Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-07-26 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: July 26, 2017 Council Conference Room 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4157 El Camino Way, Unit C-3 & C-4 [17PLN- 00051]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Medical Office use (Dentist). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301. Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Extension of Interim Ordinance 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet of Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of City to June 30, 2018 and Finding That the REVISED Presentation from Santa Clara County and Discussion Regarding Initial Traffic Study Findings Related to the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) 2018 Application - Deferred to August 30, 2017 _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information, Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. 5.Comprehensive Plan Update: Review of and Recommendation on Draft Land Use Element Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6.June 28, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment June 28, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Michael Alcheck Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Susan Monk Commissioner Eric Rosenblum Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7766) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: PTC Meeting Schedule PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: Attachment A: July 26, 2017 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2017 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular CANCELLED 2/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel 2/22/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/8/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk, Waldfogel 3/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Summa, 5/31/2017 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 6/14/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Monk,Waldfogel 6/28/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/12/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum, Waldfogel 7/26/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing 8/09/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Rosenblum 8/30/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing 9/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/11/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/25/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/08/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/29/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/13/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/27/2017 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2017 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Michael Alcheck Eric Rosenblum Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Eric Rosenblum July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Doria Summa Michael Alcheck Subcommittees Planning & Transportation Commission 2017 Tentative Future Agenda July 19, 2017, 2017 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics August 9 Comp Plan: Land Use and Transportation Rail Program CSS Alternatives Analysis Plans, Problem Statement Downtown Parking Management #2 August 30 Comp Plan: Land Use Marijuana Ordinance September 13 Comp Plan: Land Use 101 Bike Bridge September 27 Comp Plan Update: Final Recommendation October/November Code Clean-Up 2017 TMA Discussion Comp Plan Implementing Ordinance #1 Fry’s Coordinated Area Plan Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study December/January Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project Update Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8251) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 7/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Stanford GUP 2018: Initial Traffic Study Findings Title: Presentation from Santa Clara County and Discussion Regarding Initial Traffic Study Findings Related to the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) 2018 Application From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) receive an introductory presentation by County Planning Director Kirk Girard, review available transportation studies regarding Stanford’s proposed General Use Permit (GUP) application to Santa Clara County, and provide questions and comments for use by City staff in preparing a letter commenting on the Draft EIR that is expected in September. This is a study session, and no formal action is requested. Report Summary In November 2016, Stanford University (Stanford) submitted an application to Santa Clara County for a major modification amendment to their 2000 General Use Permit with associated amendment to the County’s General Plan (specifically the Stanford Community Plan) and amendments to some zoning designations to conform to existing and planned conditions (Stanford 2018 GUP). This use permit addresses the Academic Growth Boundary Area (Central Campus) of Stanford that is located wholly within Santa Clara County (County), but adjacent in several locations to the City of Palo Alto (City). In January 2017, the City received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Stanford 2018 GUP. The City staff reviewed the Stanford application and prepared a comment letter that was reviewed by the City Council on March 6, 2017. (Attachment A) There were a number of resource reports attached to the Stanford Application, among them were two studies prepared for Stanford by Fehr & Peers, a Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1: Trip Generation and Trip Distribution study dated November 2016 (Attachment B) and the Transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled, SB 743 VMT Analysis, November 2016 (Attachment C). Part 2 of the Transportation Impact Analysis was not provided, but the other City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 reports were reviewed by staff and comments addressing transportation issues were included in the City’s response letter to the NOP in March. Since March, the County has been working to prepare a Draft EIR for publication and public review this fall. In the course of that work, the County has engaged its own consultants to peer-review the studies submitted by Stanford and the County has agreed to provide to the public additional traffic and transportation information as it becomes available. Staff will make any studies released up to a week before the study session available to the Commission for review. Kirk Girard, the Santa Clara County Director of Planning, will attend the PTC study session and present the available traffic and transportation data to the Commission. City Staff will include the PTC comments and concerns in the review of the Draft EIR when it is released. Currently, the County anticipates releasing the Draft EIR on or about September 11, 2017. Background Stanford’s contiguous lands occupy 8,000 acres, with 4,017 of these acres are located in Unincorporated Santa Clara County. The Academic Growth Boundary area where the General Use Permit applies occupies 1,370 acres, wholly located within Santa Clara County. Fourteen percent (1,161 acres) of Stanford’s land is located within the City of Palo Alto, much of it adjacent to the Academic Growth Boundary. Stanford is proposing an amendment to their 2000 General Use Permit (Stanford 2018 GUP) that would authorize the following additional development within the Academic Growth Boundary by 2035: 2.275 million net new square feet of academic and academic support space. 