light. I am also going to modify the Staff recommendation to recommend
44 Alternative 4 rather than Alternative 3-Modified.
45
Page 47
1 With respect to point four make three changes. One is to add to the list of people that Staff
2 works with the PTA Council Traffic Safety Committee Representative. The second is a Planning
3 and Transportation Commission Representative, and that the report is to the Planning and
4 Transportation Commission and then the Council rather than just directly to the Council. In
5 addition, I am not sure whether this should or should not be part of the motion but to consider the
6 potential for expanding the scope to include the landscaping improvements to Oregon
7 Expressway in part due to the damage that was done with the sidewalks that were added, if
8 necessary.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Is there a second?
11
12 SECOND
13
14 Commissioner Martinez: Second.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez seconds. Would the maker care to speak to his
17 motion or do you feel like you have already?
18
19 Commissioner Keller: I think I have sufficiently spoken to this. I realize there is a lot of
20 controversy with respect to Middlefield Road, Alternative 4 versus Alternative 3M. There is no
21 way to build the equivalent of Alternative 3M without widening Middlefield Road. You cannot
22 physically put five lanes in north of the intersection, north of Middlefield Road intersection from
23 the Garland direction. There is no way to put five lanes there without widening the roadway.
24 The roadway there is five feet narrower than the roadway to the south of Oregon Expressway.
25 That is the only way you can fit those five lanes is because of the extra five feet. So we have a
26 choice either four lanes north of Oregon Expressway and no widening, or widen by five feet
27 essentially and five lanes. My preference is to not widen. Thank you.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: If I might just clarify your motion is for Ross Road it is Alternative 3
30 because that includes the signal?
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, for Ross Road it is Altenlative 3, which includes the signal, which I
33 believe is the part of the Staff recommendation number three.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Martinez would you care to speak to your second?
36
37 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. Since I am losing traction on getting anyone to listen to coming
38 up with a better alternative for Middlefield I was persuaded in part by Commissioner Lippert's
39 remark that the signalization of Ross Road would encourage more bicyclists to use that instead
40 of Middlefield. With some public education for the availability of a safe crossing at Ross Road I
41 am less inclined to feel that the single lane crossing Oregon Expressway would be as problematic
42 for bicyclists as it would be otherwise. So in a way I am supporting both Alternative 4 for
43 Middlefield Road and Alternative 3 for Ross Road working in tandem to improve a situation that
44 really needs our attention now as the highest priority of this project. Thank you.
45
Page 48
1 Commissioner Holman: Before the other Commissioners speak to the motion I am going to ask
2 for an amendment if I might, that has to do with your landscape component of your motion. I
3 would just make it a recomnlendation and not have all the conditions in it that landscape
4 improvements along Oregon be a necessary component and especially the inclusion of trees and
5 most especially at intersections.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Let me try rewording that statement to say consider the potential for
8 expanding the scope to include landscaping improvenlents along Oregon Expressway.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: That is not what I am looking for. 'Consider the potential for' does not
11 to me make it an imperative to make this a successful project.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: So are you suggesting that the rewording be expand the scope, period.
14 Expand the scope to include landscaping improvements, period.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: Trees.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Expand the scope to include trees and other landscaping improvements
19 along Oregon Expressway.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: And most especially the intersections.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Okay, sure.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: Accepted by the seconder as well?
26
27 Commissioner Martinez: Yes.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to the
30 motion?
31
32 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I would like to actually make a substitute motion, which is to
35 accept all of the language in Commissioner Keller's motion with the exception of adopting
36 Middlefield Road Alternative 3-Modified.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: Is there a second?
39
40 SECOND
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: I will second that.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: I am hesitating here because I think you have heard three people speak
45 to favoring Alternative 4 so I am not quite sure the purpose of the motion.
46
Page 49
1 Commissioner Lippert: Well, let me make my case.
2
3 Comnlissioner Holnlall: Make your case, okay.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Actually my feeling about it is I honestly believe that a good solution
6 has not been found here, that there is really a marriage of the two proposals somewhere in the
7 middle. I honestly believe that the two lanes going north are the most compelling for me.
8 Coming south I do agree with this scheme number 4. Maybe there is a way for us to find a
9 middle ground and just say it is not totally resolved and this one area that needs additional work.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Fineberg, care to speak to your second?
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I would agree and this goes back to Commissioner Martinez's
14 comment that I don't think we have the right solution yet at Middlefield. The one through lane
15 at a large intersection of an arterial road is a greater negative to me than the loss of a beautiful
16 aesthetic area for a couple hundred feet. I think back to when I was learning to drive and I was
17 convinced if I couldn't see over the hump of a hill the road was going to end. If I didn't see
18 where the highway exit was going I didn't trust that it was going to continue. I was 15 and a half
19 driving on interstates and I remember my dad told me a big road isn't going to go down to one
20 lane. We have areas like on Charleston where in the whole corridor we are doing traffic calnling
21 but people just don't expect a big road, Middlefield, which for miles has been two lanes to
22 suddenly go to one lane. So to me it is more than just how is a bike going to get across it with a
23 right turn lane there. It just doesn't fit traffic patterns that people are used to functioning in. So
24 because of that south, the intersection going north on the southern side of Oregon it just doesn't
25 work. It wouldn't work for me. So I would encourage my fellow Commissioners if they would
26 be supportive of a compromise where we direct Staff to rework that and not take a position. I
27 would be supportive of that but I don't think I could vote for the entire package if we went with
28 Alternative 4.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: If I could restate my motion, I would say that I would prefer to see a
33 melding or a compromising of Alternative 3-Modified and Alternative 4 as originally proposed.
34 That would be my restated motion. Do you concur with that?
35
36 Commissioner Fineberg: I will second that.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: Conu:ltissioner Martinez you have comments?
39
40 Commissioner Martinez: It sounds like we are coming around to a position that we don't have a
41 solution for Middlefield that a majority can support. I would be in favor of asking Staff to take
42 another look at this, asking the County as well, with the provision that we not reduce the planting
43 strip or remove trees. I think it is somewhat ironic after our study session earlier where we are
44 trying to put language into Comprehensive Plan that sticks that we are now perhaps looking
45 away from this and supporting a modification of Middlefield that removes trees. So I would be
Page 50
1 entirely in favor of looking for a compromise between 3M and 4 that we ask Staff to look at that
2 doesn't remove trees from the planting area. Thank you.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: If I nlight ask Staff, do you anticipate or maybe the designers or
5 engineers here too, is there is any concept that might be possible or feasible to come up with a
6 melding of the two that did not remove trees and planting strips?
7
8 Ms. Likens: I would just say, and the County can respond, they looked at alnlost every
9 conceivable layout that would work, aside from the current configuration, which is six phases,
10 which has split phasing on Middlefield and doesn't have left turn pockets. Their interest is to
11 provide the opportunity to go to eight-phase operation, which requires exclusive left tum lanes
12 on Middlefield. Looking at the alignment of the north and south segments of Middlefield and
13 the different widths of those two segments and aligning the lanes perhaps there is an alternative
14 out there that wasn't looked at but I am not sure what it would be.