3,150 net new housing units (2,600 student beds, 500 dwelling units for staff and faculty. Up to 40,000 net new square feet of child care centers and facilities to support trip-reducing uses. Continued use of 50,000 square feet of temporary trailers for surge space during construction. The entire Stanford 2018 GUP application, including all the background studies, can be seen at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/CurrentProjects.aspx. However, as the Draft EIR review has moved forward at least one traffic and transportation study included in the application has been amended. The currently available studies are attached to this report for reference and include: Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Part 1 (released November 2016) (Attachment B) Vehicle Miles Traveled (prepared November 2016) (Attachment C) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Still outstanding is the Transportation Impact Analysis Part 2. This report will address intersection, freeway segment and roadway analysis based on Part 1 of the TIA and analysis of effects on transportation, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This and any peer reviews or other reports relating to traffic and transportation that are released prior to the study meeting will be added to the packet as they become available to the public. Kirk Girard, Director of Planning for Santa Clara County will present all the currently available traffic and transportation studies to the PTC at the study session on July 26. He will be available to answer questions as well. Discussion The PTC’s purview includes consideration of traffic and transportation issues affecting the City and the Commission can provide the City Council with useful perspectives on how proposed development on the Stanford Campus could impact the City and what Stanford’s “no net trips” promise means in practice for the foreseeable future. Santa Clara County will release a Draft EIR assessing Stanford’s GUP application in September 2017. At that time, City staff will prepare a formal comment letter and would benefit from early input from the PTC and the public regarding questions and issues that should be addressed. For example, staff would welcome the Commission’s input on the following questions: Are the traffic studies methodologies clear, and do you agree with their inherent assumptions? Do you agree with the thresholds of significance the studies use to evaluate potential impacts? (this is relevant for the VMT report and will be relevant for Part 2 of the transportation analysis when it becomes available) Are the conclusions presented in the studies well supported and understandable? Are the mitigation measures sufficient to address the impacts and are there other mitigation measures you would suggest? (this will be relevant for Part 2 of the transportation analysis when it becomes available) Are there impacts that have not been identified or issues that need more analysis? (this will be relevant for Part 2 of the transportation analysis when it becomes available) Additional studies to support the Draft EIR are being released as they becomes available, so while Staff has attached the studies available as of July 19, 2017, these and other reports released up to the date of the PTC’s meeting can also be found electronically at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/CurrentProjects.aspx Environmental Review The Stanford application for the 2018 General Use Permit has been assessed by Santa Clara County in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the County and determined that an Environmental Impact report is required. There is no CEQA requirement for the Planning and Transportation Commission review of traffic and transportation data prepared for the EIR. Public Notification The agenda for the July 26, 2017 Commission meeting will be published in the Palo Alto Weekly at least 10 days before the meeting. The study session is open to the public and community input is welcome. Next Steps Comments provided by the Planning and Transportation Commission will be used by staff to inform their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the City’s comment letter on the Draft EIR for the Stanford 2018 GUP. The Draft EIR is anticipated to be released for public review by Santa Clara County, on or about September 11, 2017. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Margaret Monroe, Management Specialist Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2425 (650) 329-2679 margaret.monroe@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Mayors letter to SCC re PA NOP comments Stanford University 2018 GUP application (PDF) Attachment B: Traffic Impact Analysis November 2016 - Part 1 (PDF) Attachment C: Vehicle Miles Traveled November 2016 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 7 | Transportation Impact Analysis Bicycle on Palm Drive. Photo: Parking and Transportation Services, Stanford University Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 Trip Generation and Trip Distribution Prepared for: Stanford University November 2016 SJ15-1585 Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 Table of Contents 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 University Setting ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 No Net New Commute Trips Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 4 2: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................... 6 TDM Program Description ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Annual Transportation Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Potential Expansions of TDM Program under Proposed 2018 GUP ................................................................ 9 3: PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ................................................................................................................12 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Existing 2015 Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2015 Trip Generation Rates .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Generation Growth: 2015 to Fall 2018 (Commencement of Proposed 2018 GUP) ....................... 15 Projected Trip Generation -- 2018 GUP ................................................................................................................... 16 4: STANFORD TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................................19 Stanford Off-Campus Commuter Distribution ...................................................................................................... 19 Stanford Resident Distribution .................