15
16 Mr. Collen: I think that Commission Melnber Keller has stated the mathematics pretty
17 succinctly. There are 41 feet if you want to put five lanes in there then without moving the curb
18 you would have to go to an eight-foot lane, which I don't think anybody would recommend. A
19 car is about six feet wide, a truck is about eight-feet wide, and a bus is about eight plus mirrors.
20 So there is no real way to shoehorn anything more in there. It is a difficult tradeoffbut the
21 tradeoff is going to have to be confronted and you are going to have to pick a direction. I don't
22 see the two directions as being compatible.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Commissioners, if I might in just an effort to move this along and try to
25 get a vote on the motions. I am going to support the original motion rather than the substitute
26 motion and here is why. Currently when you are going north you have to merge. Actually
27 Commissioner Lippert almost made the argument for using 4 because of I think his right thinking
28 about with the improvements at Ross Road we would be encouraging bicyclists to use Ross
29 rather than Middlefield. I think that having the right tum lane coming north on Middlefield to
30 Oregon is going to relive the stacking that happens there. So I think there are a lot of advantages
31 to Alternative 4 and would encourage Commissioners to, based on comments that we have seen
32 and the amount of time that has been spent, that it is not perfect but I would encourage
33 Commissioners to accept either the substitute motion or the original motion and not ask for this
34 to do a go back. Commissioner Keller.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: I thank Staff for their comments and County Staff for their comments that
37 you essentially can't have eight-foot roadway and therefore we have to make the decision. I
38 agree with Acting Chair Holman that we have to make a decision between 3M, 3-Modified, and
39 4 and it is a judgment call. Essentially going through various plans the County has done their
40 work and now the judgment is for us.
41
42 I do have one quick question that I would like to first ask and then speak to. In the back of the
43 book, in the back of the report, Attachment G refers to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 for
44 Oregon and Middlefield. Which is 1 and which is 2? Do you know? I may have read it
45 somewhere but I am not sure what it refers to.
46
Page 51
1 Mr. Prasad: Are you talking about graphics?
2
3 Conunissioner Keller: I anl talking about the data in the very back. There are all these pages
4 upon pages of numbers in the very back.
5
6 Mr. Collen: The Level of Service Chart?
7
8 Commissioner Keller: The Level of Service Charts in the very back. The reason I am asking
9 this is because tlus is the detail data on exactly what the differences are between 3M and 4 in
10 terms of traffic flow. I am trying to understand because I didn't see much difference between
11 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in terms of AM or PM and I couldn't tell which was which. I
12 think there is not much difference in traffic and if one of them was 3M and the other one was 4,
13 and we don't know which is which then there is not much difference in the flow of traffic on
14 Middlefield Road across Oregon Expressway. If there is not much difference then why not pick
15 4?
16
17 Mr. Collen: Well there are several pages involved.
18
19 Mr. Prasad: Actually what you have in the back are supporting documentation that we went
20 through. It is not shown in the report about 1 and 2 because they were dropped out after the
21 second community meeting. There was overwhelming support for 3 and also we added a new
22 Alternative, which is 4 based on the feedback. What we have included here are the 1 and 2 that
23 we analyzed just for the records. So really these alternatives were dropped out.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: So we don't have an equivalent of the back for 3M versus 4.
26
27 Mr. Prasad: We do have that probably in the middle of the report somewhere. The end section
28 was just an appendix to show that we did look at 1 and 2 and those were different alternatives
29 with 1 requiring modifications on all four comers, and Alternative 2 requiring two side widening.
30 I think Alternative 1 was three side widening.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: There are a bunch of3-1s so I am not sure which is which. One of the
33 things that is interesting to me is that at least for all the data that has been presented to us there is
34 not much difference on Middlefield Road delays and throughput for Alternatives 3M and
35 Alternative 4.
36
37 Mr. Prasad: It is more often operational. Based on our experience in operating hundreds of
38 expressway intersections how the operation would impact is important and when you have a
39 major arterial like this and if you squeeze that down to one lane you are potentially going to have
40 problems at a later stage when you a bunch of cars that are just arriving and all of a sudden they
41 are all going through. So you will have a long stack of lines that will be still impacting the
42 neighbors whether they are able to get down or not. When you talk about the difference between
43 the two being the loss of trees, the loss of trees you can also look at as a safety. One of the trees
44 has already been hit. It is clearly marked on the tree. It is also in our report. We are removing it
45 but we can also replant it. We have an option to replant it. We can work with arborists. There
46 are sonle differences as to what kind of tree can go but we can come to an agreement and replant
Page 52
1 it. Another option that we can explore is work with the neighbors that lost those trees and see if
2 we can plant something in their yard if they were willing to do that. Plus, on top of it we could
3 also add trees along Oregon, or places where it is possible to replace those trees. So it is not a
4 complete loss.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I just want to point out that the inlpacts of those trucks or
7 whatever that hit the trees that may have been a pedestrian that might have been hit if there
8 hadn't been a tree there. So for what it is worth. I thank you for your comments. I do think that
9 there isn't an opportunity to do more lanes on the southbound side so we have to make a
10 decision. I drive that route very often and when I am driving that route going northbound and I
11 am stuck in the right hand lane behind somebody who is turning right I get really frustrated and I
12 am sure that this will remove those frustrations.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: Is there any other necessary comments before we vote on the substitute
15 motion? Commissioner Fineberg.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: I know this is the 13th hour but is there any reason you can't have two
18 lanes going northbound with the left tum lane on Middlefield and then on the northbound side of
19 Middlefield taking the five-foot strip so it would receive the two lanes of northbound traffic and
20 then do the merge sinlilar to the way it is in the existing conditions, but having that extra five
21 feet. Is that the hybrid that we are looking for? I can maybe explain that again.
22
23 Mr. Collen: I think you just described 3M.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: No. You are right. Take it back. It is the 13th hour.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Okay, Commissioner Lippert.
28
29 SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: I think I persuaded myselfby comments that I made earlier. I am going
32 to withdraw the substitute motion. I think that what Commissioner Keller is proposing is
33 perfectly adequate and we are mincing words here. I think just fish or cut bait.
34
35 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Tuma conflicted)
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Thank you Commissioner Lippert. So we are ready to vote on the
38 original motion. I don't think Staffneeds it repeated. All those in favor say aye. (ayes)
39 Opposed? So that motion passes on a five to zero vote with Commissioners Martinez, Keller,
40 Lippert, Fineberg, and Holman all voting aye. So that will conclude that item. Thank you to
41 Staff, members of the public and the County Staff.
42
Page 53
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
CHAPTER 4.3: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION. AND PARKING
BRADY ~ ATTACHMENT G
For all intersections identified below where mitigation measures are proposed,
as well as a representative selection of the street segments listed in Tables 12
and 13, the City will implement a Citywide traffic impact monitoring program.
Mitigation measures for intersections shall be implemented only when the
level of service reaches the thresholds identified therein.;, This is necessary
because the traffic projections contained in this EIR are quite conservative
and will tend not to be fully realized within the projected time frame. Palo
Alto has employed traffic impact monitoring programs several times in the
past, the most notable being those required for several Stanford University
development projects in the 1980s. In addition to identifying when mitigation
measures are required, this monitoring program will track annual peak hour
traffic volumes measurements at all 20 study intersections, as part of the
growth management policies adopted by the City Council. Following is a list
of the basic elements that would be included in a traffic impact monitoring
program.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifjcation of intersections and any roadway segments where
monitoring is to be accomplished.
Determination of the frequency of monitoring.
Determination of the types of data to be gathered.
Determination of types of reports to be produced and to whom reports
should be presented.
Determination of thresholds at which intersection mitigation measures
would be triggered for implementation.
Once the thresholds of implementation have been reached,
determination of time frame, funding implications, and process to be
followed to actually implement required mitigations.
Determination of effectiveness of mitigations after one year of
implementation.
(1) Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway
Impact CIRC-5: Development and growth assumed in 2010 with the
Comprehensive Plan Update would result in a significant decrease in Level of
Service at the Middlefield/Oregon intersection (LOS E to LOS F). (S)
A capacity improvement was identified and recommended for this intersection
in the 1989 Citywide Study, consisting of: (a) widening the northbound
approach of Middlefield Road on the east side, (b) widening the southbound
approach of Middlefield on the west side (both widenings within the existing
right-of-way), in order to add a new left-turn lane on each Middlefield
166
•
I
II
I '
II
II
.'
•
I
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 1996
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CHAPTER 4.3: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
approach, "and (c) revising the signal operation to eliminate the north-south
split phase. This improvement has not yet been implemented, due to lack of
funding. Within approximately 300 feet north and south of the Oregon
Expressway curb lines, these changes would result in narrower curb lanes on
Middlefield Road for bicyclists, remove the planting strip separating the
sidewalks from t~e traffic lanes, along with several mature trees, remove on-
street parking, and require a moderate level of utility relocation. The only
way to preserve the existing curb lane widths (needed for bicyclists) and the
planting strips (needed for aesthetics and to provide a buffer between the
sidewalk and moving traffic) would be to obtain additional right-of-way from
existing development along Middlefield Road for approximately 300 feet north
and south of the Oregon Expressway curb lines. This development consists
primarily of single-family homes, with a church on one side. The City does
not feel it is practical or appropriate to obtain this right-of-way. Even without
this additional right-of-way, the travelled way of Middlefield Road would be
widened from four to five lanes, thus increasing the pedestrian and bicycle
crossing distance and the number of lanes of waiting cars in front of which
pedestrians and bicyclists would have to cross. The negative impacts on
pedestrians and bicyclists of the Middlefield Road widening would be
considered significant.
The improved signal operation would allow better coordination of signals
along Oregon Expressway. This improvement would not preclude maintaining
Middlefield Road at two lanes north of Oregon, nor, if desired, reducing the
cross-section to two lanes south of Oregon (with left turn pockets), beginning
approximately at Marion (one northbound through lane, one southbound
through lane, and one two-way left-turn lane). Existing congestion at this
intersection contributes to diversion of arterial traffic onto Midtown
neighborhood streets east and west of Middlefield, which would increase
significantly by 2010.
As part of this current analysis, another possible capacity improvement was
identified on Oregon Expressway-addition of a second westbound Oregon
Expressway left-turn lane. This improvement would help reduce the length of
the signal phase and thus, congestion. This improvement could be
accomplished within the existing right-of-way, resulting in some narrowing of
. the shoulder lanes. There would still be adequate room for bicycle travel on
the shoulder. Because the traveled way would not be widened, crossing time
for pedestrians and bicyclists would not increase, but they would have to pass
in front of an additiopal lane of waiting traffic on the east leg. These two
improvements together (additional left-turn lanes on north-and south-bound
Middlefield and on westbound Oregon, and removal of split phase) would
improve the 2010 LOS F (103 seconds of delay) to LOS D (40 seconds of
167
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CHAPTER 4.3: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
BRADY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 1996
delay). The conclusion is to construct both of these improvements, to be
implemented by the following mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CIRC-5: When so indicated by the Citywide
Traffic Monitoring Program, the City shall:
• Widen Middlefield Road on the east side of the northbound
approach and on the west side on the southbound approach to
provide an exclusive left-turn lane and dual through lanes in each
direction, and change the signal operation to eight-phase; and
• Construct a second westbound left-turn lane within the westbound
Oregon Expressway approach.
In order to provide funding for this intersection improvement project,
the City shall reevaluate its existing Traffic Impact Fees to be levied on
new developments that contribute to the need for the improvement.
The fee shall be determined and levied in accordance with· applicable
legal requirements. (LTS)
This improvement would mitigate the significant project impact according to
both the Palo Alto and the CMP standards, resulting in a less than significant
impact for traffic flow. Even though decreased traffic congestion and delay
are beneficial to bicyclists, the improvement would have a significant negative
impact on pedestrian and bicycle travel on Middlefield Road within
approximately one block north and south of Oregon Expressway due to the
narrowed lanes and removal of the planting strips.
(2) Middlefield Road/San Antonio Road
Impact CIRC-6: Development and growth assumed in 2010 with the Compre-
hensive Plan Update would result in a significant decrease in Level of Service
at the Middlefield/San Antonio intersection (LOSD to LOS F). (S)
Three capacity improvements were identified for this intersection in the 1986
San Antonio/West Bayshore Study and the 1989 Citywide Study, none of
which have been implemented, due to lack of right-of-way and funding. These
improvements are to: (a) widen Middlefield on the east side of the
northbound approach to add a northbound right-turn lane; (b) further widen
Middlefield on the northbound approach and on the west side of the
southbound approach to add a second northbound left-turn lane; and (c)
widen San Antonio Road on the south side of the eastbound approach to
provide an eastbound exclusive right-turn lane. The first two improvements
would involve major utility relocation work and additional right-of-way from
adj acent properties for approximately 300 feet north and south of the San
168
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
City of Palo Alto
Attention: City Council
Dear Honorable Council Members,
ATTACHMENT H
November 3fd , 2009
At its October meeting, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) considered
possible safety issues around the Planning and Transportation Commission's (PTC)
recommended configuration of the Middlefield Road intersection at Oregon Expressway under the
County's planned Oregon Expressway improvements. Specifically, the PTC recommended
Alternative 4 which, on Middlefield just before Oregon in the northbound direction, consists of one
left-turn-only lane, one through-lane, and one right-turn-only lane.
PABAC was concerned that the right-turn-only lane would pose a hazard to pedestrians
and to bicyclists who do not position themselves in the through lane, and who thus get stuck in
the right lane trying to go straight with right-turning cars to their left. Following its discussions,
PABAC unanimously passed the following motion:
"With regards to the Middlefield Road intersection at Oregon Expressway, it
is the opinion of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee that a right-turn-
only lane in the northbound direction presents an increased hazard for
bicyclists and pedestrians, especially for cyclists on the sidewalk or in the
right-turn lane who are not comfortable taking the through lane."
The Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee hopes you will take the safety of pedestrians
and bicyclists into consideration when you weigh your options for this intersection.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Sinc .. ereIY,. n A (( _ . " I. ~ ~~~
Cedric de La Beaujardiere
Chair, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Oregon Improvement Plan Letter
From: Pam Radin
Aug ust 25th 2009
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission:
ATTACHMENT I
I've been involved in community input for two years with the city and county planners on a
regular basis regarding the Oregon Improvement Plan. I request the PTC provide further
guidance to the City Council regarding Ross Alt. #3 prioritization, execution and funding.
One main benefit Residents receive in mitigating the County project is the ability to maintain
walkable-bikeable neighborhoods across Oregon. Enough has not been done to improve
current accessibility for Residents that live nearest the project site. The city staff report Pulls the
Rip-Cord short of providing equally prioritized mitigations for residential impacts especially at
Ross Road. Ross is vel}' important because: >
~ Ross is a main Bike Blvd. in the Palo Alto Bike Plan e. of Middlefield Rd.
~ Is designed as a bike/ped alternative to Middlefield Rd.
~ Allows greatest crosstown distance bike/ped road access [no to s.], east of Middlefield
~ Crossing preserves future bike blvd. to serve the schools, employers, baylands [no to s.]
~ Allows midway bike access near Middlefield area [Louis & Cowper are far apart e. to w.]
~ Provides current access for bike/peds to cross Oregon now and safer access to continue
I request the PTC consider the following:
~ Consider Ross Rd. coordinated signalization w/ Middlefield Rd. as other planned signals
are prioritized now, important and to be implemented with all endorsed improvements
~ Consider the improvement of the coordinated bike signal sync, bike slots & loops
~ The City's goal & benefit in bringing residential areas in step with the comp plan and
bicycle network plan providing continued and safer cross town access [no to s.]
Consider prioritization of Ross amongst other proposed alternative projects:
~ W. Bayshore is a endorsed improvement and is a truck route/on ramp to 101
~ The 3.5 million funding is now available to all Oregon, including Ross, and not limited to
certain proposed alternatives only
The County considers the Oregon Expwy. Improvement Plan at optimum design the best they
can engineer with Ross Road. With the economy they project the entire project can be built.
Please include Ross as a priority for design, testing and funding while the County is in town.
Thank you,
Pam Radin
cc: City Council
James Keene
Gayle Likens
Curtis Williams
Page 1 of 1
Rius, Rafael
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Wednesday, September 02,2009 7:43 AM
To: Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan
Fineberg
Cc: Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael; Caporgno, Julie
Subject: FW: Oregon Expressway and Bikes
fyi
Zariah Betten, Admin. Associate
Ofll!~3al"tm~lt1t of Planning and Community Environment
Hamilton AverliJElf 5th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel: 650-329-2440
Fax: 650-329-2154
From: Pat Smith [mailto.( @sbcglobal.netJ
Sent: TuesdaYI September 01, 2009 4:07 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Oregon Expressway and Bikes
>
> Planning Con1IDission, City of Palo Alto:
>
> My name is Patricia Smith. I have lived at-'South Court since March =
> 1965. My husband and I attended your meeting last Wednesday evening
> regarding the Oregon Expressway and bike lanes. A simpler answer to =
> your problem is to have all bikes use the frontage road of Oregon
>A venue. All bikers on our street have used the frontage road for years. This way the =
> bikers are away from traffic and look at a beautiful green hedge.
>
> Sincerely,
> Patricia Smith
> ------=
1114/2009
Page 1 of2
Rius, Rafael
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:36 PM
To: Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan
Fineberg
Cc: Williams, Curtis; Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael; Larkin, Donald; Caporgno, julie
Subject: FW: Comments on Oregon Expressway for meeting on Aug 26
fyi
Zariah Betten, Admin. Associate
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto{ CA 94301
Tel: 650-329-2440
Fax: 650-329-2154
~.t,:1ri..~.~.~.~~1:t.~.rl@«::i1:Y9fpt,:1~.9~.I.:t;9.~.9rg
From: Robert Herriot [mailto:. I tcom]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Oregon Expressway for meeting on Aug 26
Commission members:
, ......•
I have a large concern about the meeting tonight.
It seenlS to be ignoring the comnlunity process that has been going on for more than a year.
The county has maintained a web site at oregonexpressway.info with current information about the
project and they have sent postcards about each conlillunity meeting to all people who attended their
meetings.
The oregonexpressway.info doesn't mention the planning meeting and has no infornlation later than
March 2009.
The web site has an undated (probably early 2009) press release which says "The County plans to present
the preferred alternatives to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission in early 2009, and seek
formal City support for the project and any proposed side street improvements." I would expect the web site to
have information about the preferred solutions based on feedback from the March 2009 meeting. It
doesn't.
A lot of interested people didn't receive notification about this planning commision meeting. I just
happened to read a Post article on this hearing today.
I have a large concern that the current plan is biased toward engineering thinking rather than one that
best serves people. This
11/4/2009
Page 2 of2
bias has caused the county engineers to ignore data that doesn't fit their biases. This bias assumes that
people are incapable
of nlaking good decisions and thus they cannot be trusted to safely pass through an intersection that has
no signal (e.g. Waverley) or make a left turn without a green arrow (e.g. Bryant on to Oregon
Expressway). For example, the proposed changes have repeatedly added more controls on the Waverley
intersection even though accident data doesn't support any need for change. The accident data shows
that most accidents along Oregon are read-enders caused by traffic stopping for red lights.
When the engineers advocate controlling left turns with left arrows, they don't want to consider the extra
time (5 seconds or so) it adds to each cycle as the light controller determines that the left lane is enlpty.
The plans also don't consider how much gas is wasted when a hole platoon of traffic is stopped for a
single left turner, who could have picked a gap in the traffic to make the tum if only there were no left
arrow to prevent the tum. People are better at determining a safe gap than the relatively blind light
controller.
The county has never indicated what the benefit is for these changes. It isn't clear how much time will
be cut or accidents reduced for cars going from 101 to EI Camino.
I have suggested an innovative solution for left turns that use a flashing yellow arrow to designate that it
is OK to turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic. This solution is being using in many communities
around the us. See "NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 495
Evaluation of Traffic SignaTJ!Display for Protected/Pernlissive Left Turn Control" at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp rpt 493.pdf.
I suggest that the planning commission make no decision this evening and have the county notify all
people on their mailing list for the next meeting.
Robert Herriot
1114/2009
Rius, Rafael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FYI
Betten, Zariah
Tuesday, August 25,2009 1 :08 PM
Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma;
Susan Fineberg
Caporgno, Julie; Williams, Curtis; Larkin, Donald; Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael
FW: Comment son Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Message-----
Ito: .net]
August 25, 2009 11:56 AM
Commission
son Oregon Expressway Improvement ect
Commissioners,
I am not able attend your meeting tomorrow evening (Wed 26, 2009) so
this on the agenda item of the Oregon
Even more fically, I wish to comment on the intersections of Oregon
Expressway with Ross Waverly and Middlefield Roads.