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendices Appendix A: Stanford TDM Program Description Appendix B: Trip Generation Counts Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Historical Drive-Alone Mode Share ............................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3: Existing and Projected Trip Peak Hour Trips ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4: Change in Proportion of Resident and Non-Resident Peak Hour Trips ................................................... 18 Figure 5: Stanford University Employee Mode Share ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6: 2015 to 2018 Distribution of Stanford Commuters .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 7: Stanford Resident Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 26 List of Tables Table 1: Stanford Transportation Demand Management Strategies ............................................................................... 7 Table 2: Campus Trip Generation Rates: 2015 ....................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3: December 2015 – Fall 2018 Development Summary ......................................................................................... 15 Table 4: December 2015 – Fall 2018 Trip Generation Estimate ...................................................................................... 16 Table 5: 2018 GUP Development Proposal ............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 6: 2018 GUP Trip Generation Estimate ......................................................................................................................... 17 Table 7: Percent of Stanford Affiliates (Driving) by Geographic Area .......................................................................... 21 Table 8: Stanford Residence Off-Campus Destinations Geographic Area .................................................................. 25 Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 1 1: INTRODUCTION In December 2000, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved the Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP) that defined the conditions of Stanford’s planned growth and development. The GUP established the amount of net new development that could be constructed for academic and academic support uses and the number of residential units that could be added (dwelling units and/or beds) within the campus. Stanford is about to reach the 2000 GUP development limits in terms of both the academic and academic support space and residential units. Therefore, Stanford is applying for a new general use permit (the proposed 2018 General Use Permit or 2018 GUP) to establish the conditions for the next increment of campus growth. One of the key considerations in the evaluation of the 2018 GUP will be the impact of new development on the supporting transportation systems. Stanford achieved a “No Net New Commute Trips” goal under the 2000 GUP. The 2000 GUP’s conditions of approval allow Stanford to either achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal, or provide proportional funding of mitigation measures for impacted intersections identified in the Stanford Community Plan/ 2000 GUP Environmental Impact Report (2000 GUP EIR). Stanford chose to limit vehicle trips by implementing an Alternative Transportation/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to shift commuters from drive-alone trips to other modes. As demonstrated through an extensive annual monitoring and reporting program conducted by an independent consultant acting at the direction of the County, Stanford has succeeded in achieving the No Net New Commute Trips goal. The purpose of this report is provide background information on the existing transportation programs operated by Stanford, including the TDM program used to reduce vehicle trips to campus, document the existing travel characteristics of the campus users, and to present trip generation and trip distribution anticipated to result from the proposed 2018 GUP under the conservative assumption that Stanford’s existing TDM program is not expanded to further reduce commute trips. This report also presents potential expansions of the existing TDM program that could enable Stanford to continue to meet the No Net New Commute Trips goal. UNIVERSITY SETTING The Stanford campus is a diverse mixture of land uses that includes classrooms, academic offices, lab space, athletic venues, museums, performance and arts venues, lands for outdoor learning, student housing, and faculty/staff housing. The athletics facilities are extensive including a football stadium, gymnasiums, an aquatic center, basketball arena, and several outdoor fields to accommodate field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, and other field sports. There are cultural facilities on campus including Bing Concert Hall, Cantor Arts Center, the Anderson Arts Collection, Memorial Auditorium, and other smaller spaces supporting lectures, concerts, and other cultural events. The Arboretum is a large undeveloped space located along Palm Drive between Campus Drive and El Camino Real. Figure 1 shows the location of the Stanford Campus. §¨¦280 §¨¦280 £¤101 £¤101 ·|}114 ·|}237 ·|}84 ·|}85 ·|}92 ·|}9 ·|}82 ·|}82 Alma St El Camino Real SaratogaAve L afa y ette S t Stevens Creek Blvd SanTo m as Ex py CentralExpy N:\Projects\_SJ15_Projects\SJ15_1585_Stanford_GUP\Analysis\GIS\MXD\Fig1StudyArea_Zoomed.mxd Study AreaFigure 1 Stanford Campus Stanford within Santa Clara County Stanford Lands Water Parks Airports Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 3 The Stanford Medical Center including Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Stanford Health Care are located northwest of the campus, as is Stanford Shopping Center, a regional shopping center. These facilities are located within the City of Palo Alto and, therefore, do not fall within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. Stanford’s internal circulation system consists of sixteen gateway roadways that provide access to the campus. The majority of these roadways connect to the Campus Drive loop, which is the primary internal circulation roadway within the campus. Most of the academic and arts buildings, administrative offices, undergraduate housing, and student life facilities are located inside the loop. The core campus inside the loop is primarily accessed by walking or biking, and vehicle access is limited. Uses on the edge of or outside the loop include parking areas, graduate student housing, faculty and staff housing, athletics, and service buildings. Parking is distributed throughout the Stanford campus, with the exception of the pedestrian/bicycle campus core that includes the Main Quad, the Engineering Quad, and White Plaza. Stanford charges for all forms of parking – visitor, student, faculty, and staff. The campus has seven existing parking structures, plus one under construction, and several dozen surface lots. The parking structures are located on or near Campus Drive. Metered visitor parking is provided in most of the larger parking lots and in the parking structures. All but two parking structures (Via Ortega and the Roble Field structure which is under construction) are located directly off Campus Drive or outside the Campus Drive loop. Regional freeway access to the campus is provided by US Highway 101 (US 101) and Interstate 280 (I-280). El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway also provide regional access. The local routes from US 101 to campus include Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway and University Avenue. These routes lie within the cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. The local routes from I-280 include Page Mill Road, Alpine Road, and Sand Hill Road, which lie within Santa Clara County, San Mateo County and the City of Menlo Park. Stanford has excellent access to transit services via the Downtown Palo Alto Transit Station located on the edge of the campus. The Palo Alto Transit Station receives frequent Caltrain service during the peak periods. Caltrain is operated by the Joint Powers Board that includes representation from Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties. The University provides the “last mile” connection between the Palo Alto Transit Center and campus with its free Marguerite shuttle service. Many people also choose to bike or walk between the Transit Center and campus. The campus is located on the service boundary of two county transit agencies – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) serving Santa Clara County and SamTrans serving San Mateo County. These two agencies provide bus service within the two counties. VTA also provides light-rail service within Santa Clara County, but the service does not extend into Palo Alto or the Stanford campus. Both of the agencies provide bus service on El Camino Real which runs along the edge of the campus. Due to the extensive Marguerite service that Stanford provides within the campus, neither county agency operates buses within Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 4 the campus. The campus is also served by Dumbarton Express that provides express bus service from locations in Alameda County in the East Bay, including the Ardenwood Park and Ride lot and Union City BART station. The Dumbarton Express is administered and governed by AC Transit in cooperation with VTA, SamTrans and Union City Transit. Stanford supplements the Dumbarton service with the U-Line Service for Stanford faculty, staff, students, hospital employees and SLAC employees. This service is similar to the Dumbarton service connecting between the East Bay and the campus, medical center and SLAC. While the services is operated by AC Transit, Stanford fully funds the service. Stanford promotes the use of alternative commute modes – walking, biking and transit use - through their Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The extensive TDM program is designed to reduce the number of vehicles (personal vehicles) accessing the campus each day and to maximize mobility within the campus without the need to drive. A short description of the TDM programs follows, and a detailed description of the program is included in Appendix A. NO NET NEW COMMUTE TRIPS MONITORING The 2000 GUP’s conditions of approval allow Stanford to either meet a No Net New Commute Trips goal, or provide proportional funding of mitigation measures for impacted intersections identified in the Stanford Community Plan / 2000 GUP Environmental Impact Report (2000 GUP EIR). Stanford chose to limit vehicle trips by implementing an Alternative Transportation/ TDM program to shift commuters from driving alone to other travel modes. As a part of the 2000 GUP conditions, the County required Stanford to fund an annual monitoring program implemented by an independent consultant directed by the County. The monitoring program established baseline traffic conditions from peak hour vehicle counts conducted in the spring and fall of 2001. The baseline is the measurement of the volume of inbound trips during the peak hour of the AM commute period (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and the volume of outbound trips during the peak hour of the PM commute period (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM). A confidence interval was added to account for day-to-day variation in traffic patterns. To monitor Stanford’s success in achieving the No Net New Commute Trips goal, vehicle trips are counted in each year for 2 weeks in the fall and 6 weeks in the spring at the 16 campus entry and exit points which form a cordon around the Stanford campus. License plates are recorded to identify cut-through vehicles. Vehicles that exit campus within 15 minutes of entering are considered to be making “cut-through” trips and are excluded from the baseline comparison. The monitoring counts are also adjusted to remove hospital employee vehicle trips ending at parking lots within the cordon where hospital employees are allowed to park. An adjustment also is made to add University employee/student vehicle trips that end in parking lots outside the cordon. Pursuant to 2000 GUP Condition G.8, Stanford can also receive trip reduction credits for participation by Stanford in off-campus trip reduction efforts. The trip credit is commensurate with the predicted or actual Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 5 number of trips reduced, and the proportion of the cost of the program that Stanford is contributing. Trip reduction must occur in the area between US 101, Valparaiso Avenue/ Sand Hill Road, Interstate 280, and Arastradero Road/ Charleston Road. The County Planning Office determines the appropriate trip credit and monitoring methodology for each program in which Stanford proposes to participate. Each year the total inbound AM peak hour trips and outbound PM peak hour trips, as modified by the trip reduction credits, are compared to the 2001 baseline to establish compliance. The monitoring is conducted by an independent consultant, AECOM, and an annual report documenting the results is prepared and made publicly available on the County of Santa Clara’s website. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 6 2: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Stanford University’s acclaimed Alternative Transportation/ TDM program has been successful in achieving the No Net New Commute Trips goal. Since the performance of the TDM program is monitored by the annual cordon counts, no single aspect of the TDM program is specified in the 2000 GUP. Stanford can add or remove TDM activities based on their success and cost effectiveness in reducing trips. This flexibility in the program operation has been a key to making the program successful and cost effective. TDM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Stanford’s TDM program offered by Parking & Transportation Services (P&TS) include over 20 activities designed to meet the transportation needs of employees and students. The TDM program is available to the majority of its employees (generally those working more than 20 hours per week), as well as programs designed for residents living on the campus. A detailed description of Stanford’s TDM program is included in Appendix A. Key