Wrt to both Ross and Roads, eliminating the crosswalks is a bad,
lousy terrible, idea. The document stated that was "the
crosswalks would be eliminated but pedestrian would still be
permitted via an unmarked crosswalk." Most drivers don't know that they are
legally to for pedestrians in a crosswalk, let alone
for who are via an implied "unmarked crosswalk." This
is a ridiculous idea, and muph worse than doing
Less ridiculous, but unnecessary is eliminating travel across and
left-hand turns onto from Ross and Waverley. This traffic in these
instances is minimal, and does not affect the flow of traffic on Oregon.
With respect to the fic proposals for the Intersections.
Ross Road: Again, I feel eliminating through travel across and left-hand
turns onto Oregon from Ross is but it must be done, than I
Alternative 3, safer bike and pedestrian travel across
and the creating of a Bike Boulevard on Ross Road. It looks at
the images for the before and after for Alternative 2
easily see how this would ruin the intersection
bicycli~ts, making it and causing them to travel an
mile along the expressway, to cross the street.
proposal does not consider but traffic on Oregon,
impacts on the nearby residents, the walkability, bikeability and the very
livability of the area, all of which should be considered the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Waverley Road:
See Ross Road and comments.
Middlefield Road:
I support Alternative 4, with no reduction in existing landscaping
Middlefield Road, for all the reasons that have been
Thank you,
Joel Gartland
Garland Drive,
1
Likens. Gayle
From: Pam Radin [pamradin@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11 :01 AM
To: Council, City
Cc: Likens, Gayle; 'Masoud Akbarzadeh'
Subject: ROSS SUPPORT LETTER FROM RESIDENT, Vijay Tella FW: Oregon Expwy Plan
I am forwarding the below letter of support for Ross Road Alt. #3 from Vijay Tella, a nearby resident to Ross
Road.
Thank you,
Pam Radin
MRA, Traffic
From: Vijay Tella [mailto:vijay.tella@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:29 PM
To: pamradin@comcast.net
Subject: Oregon expwy plan
Dear Pam,
I live off Ross Road on Bruce Drive and am supportive of Alt. #3
We would like to thank the County and City for incorporation of the design into the Oregon Expressway Plan
Ask that Council prioritize the Ross #3 as a Residential feature to the plan and include it in Councils
recommendations to the County as a priority of the Oregon plan.
thank you,
Vijay Tella,
870 Bruce drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
8/19/2009
RE: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives Page 1 of2
Rius, Rafael
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:31 AM
To: Daniel Garber; Eduardo Martinez; Karen Holman; Keller, Arthur; Lippert, Lee; Samir Tuma; Susan
Fineberg
Cc: Caporgno, Julie; Williams, Curtis; Likens, Gayle; Rius, Rafael; Larkin, Donald
Subject: FW: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives
fyi
Zariah Betten, Admin. Associate
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel: 650-329-2440
Fax: 650-329-2154
~.~.ri~.h·iJ?:t:l;~n@<:i:t:Y9fp~19t:!.J~9·Qrg
From: Neal Aronson [mailto~. • .com]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:37 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Council, City; Frances Lim
Subject: RE: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am a Palo Alto native son and my family lives on the west of Middlefield, across the street and just
south of the Garland Drive intersection. I'd like to share with you our view of the current Middlefield
Road transportation alternatives being considered by the County and City. While we support the
concept of improving traffic flow on Middlefield, we feel strongly that the current alternatives are
favoring traffic flow over pedestrian (especially child) safety. Almost every weekend, my wife and I
walk our three young children to the Midtown shopping center. These walks are already somewhat
tense experiences for us as its always a challenge to keep the children together in an orderly group as
we make our way down Middlefield, across Oregon and then down to the shopping district. The traffic
moves very quickly, despite the 25 MPH limit, and vehicles often turn from Middlefield onto Oregon
westbound without looking for pedestrians. If the planting median is suddenly gone, these walks will
be even more stressful as it is highly likely the additional lane on the road will encourage vehicles to
d rive faster.
Because of this concern and the apparent lack of speed controls or safety measures built into either of
the alternatives, we strongly oppose the removal of the planting median and therefore either of the
current altertives. Please consider our concerns and the safety of our three children: Hunter 4 years,
Aiden 4 years, and Reyes 16 months when you discuss these alternatives on Wednesday August 26th
and ask the County to redesign the intersection without the dedicated turn lanes which require the
1114/2009
RE: Middlefield Road Transportation Alternatives
planting strip to be removed.
Regards,
Neal Aronson
~Middlefield Road.
11/4/2009
Page 2of2
Page 1 of2
Likens, Gayle
From: Elizabeth Schwerer [liz@laysoft.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 20094:35 PM
To: Planning Commission; Likens, Gayle
Cc: Council, City; liz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org; comments@oregonexpressway.info; Ann Crichton; Miriam
Sedman; Ellen Ronan .
Subject: Oregon Expwy Improvement Pjt: Ohlone Elem School support
Dear Gayle and Commissioners:
Please join us and the Ohlone Elementary School community in supporting the improvements to Oregon
Expressway's intersections witl1 Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads that are recommended by the Santa
Clara County Roads and Airports Department in their "Draft Report for the Oregon Expressway Improvement
Project: Traffic Analysis for Conceptual Alternatives" of February 4, 2008 and also illustrated on their website
www.oregonexpressway.info. We feel grateful to the project staff for making pedestrian and bicyclist safety a
priority for these intersections. Please also support the elimination of left turns from Oregon Expressway onto
Indian Drive, which is shown as "Alternative 1 (modified)" for that intersection.
We are a sub-committee of the Ohlone Elementary School traffic safety committee. In response to several
accidents in which members of the Ohlone school community were struck by cars while crossing Oregon
Expressway on foot or bicycle, we studied Oregon Expressway's intersections closest to Ohlone and developed a
set of recommended pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements for Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads,
as well as an automobile suggestion for Indian Drive. We are delighted to see that the county's
recommendations include all of the pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements we identified and one of the
alternatives for Indian eliminates automobile left turns.
With the PTA Executive Board, Site Council, and Principal Susan Charles, we unanimously endorse the following
improvements to Oregon Expressway's intersections with Louis, Greer, and West Bayshore Roads, all of which
are reflected in or consistent with the county's current recommendations for these intersections:
At the intersections of both Louis and Greer Roads with Oregon Expressway
1) Change the signals so that cars do not make left turns onto Oregon Expressway at the same time as
pedestrians are crossing.
2) Square the corners of the intersections to slow drivers making right turns.
3) Straighten the crosswalks and remove the median islands from them.
At the intersection of Louis Road and Oregon Expressway
4) Eliminate roll-away sidewalks along Louis Road's northbound approach to the intersection; they
encourage drivers to create an extra driving lane on the sidewalk.
At the intersections of both Louis and West Bayshore Roads with Oregon
5) Trim vegetation that blocks drivers' views of pedestrians.
At all intersections from Louis to West Bayshore Roads
6) Install accessible, pedestrian-and bike-friendly push-button poles for walk signals.
At the intersection of West Bayshore Road and Oregon Expressway
7) Redesign the pedestrian landing on the median between Oregon Avenue and Oregon Expressway.
A majority of us also recommend, at the intersection of Indian Drive and Oregon Expressway
8) Eliminate left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive because of the danger of automobile
collisions, especially during the evening rush hour.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Crichton
Ellen Ronan
8/19/2009
Liz Schwerer
Miriam Sedman
343 Oxford Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
.cc Palo Alto City Councilmembers
Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
8/19/2009
Page 2 of2
Likens, Gayle
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Forrester [intent@yahoo.com]
Friday, April 03, 2009 4: 1 0 PM
Council, City; Likens, Gayle
Radin, Pam; Naoko Okumoto
The Ross Road Crossing Proposal at Oregon
To the Palo Alto City Council Members,
I recently became aware of the proposed improvements to the Ross Road and Oregon Expressway interchange
and have previewed them. I have to say I was impressed that the proposed changes were in the works.
As a Ross Road resident with a family of two kids, we bike alot around town; to the library, downtown,
california avenue and stanford. We cross on our bikes at Middlefield and Oregon; it's a difficult crossing to
make with kids (we have a 12 and a 2 year old).
My wife and I are fully supportive of proposal alternate #3 --establishing a bike crossing similar to Bryant and
Embarcadero. It seems like a perfect fit for the mid-town neighborhood. Now I've heard there is discussion of
making a bike-crossing at Louis or further down, but having biked all along there, I believe Ross is a better fit.
It's a quiet street, lots of kids bike there going to school, and Louis is quite a busy street, especially at the
Oregon intersection.
If you've ever biked on Bryant, you know the joys of a quiet ride and a smooth and easy crossing going to
downtown and coming back. What better motivation to get people biking and out of their cars (bike-friendly
Palo Alto was one of the reasons we decided to build a house here several years ago).
I really urge the Council to support the Ross #3 plan and hope it can be included in your recommendation to
the County as a priority in the Oregon Expressway plan.
Best Regards,
John Forrester
Naoko Okumoto
2651 Ross Road, Palo Alto
1
Likens, Gayle
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Forrester [intent@yahoo.com]
Friday, April 03, 2009 4: 1 0 PM
Council, City; Likens, Gayle
Radin, Pam; Naoko Okumoto
The Ross Road Crossing Proposal at Oregon
To the Palo Alto City Council Members,
I recently became aware of the proposed improvements to the Ross Road and Oregon Expressway interchange
and have previewed them. I have to say I was impressed that the proposed changes were in the works.
As a Ross Road resident with a family of two kids, we bike alot around town; to the library, downtown,
california avenue and stanford. We cross on our bikes at Middlefield and'Oregon; it's a difficult crossing to
make with kids (we have a 12 and a 2 year old).
My wife and I are fully supportive of proposal alternate #3 --establishing a bike crossing similar to Bryant and
Embarcadero. It seems like a perfect fit for the mid-town neighborhood. Now I've heard there is discussion of
making a bike-crossing at Louis or further down, but having biked all along there, I believe Ross is a better fit.
It's a quiet street, lots of kids bike there goi:p.g to school, and Louis is quite a busy street, especially at the
Oregon intersection.
If you've ever biked on Bryant, you know the joys of a quiet ride and a sn100th and easy crossing going to
downtown and coming back. What better motivation to get people biking and out of their cars (bike-friendly
Palo Alto was one of the reasons we decided to build a house here several years ago).
I really urge the Council to support the Ross #3 plan and hope it can be included in your recommendation to
the County as a priority in the Oregon Expressway plan.
Best Regards,
John Forrester
Naoko Okumoto
2651 Ross Road, Palo Alto
1
Likens, Gayle
From:
Sent:
To:
Aberg, Michael [michael.aberg@lmco.com]
Monday, March 02, 2009 12: 14 PM
kruegsegger@pausd.org; Likens, Gayle; Radin, Pam; Council, City
Cc: Radin, Pam
Subject: Heartfelt Thanks for Ross Road Crossing
To the Palo Alto City Council Members and the Santa Clara County Staff:
Page 1 of 1
I just want to extend a heartfelt thanks to all of you involved in the bike/ped crossing improvements to Oregon
Expressway. I am especially pleased that there are plans in the works for improvements to the Ross Road
Qrossing. I, like a number of other people living in the Midtown area, especially like Option #3 for the Ross Road
. crossing.
I am happy about this improvement for a number of reasons: For one, it helps solidify the plans for a bike
boulevard on Ross Road. I am a pretty serious bike commuter, and I use Ross Road several times a week to get
from my house near Ross and Moreno down to Ross and cross at Louis & Charleston, where I then proceed on to
Mountain View and then to Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale. I also have a number of neighbors who bike with their
kids down to the YMCA on Ross. Ross is a fairly quiet street, and a nice bike route alternative to Middlefield,
especially when kids are involved.
The Ross Road crossing makes a great, crossing for us -the current alternative, Middlefield is a crossing that I
consider to be fairly challenging for kids. The Middlefield alternatives in the County plan do not include bicycle
features, but Ross Road, does. Ross Road is the closest aligned street to Middlefield Road, servicing the
Midtown shopping area -it is a great alternative to Middlefield Road for my family.
Thanks again so much for all your work; I can't say enough about how this will improve the quality of life for my
family!!
Mike Aberg
757 Moreno Ave, Palo Alto
8/19/2009
Page 1 of 1
Likens, Gayle
From: Kerry Kenny [kerry@skylineventures.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 422 PM
To: Council, City; Likens, Gayle; Nora.Chung@rda.sccgov.org
Cc: kruegsegger@pausd.org; Radin, Pam
Subject: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -Thanks
DearCoundlMembeffi-
I want to take the time to send a note, and probably you do not receive this kind of note often enough, but
thanking City Staff and the County Team for their efforts in working with the Residents on the Oregon Expressway
improvement project! I recently received an e-mail from the county notifying me of the latest design alternatives. I
viewed the plans online and I am so pleased to see that both the City and the County are listening! The design #3
for Ross Rd, which looks to build in the necessary items for the proposed Bike Blvd for Ross Rd is wonderful. This
is such a timely thing for me personally, as I know we are about to embark upon re-drawing school boundaries in
the city. I live in South Palo Alto, and will likely be asked to send my children across Oregon Expressway to
Garland School (once opened), and then to Jordan Middle school. This is not something that I take lightly; it is
good to know a safe method for crossing is coming. Now I often ride my bike to drop off my daughter at Pre-
school north of Oregon and then head to my office in Downtown Palo Alto, it will be so nice to have a safe and
direct route to do this as the City tries to reduce car trips. For now my bicycle route is very circuitous due to the
limited access of bike lanes in our area. Alternative #3 will be very practical and will allow me to continue my drop
off routine while still on my bicycle once my kids are going to school on the other side of Oregon!
Again, I just wanted to say thank you for listening and I look forward to the meeting next week to hear more about
the timeline of the County's project.