strategies in Stanford’s TDM program includes: • Direct incentives to commuters who choose alternative modes • Paid parking at all campus lots • Fare-free shuttles (first/last-mile to Caltrain and campus circulator shuttles) • Subsidized carpools and vanpools with expanded rideshare matching • Subsidized transit passes (Go Pass and Eco Pass) • Extensive promotional campaigns offering cash rewards and prizes • A commute buddy program and individualized commute planning services • Free car share memberships • Bicycle infrastructure and end-of-trip facilities Stanford Parking & Transportation Services (P&TS) administers the TDM program including the Commute Club that provides information, management, and incentives for commuters (employees and students) living off campus who commit to not driving alone. Table 1 presents a summary of TDM programs currently in place at Stanford University. Stanford currently provides free Caltrain Go Passes and VTA Eco Passes to their employees that live outside the Stanford zip codes. Anyone driving a vehicle to the campus must pay for parking. The existing TDM program has successfully maintained the AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes below 2001 baseline volumes. The TDM program’s success is reflected in the declining single occupancy vehicle mode share as shown in Figure 2. In 2002, the drive alone rate for Stanford employees was 72%; as the TDM program expanded, the drive-alone rate has decreased to around 50%. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 7 TABLE 1: STANFORD TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Strategy Type TDM Strategy Active Transportation Bicycle program which includes peer-to-peer support, safety education, financial incentives, a bicycle website and “bike speak”: a community based information exchange website. Bicycle parking – abundant parking near high activity centers Bicycle shop on campus in addition to repair stands Bicycle lockers and showers Bicycle rentals and lease programs Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and access improvements Campus Design On-site amenities: food services, banking, etc. that eliminate midday trips Buildings, landscaping and pathways designed to create an attractive walkable environment to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity Financial Incentives Pre-tax transit passes / commuter checks for transit passes, Clipper Cash, Commuter Checks and Caltrain parking permits Commute Club giveaways as well as a permit returns reward for people handing over their long term parking permit Car share rental credits for non-driving commuters Carpool credits towards the cost of a carpool parking permit. Marketing & Support Extensive webpage with resources for all modes of transportation in addition to program specific information and educational resources, such as a carbon calculator Guaranteed ride home program for commuters that take transit, carpool, bike or walk Personalized commute planning service eUpdates for Commute Club members Daily and hourly car rental available on campus New employee orientation to transportation resources Promotional events - Capri program/gamification, prizes, gifts and contests Commute buddy which matches experienced transit and bike commuters with new alternative transportation commuters Other Flexible work schedules including staggered work hours, compressed work week and flextime Parking & Transportation Services Commuter surveys Parking Management Tiered parking pricing and monitoring technology Freshman parking policy prohibiting freshmen from having personal vehicles on campus Parking location and configuration Rideshare Carpool and rideshare matching service for commuters Prioritized parking for ridesharing vehicles Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 8 TABLE 1: STANFORD TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Strategy Type TDM Strategy Vanpool subsidies and support Transit Extensive local Marguerite shuttle system East Bay Express Bus Service (partially funded by Stanford, managed by a consortium of transit agencies, operated by contractor MV Transportation) Free transit passes (VTA Eco Pass and Caltrain Go Passes) for all employees that live outside Stanford zip codes Charter bus services for conferences, teams, events or student activities Source: Fehr & Peers, July 2015. Figure 2: Historical Drive-Alone Mode Share Source: Stanford Parking & Transportation Services, 2015 Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 9 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY P&TS conducts an annual transportation survey to evaluate the performance of the TDM programs and preferences of their users. The annual survey includes all undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral students, university faculty and staff, emeriti, and other affiliates of the University. The survey also includes employees of the medical center, since P&TS provides TDM services to Stanford Health Care and Packard Children’s Hospital. The most recent survey was sent to over 50,000 individuals and had 20,725 responses (~41%). The survey collects a broad range of travel characteristics and preferences, including primary mode of travel, time of travel and days per week. These travel characteristics can then be summarized in terms of the type of user and general geographic location. Having this data allows P&TS to tailor their programs to the needs of the user and provide the appropriate services. Fehr & Peers accessed the spring 2015 survey data when preparing our trip generation and trip distribution analyses. The transportation survey data combined with the 2015 Annual Monitoring cordon data provided an excellent basis for understanding campus travel patterns. POTENTIAL EXPANSIONS OF TDM PROGRAM UNDER PROPOSED 2018 GUP Innovation and adaptation has allowed Stanford to meet the ambitious No Net New Commute Trips goal set out in the 2000 GUP. As the timeline below shows, Stanford has been committed to promoting alternative commute modes for over four decades. Beginning with the Marguerite free shuttle service in 1973, Stanford has implemented policies and invested in programs to reduce vehicle travel to and on the campus. One of the most recent additions to the TDM program is the launch of a real-time Marguerite app so that transit users can fine tune their travel experience though knowledge sharing. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 10 Stanford recognizes that to continue to achieve a No Net New Commute Trips goal under the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, it will need to expand and develop TDM program improvements that will form the next generation of commute options. The following menu of TDM strategies provides an example of how Stanford may leverage its existing programs and add new measures, with the ultimate goal of not increasing drive-alone peak period trips to or from the campus: • Commuter Buses – Stanford currently offers two transit passes to all eligible employees. The Caltrain Go Pass and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency’s (VTA) Eco Pass allow Stanford employees to use Caltrain, VTA bus and light rail service, and the AC Transit Dumbarton Express service for free. Stanford is exploring the possible expansion of commuter bus service through its continued partnership with transit agencies and identifying employee transit markets that would benefit from commuter bus services. • Local Bus Service & First/Last Mile Connections – Stanford began operating the Marguerite shuttle service to provide internal circulation on campus, connections into adjacent communities, and last-mile service to the Caltrain commuter rail service in downtown Palo Alto. All of the Marguerite shuttle service is free and open to the public. The local Marguerite service extends into downtown Palo Alto and to the San Antonio Shopping Center located in Mountain View. As the Caltrain commuter rail service has expanded, Stanford has increased its Marguerite shuttle service operating last mile bus service to three local Caltrain stations (i.e., Menlo Park, Palo Alto and California Avenue stations). Stanford is reviewing the possible expansion of local Marguerite shuttle service to continue to meet first/last mile transit needs and identify employee transit markets that would benefit from local bus services. • Bicycle Commuters – Recognized as a Platinum Bicycle Friendly University, Stanford is a leader in accommodating and encouraging bicycles on its campus. Stanford has also taken steps to improve conditions for local bicycle travel, with infrastructure projects such as the Perimeter Trail and roundabouts at key intersections on campus. Approximately 20 percent of commuters bike to campus.1 Stanford is committed to increasing the bicycle mode split through its involvement in the City Manager’s Mobility Partnership organized in May 2016.2 To capture new bike commuters, Stanford is working with local jurisdictions to identify key bicycle improvements that would directly reduce the road stress for cyclists on access routes to campus. • Parking Fees and Policies – Stanford began charging for parking on campus in 1972. The parking fees apply to employees, visitors and residents. Stanford continues to refine the parking permit program as a disincentive to single-occupancy drivers. Discouraging bulk parking permit 1 Approximately 12 percent of the employee population bike to campus. 2 The City Managers’ Mobility Partnership includes Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Redwood City and Stanford. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 11 purchasing, limiting geography for permit purchasing, and other types of programs will be continuously reviewed for their merit in helping to achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal. • Student Vehicle Prohibitions – As part of the 2000 GUP, Stanford implemented a policy that barred freshman from bringing their cars to campus. Expanding this type of program will also be considered to help achieve transportation goals. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 12 3: PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Due to the mix of land uses and the unique travel characteristics of a university setting, the trip generation rates used in the 2000 GUP EIR traffic analysis were developed from several sources including campus-wide traffic counts, campus residence traffic counts, and resident trip diary surveys conducted in 1998 – 1999. The rates used in the 2000 GUP EIR were based on continuation of the then-existing TDM programs, without assuming any expansion of those programs. For the 2018 GUP analysis, there is a need to update the Stanford campus trip generation rates to capture the current effects of the TDM program, and to account for travel characteristics that have changed since the 2000 GUP EIR. As was done in the 2000 EIR, the analysis conservatively does not assume expansion of the current TDM program, even though Stanford does intend to expand the program in order to continue to achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal. To establish new trip generation rates for the campus land uses, a data collection and analysis effort similar to the effort used to prepare the 2000 GUP EIR was conducted again. Due to the ongoing monitoring by the County and annual employee surveys collected by Stanford, there is a substantial amount of available data on campus travel patterns. The available data was further supplemented by new data collection for campus uses, as detailed below. DATA SOURCES The following inputs were used to estimate current trip generation rates and to project future traffic growth under the 2018 GUP: • 2015 peak hour campus cordon counts conducted for the 2000 GUP annual monitoring program; • Vehicle trip counts, conducted in 2015 and 2016, of representative graduate student housing sites (Escondido Village) and faculty housing sites (Peter Coutts Circle and Mears Court); • 2015 resident populations; • 2015 academic and academic support square footage for the entire campus; • Projections for changes in housing and academic and academic support square footage for the period from December 2015 through the fall 2018 under the 2000 GUP, and from fall 2018 through fall 2035 under the proposed 2018 GUP. Fehr & Peers was provided the AECOM source files for the 2015 campus cordon count monitoring data. The cordon data is collected over a total of 8 weeks each academic year, 6 weeks in the spring and 2 weeks in the fall. The data collected includes 24-hour directional traffic counts at all 16 campus gateways. The data is collected and summarized in 15-minute intervals. In addition to the cordon count data, Fehr & Peers reviewed the annual reports available from the County to understand the amount of pass-through and medical center trips. The peak hour, peak period, and daily counts were used in the analysis of travel behavior. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 13 To supplement the cordon counts, Fehr & Peers conducted new counts for two housing types: faculty/staff housing and graduate student housing. For the faculty/staff housing, peak hour, peak period, and daily counts were conducted at two housing developments that could be easily isolated for counting. These locations included Mears Court (single-family detached units) and Peter Coutts Circle (medium density attached housing). To capture graduate student travel patterns, data was collected for Escondido Village which houses graduate students that are single, married, or have families; therefore, the counts capture spouse and other family member trips. The Escondido Village counts were collected at the same time as the spring 2015 annual monitoring. Undergraduate student housing sites are not easily isolated for traffic count purposes; therefore, the undergraduate resident trip rates were estimated from the graduate student resident rates based on proportional parking permit ownership data. EXISTING 2015 TRIP GENERATION Based on the data in the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report, the AM and PM peak hour traffic entering and exiting the campus in 2015 was: • AM Peak Hour: 3,142 inbound trips, 1,790 outbound trips • PM Peak Hour: 2,510 inbound trips, 3,257 