Sincerely,
Kerry Kenny
Midtown Resident
Kerry Kenny
VP, Finance & Operations
Skyline Ventures
525 University Ave.
Suite 520
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-475-0144
650-329-1090 FAX
www.skylineventures.com
8/19/2009
ATTACHMENT J
DRAFT REPORT
FOR THE
OREGON EXPRESSWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
Prepared by:
February 4, 2009
~ .. n Kimley-Horn
I11II.....I_ U and Associates, Inc.
........,_.,. Kimley·Horn
IIIIII......I_~ and Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................•.......................................................... i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... S
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 10
2.1 Data from the County .................................................................................................... 1 0
2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 10
2.3 Collision Review ........................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Field Observations ......................................................................................................... 12
3.0 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Summary ofItnprovements ............................................................................................ 17
3.2 Intersection Summaries .................................................................................................. 20
4.0 Op.erational Analysis ................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Model Development ...................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Intersection Analysis ..................................................................................................... 33
4.2.1 Level of Service Methodology ............................................................................... 33
4.2.2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Results Summary ......................... 34
4.3 Corridor-wide Analysis .................................................................................................. 36
5.0 Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 42
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 46
List of Tables
Table 1 : Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts .......................................................................... 11
Table 2: Collision Summary ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................... .34
Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Summary ....................................................................... 34
Table 5: Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road Benefits Summary ....................................... 36
Table 6: Corridor-wide Scenario Summary ............................................................................... 37
Table 7: Oregon Expressway Corridor-wide Performance Measures ........................................ .38
Table 8: Oregon Expressway Corridor-wide Benefits Summary ................................................ 39
Table 9: Itnprovement Alternatives Evaluation ......................................................................... .42
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 1 February 2009
........,_.,. Kimley-Horn
II1I.....I_ ~ and Associates, Inc.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area Map ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 13
Figure 3: Weekday Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes ................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Weekday Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes ....................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry and Traffic Contro1.. ........................... ~ .... 16
Figure 6: Estimated Traffic Diversion for Indian Drive Alternative 1 Modified ......................... 28
Figure 7: Estinlated Traffic Diversion for Indian Drive Alternative 1 Modified ......................... 29
Figure 8: Estimated Traffic Diversion for Indian Drive Alternative 2 ........................................ 30
Figure 9: Estimated Traffic Diversion for Ross Road Alt. 2 Modified & Alt. 3 .......................... 31
Figure 10: Estinlated Traffic Diversion for Waverley Street Alternative 2 Modified .................. 32
Figure 11: Scenario 1 Corridor-wide Intersection Geometry and Signal Phasing ...................... .40
Figure 12: Scenario 2 Corridor-wide Intersection Geometry and Signal Phasing ...................... .41
Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ii February 2009
......., .. .,. Kimley-Horn
1IIIIIr....I .. [..J and Associates, Inc:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregon Expressway, as part of the Santa Clara County expressway system, is designed to relieve
local streets of commuter and other non-neighborhood traffic. The expressway connects US-IOI
to El Camino Real and I-280, serving as a major commute route to Stanford Research Park. It is
also a primary emergency response route, and a limited truck route from US-IOI to midtown.
However, Oregon Expressway has some unique needs that vary from the other expressways in
Santa Clara County. These needs are recognized in the vision for Oregon Expressway as a
multi-modal, pedestrian-friendly arterial roadway with slower, smooth-flowing traffic.
With residential neighborhoods, schools, and community services on both sides of the
expressway, accommodating pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle crossings of the expressway
are just as important as the multi-modal travel along the expressway. The challenge is balancing
the needs of the many users while maintaining a safer environment for everyone.
The County adopted a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study in 2003 that provided
a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the expressway system, with
improvements tailored to the vision of each expressway. For Oregon Expressway between
Bryant and US-IOI, the 2003 Study recommended a list of improvements to advance the overall
operations of Oregon Expressway and enhance pedestrian,. bicyclist, and motor vehicle safety in
using and crossing the expressway.
Community outreach for this project began last year in 2008 with meetings in April and June. A
project website www.oregonexpressway.info was developed to host project related information,
including an email comments@oregonexpressway.info to communicate with interested groups
and individuals. On April 3, 2008, the frrst community meeting was held to share the project
goals, listen to connnunity concerns, and seek community input. From public outreach efforts in
ApriL the following community issues and concerns were identified for Oregon Expressway: I)
Congestion and delay at red lights on the expressway; 2) Need for safer pedestrian, bicycle,
wheelchair, and vehicle crossings of Oregon Expressway; 3) Speeding of motor vehicles
traveling along the expressway; and 4) Safety issues at signalized intersections (vehicle to
vehicle and vehicle to pedestrian/bicyclists conflicts.
Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives Development
Based on the comments received at the fIrst community meeting, several preliminary conceptual
alternative plans were developed for the nine (9) intersections between and including W.
Bayshore Road and Bryant Street. The improvement concepts were developed to relieve
congestion and improve traffic flow and, at the same time, improve non-motorized travel by
eliminating conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles, reducing speeds, improving
visibility between drivers and pedestrians/bicyclists, increasing awareness of
pedestrians/bicyclists, and reducing driver impatience. These improvements generally include:
• Intersection geometry and alignment
• Pedestrian curb ramps and push button accessibility
• Bicycle slots (where possible)
County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives
Page 1
February 2009
......, .. .". Kimley-Horn
IIIIIII....I .. ~ and Associates, Inc.
• Traffic signals upgrade including sequence and visibility
• Crosswalk( s) alignment/visibility
• Pedestrian countdown signals
• Red light indicators (aka rat boxes)
• Other safety and operational enhancements to minimize pedestrian/bicycle/vehicular
turning conflicts
Proposed Conceptual Alternatives
The preliminary conceptual alternatives were presented at the second community meeting and
the Midtown Residents Association (MRA) meeting on June 9, 2008, and August 28, 2008,
respectively. The purpose of these meetings was to seek public input and comments from the
residents and the traveling pUblic. County staff also met with other project stakeholders. Based
on the comments received, the preliminary conceptual alternatives were modified and new
proposed conceptual alternatives were developed to address community concerns. This report
focuses on these proposed conceptual alternatives and the related traffic analysis.
The most substantial enhancements to the preliminary conceptual alternatives to address public
input include the following:
• At Indian Drive: A new alternative, Alternative 2, has been developed to maintain left
turns from Oregon Expressway onto Indian Drive.
• At Louis Road: Alternative 1 has been enhanced to extend the bicycle lane all the way to
the intersection and is illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified"
• At Ross Road and Waverley Street: Alternative 1, which included median closure on
Oregon Expressway, is no longer being considered. Alternative 2 has been revised to
maintain the existing left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Ross Road and Waverley
Street and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified".
• At Ross Road: A new alternative, Alternative 3, has been developed to demonstrate
potential conversion of the intersection to include traffic signals for full bicycle access
and pedestrian crossing. This concept is consistent with the City of Palo Alto's bicycle
plan and is similar to the existing bicycle boulevard design at Embarcadero and Bryant
Street.
• At Middlefield Road: Alternative 1, which included impacts to the existing landscaping
strip on three sides of Middlefield Road, is no longer being considered. A new
alternative, Alternative 4, has been developed which does not require widening on
Middlefield Road and will maintain the existing landscaping strip as is on all four sides.
• At Bryant Street: Alternative 2 has been revised to preserve the north leg as is and is
illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified".
• On Oregon Expressway: A new bicycle shoulder is proposed in the eastbound direction
by narrowing the median (0-3 ft) from Bryant Street to Cowper Street. This will provide
County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives
Page 2
February 2009
1IIIl"1-W1I Kimley·Horn II1I.....I_ LJ and Associates, Inc.
continuous shoulder (bicycle travel way) between Bryant bicycle boulevard and W.
Bayshore to the bicycle bridge over Hwy 101.
Key statistical findings of this report include:
• Traffic Collisions: Between January 1, 2003, and July 19, 2008, there have been a total of
200 reported collisions at the nine (9) intersections studied. Nearly half (92) of the collisions
were rear-enders, while the next highest type of collisions were broadside collisions (57).
Rear-end type collisions are fairly common at signalized intersections, with higher numbers
typically occurring on more heavily traveled corridors such as Oregon Expressway.
Broadside collisions can be more severe, and they could be attributed to many factors, but are
generally due to the existing permissive phasing (where left tum vehicles do not have their
own signal phase, or arrow indication, and must yield to opposing through vehicles and
conflicting pedestrian/bicyclists movements) on the side streets. There were thirteen (13)
sideswipe collisions and nine (9) collisions with fixed objects. In addition, five (5) collisions
involved vehicles with pedestriansibicyclists. The Oregon/Middlefield intersection had the
highest number of collisions (37), with Oregon/Greer close behind at 31 collisions. Of the
three unsignalized intersections, Waverley experienced the highest number of collisions (24),
e~ceeding four of the signalized intersections despite its relatively low turning volumes.
• Traffic Volumes: Currently, Oregon Expressway carries approximately 40,000 vehicles on a
typical weekday and about 24,000 per day during weekends. Weekday peak hour traffic
volumes indicate that Middlefield Road has the highest cross-street traffic demand, followed
by Louis Road as a distant second. The three (3) unsignalized intersections had the lowest
cross-street traffic. Over a four-hour peak period (two hours each for AM and PM), less than
ten (10) vehicles turned left onto Oregon Expressway from Ross Road and Indian Drive or
went straight across at Ross Road. The number of vehicles turning left in the highest peak
hour during a four-hour peak period (two hours each for AM and PM) from Oregon
Expressway onto the cross-street was 70, 60, and 40 for Waverley Street, Ross Road, and
Indian Drive, respectively.
Key findings from the traffic analysis of this report include:
• Intersections Level of Service (LOS) and Safety: Traffic analysis for the intersection
improvement alternatives showed that all Middlefield alternatives resulted in a significant
reduction in average intersection delay at Middlefield Road. All other locations generally
showed the same amount of or a reduction in delay, with the exception of a few minor
signalized .crossings that experienced a few seconds of increase in delay during the peak
period, primarily due to additional signal phases. However, these signalized intersections
would continue to operate at very good levels of service and the additional signal phasing
(protected left tum or left tum green arrow) would significantly enhance vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicyclist safety at the intersections.
• Corridor Analysis: Two scenarios utilizing potential intersection alternatives were also
evaluated and compared to existing conditions in terms of the peak hour traffic flow along
Oregon Expressway. All scenarios resulted in a drop in average travel time and delay at
signals along Oregon Expressway resulting in an average speed of 20 to 23 miles per hour.
In other words, traffic would move slowly but more smoothly. However, in every scenario,
County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives
Page 3
February 2009
....... 1-.". Klmley-Horn I11II.....I_ L.] and Associates, Inc.
the traffic signal at Middlefield Road controlled the cycle length and timing operation for the
corridor. Therefore, only by adding left tum lanes on Middlefield Road, can reductions in
delay and congestion on Oregon Expressway be realized.
• Benefit Analysis: A benefit analysis was conducted by using the existing traffic vo lume as
the baseline parameter. The impact of the proposed conceptual alternatives on travel time,
fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions during the AM·. and PM peak periods were
calculated. All proposed conceptual alternatives resulted in substantial reductions in travel
time, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions along Oregon Expressway. Translating these
cotnbined AM and PM peak period savings into dollars for traffic traveling along Oregon
Expressway based on value of time, cost of fuel, and health costs related to vehicular
emissions, the estimated annual savings range between $852,000 and $888,000. The savings
of the improvement alternatives for the Middlefield Road intersection alone range from
$757,000 to $770,000 per year. There is also the potential for additional significant cost
savings, such as a reduction of loss from injuries and property damage as a result of reduced
collisions due to improved traffic flow, which are not quantified in this savings estinlate.
County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives
Page 4
February 2009
........-J-.,. Kimley-Horn liliii.....i_ ~ and Associates, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by the County of Santa Clara to provide
traffic engineering services for the Oregon Expressway Inlprovenlents Project. The goal of the
project is to evaluate various improvements along Oregon Expressway between Bryant and W.
Bayshore Road to improve pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular operations and safety.
Improvement alternatives have been reviewed and operational analysis performed at nine
intersections between Bryant Street and W. Bayshore Road on Oregon Expressway. This report
summarizes the improvements, operational analysis, and evaluation of the alternatives.
1.1 Background
The County of Santa Clara maintains eight (8) expressways totaling 62 centerline miles, which
serve 1.5 million vehicle trips daily. The vision of the expressway system recognizes the unique
characteristics, function, and community relationship of each expressway, and the types of
improvements developed are tailored around each expressway's vision. For Oregon
Expressway, the vision is to maintain a multimodal, pedestrian friendly arterial roadway with
slower, smooth-flowing traffic.
A Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study was conducted from 2001 to 2003 to
provide a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway
System. The Expressway Study included the following proposed improvements for Oregon
Expressway:
1. Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding impacts on safety at
unsignalized intersections
2. Construct pedestrian curb ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized
intersections
3. Study operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverley, Ross, and
Indian to enhance bicyclist and pedestrian safety, and maintain vehicle safety
4. Conduct feasibility study of adding tum lane at Middlefield Road and converting to
8-phase signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking right-of-
way
The Oregon Expressway Improvement Project has secured approximately $3.5 million as a
federal grant and County match to implement the above proposed improvements on Oregon
Expressway. Two community meetings were held. The frrst one took place on April 3,2008,
and the second one on June 9, 2008, at the Jordan Middle School in Palo Alto. The purpose of
the frrst meeting was to collect public input in order to refme the project description and to
clearly define the project needs. The purpose of the second community meeting was to present
the preliminary conceptual alternatives and to seek community input.
The community outreach program also included a project information website and e-mail address
for submittal of comments, a phone number for comments and inquiries, and questionnaires that
County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project
Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives
Page 5
February 2009