outbound trips The peak direction volumes (AM inbound and PM outbound) were taken directly from the report summary, and reflect the adjustments made to account for Stanford University Medical Center trips, campus trips outside the cordon, and cut-through trips. Since these adjustments weren’t made for the off-peak direction data, Fehr & Peers reviewed a sample of the directional data for each peak hour, and factored the adjusted peak direction volume to estimate the non-peak direction volume. The traffic counts used to determine 2015 trips were collected during the fall and spring periods when Stanford was in session. Commuter trips to and from the campus would be lower during summer and holiday periods when fewer off-campus Stanford students would be traveling to and from the campus. Therefore, the trip generation and counts presented in this report are useful for evaluating peak trips for purposes of evaluating roadway and intersection congestion; the accompanying SB 743 VMT Analysis presents annualized data that is used in calculating annual emissions of greenhouse gases. 2015 TRIP GENERATION RATES Fehr & Peers evaluated multiple methods of estimating existing peak hour trip generation rates for the campus. The selected method uses total academic and academic support square footage as the overall trip generation variable, with an additional step that separates resident trip generation out so that resident and non-resident trip generation can be distributed to the roadway network using unique trip distribution patterns for the two types of trips (commuter/other, and resident). Resident trip generation is more easily captured than non-resident (e.g., commuter/vendor/visitor) trip generation, because Stanford has reliable Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 14 data on the resident populations in various housing areas; and it is possible to isolate and count the traffic generated by those areas. It is important to note that non-resident trip generation includes trips made by commuting students, faculty and staff as well as trips made by visitors to the campus including outside vendors, conference attendees, people traveling to and from campus for meetings, tour groups and individuals touring the campus, and visitors to galleries and performance and athletic venues. Residential and non-residential trip generation are not independent factors at Stanford. As new on campus housing is constructed for students, faculty and staff, non-residential trips decrease because the students, faculty or staff living in that housing no longer drive to campus. While new on campus housing generates some new peak hour, peak direction trips, that residential trip generation is more than offset by the decrease in non-residential peak direction trips during the peak commute period. Therefore, the total trip generation rate based on academic and academic support space is a conservative rate, and would not be exceeded by constructing additional quantities of on campus housing. Table 2 shows the observed total campus trip generation rates based on the 2015 measured traffic generation of the entire campus, in the first row. These results are based on 8 weeks of adjusted cordon counts intended to capture all trips into and out of the campus area. Resident-specific trip rates are then provided for faculty/staff residents, and for student residents, using the housing count data described above. The student resident rates represent both graduate and undergraduate residents, and include the trips made by spouses of resident graduate students that may not be affiliated with Stanford. The student rates were developed by weighting the graduate and undergraduate rates based on the total beds on campus in fall 2015. TABLE 2: CAMPUS TRIP GENERATION RATES: 2015 Component (variable) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound All Campus Trips (per ksf of academic and academic support space) 0.330 0.188 0.264 0.342 Student Residents (per bed)1 0.027 0.035 0.072 0.062 Faculty/Staff Residents (per residential unit) 0.15 0.28 0.26 0.19 Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2016 Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 15 TRIP GENERATION GROWTH: 2015 TO FALL 2018 (COMMENCEMENT OF PROPOSED 2018 GUP) The number of residential and non-residential trips for the time period between December 2015 and fall 20183 were estimated via the following process: Step A: Total new trip generation = (Growth in academic and academic support square footage) x (2015 campus trip generation rate) Step B: Faculty/staff resident trip generation = (New residential units) x (2015 faculty/staff residential trip generation rates) Step C: Student resident trip generation = (New student beds) x (2015 student residential trip generation rates) Step D: Non-resident trip generation = Total campus trip generation – resident trip generation Table 3 presents the remaining development authorized under the 2000 GUP. For purposes of this analysis, all of the remaining authorization is assumed to be permitted between December 2015 and fall 2018. Further, this analysis assumes that the net new academic and academic support square footage generates trips at the existing trip generation rate. This is a conservative assumption because Stanford intends to continue to achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal, as it has done in each of the 15 years since issuance of the 2000 GUP. TABLE 3: DECEMBER 2015 – FALL 2018 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Component Beds / Units Academic Space (ksf) Academic and Academic Support Space 769.354 Student (Beds) 2,476 Faculty / Staff (Dwelling Units) 0 Source: Stanford, July 2016. Table 4 presents the resulting trip generation for this period, using the trip generation rates in Table 2. 3 This analysis captures the timeframe between the 2015 cordon counts and when the 2018 GUP would go into effect. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 16 TABLE 4: DECEMBER 2015 – FALL 2018 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE Generator AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Total Campus Trips (based on academic space growth) 254 145 399 203 263 466 Student Residents 67 87 154 178 154 332 Faculty / Staff Residents 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Resident Trips 67 87 154 178 154 332 Non-Residential Generators (Commuters, visitors, others) 187 58 245 25 110 134 Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2016 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION -- 2018 GUP The number of residential and non-residential trips for the time period between fall 2018 and the completion of development under the 2018 GUP were estimated via the following process: Step A: Total new trip generation = (Growth in academic and academic support square footage) x (2015 campus trip generation rate) Step B: Faculty/staff resident trip generation = (New residential units) x (2015 residential trip generation rates) Step C: Student resident trip generation = (New student beds) x (2015 residential trip generation rates) Step D: Non-resident trip generation = Total campus trip generation – resident trip generation The development proposal included in the 2018 GUP application is shown in Table 5. The resulting AM and PM peak hour trip generation using the 2015 trip rates is shown in Table 6. TABLE 5: 2018 GUP DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Component Beds/Units Academic Space (ksf) Academic and Academic Support Space 2,275 Student (Beds) 2,600 Faculty / Staff (Dwelling Units) 550 Source: Stanford, July 2016. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 17 TABLE 6: 2018 GUP TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE Generator AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Total Campus Trips (based on academic and academic support space growth) 751 428 1,179 600 779 1,379 Student Residents 70 91 161 187 161 348 Faculty/Staff Residents 83 154 237 143 105 248 Total Resident Trips 153 245 398 330 266 596 Non-Residential Generators (Commuters, visitors, others) 598 183 781 270 513 783 Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2016 Similar to the 2015-2018 time period, above, this analysis assumes that the net new academic and academic support square footage generates trips at the existing 2015 trip generation rates. Again, this is a conservative assumption because Stanford intends to continue to achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal during the duration of the 2018 GUP. Doing so would prevent peak direction peak hour trips from increasing. Without further trip reductions and trip credits, the 2018 GUP would be expected to generate a total of 751 additional inbound vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 779 additional vehicle outbound trips in the PM peak hour. Table 6 includes detailed information about the directionality of trips and how many are attributable to residential units and how many are attributable to growth in academic and academic support space. Figure 3 shows the 2015 trip generation during the AM and PM peak hours, and the estimated trip generation for the period between fall 2015 – fall 2018 and for the growth proposed for the 2018 GUP. Figure 4 shows the relationship between resident and non-resident peak hour trip generation with the introduction of additional on-campus housing. There is an initial shift in the percent of residential trips with the introduction of additional on-campus student housing in 2018 and a further shift with the introduction of additional faculty / staff and student housing in 2035. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 18 Figure 3: Existing and Projected Trip Peak Hour Trips Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2016 Figure 4: Change in Proportion of Resident and Non-Resident Peak Hour Trips Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2016. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 19 4: STANFORD TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS STANFORD OFF-CAMPUS COMMUTER DISTRIBUTION Stanford’s annual commuter travel survey (2015) and information on commuter place of residence were used to develop a commuter vehicle trip distribution for the campus. Using the survey responses regarding primary mode of travel to the campus along with the place of residence, it was possible to establish the commuter mode choice for specific geographic areas. The commuter mode choice by geography was combined with the total number of commuters within a geographic area to estimate the number of drivers from each area. Adjustments were made to the survey response to remove bias due to participation of those in the Clean Air Cash program for each geographic area. The steps used to develop the commuter trip distribution are described below: • A GIS map layer was created using the survey responses for primary commute mode to campus. • The commute mode map layer was overlaid over the place of residence for all Stanford employees. • The 9 county Bay Area Region was broken down into 31 geographic subareas that had a large enough number of survey responses and a sufficient number of total employees to be statistically significant. • Within each geographic area adjustments were made to the primary commute mode data to account for the different response rates of employees that participate in the Clean Air Cash program versus non-participants. • The adjusted commuter mode split calculated for each geographic subarea was applied to the total number of employees within the subarea to create the final distribution for commute drivers. Figure 5 shows the adjusted mode splits sorted by the SOV mode choice for each geographic subarea. There are clear and consistent patterns in the commute travel mode based on the availability of, and proximity to, alternative modes such as Caltrain (East San Francisco and then along the Peninsula) and the Dumbarton Express bus service (Newark and Fremont). It also shows relatively high auto use within 10 miles of the campus and relatively high bicycle use for communities within 5 miles of the campus. Table 7 summarizes the geographic distribution of employees that primarily commute by autos (SOV and HOV) and indicates the major roadways that would likely be used to approach the campus. Figure 6 shows the distribution of traffic as it approaches Palo Alto and the Stanford Campus. This distribution is based on the existing travel patterns will be used to represent travel behavior in the period from 2015 to 2018. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 20 Figure 5: Stanford University Employee Mode Share Source: Stanford Parking & Transportation Services & Fehr & Peers, 2016 Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 21 TABLE 7: PERCENT OF STANFORD AFFILIATES (DRIVING) BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA Location Roadways Percent North of Campus Local Menlo Park East – ECR to Bay ECR North 2.08% Menlo Park West – ECR to I-280 Santa Cruz 4.35% Atherton ECR North, Santa Cruz 4.99% Redwood City / San Carlos ECR North, Santa Cruz 4.47% 15.9% Regional Belmont / Foster City / Hillsborough I-280, ECR North 4.65% South San Francisco / Daly City I-280, Alpine, Sand Hill 1.94% City of San Mateo / Burlingame I-280, Alpine, Sand Hill 3.23% Sunnyvale / Santa Clara I-280, Alpine, Sand Hill 1.64% North Bay – Marin / Napa / Sonoma Counties I-280, Alpine, Sand Hill 0.96% San Francisco (East) – good Caltrain access I-280, US101 3.70% San Francisco (West) – poor Caltrain access I-280 3.02% 19.1% South of Campus Local Los Altos Foothill 3.36% Los Altos Hills Foothill, Page Mill 1.82% Mountain View North of Central Expressway ECR South, Foothill 3.09% Mountain View South of Central Expressway ECR South, Foothill 5.95% Palo Alto South of ECR & Page Mill Road ECR South, Foothill 2.92% 17.1% Regional Santa Clara County I-280, US 101 0.51% Santa Cruz County I-280, US 101 1.43% Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, North San Jose US 101, ECR South, Foothill 4.89% Campbell / Central San Jose I-280 4.72% Cupertino / Saratoga / Santa Clara I-280, Foothill 6.29% Northern San Jose / Fremont / Milpitas US 101 1.85% South San Jose US 101, I-280 3.37% Downtown – East San Jose I-280 1.80% South Counties – Monterey, San Benito I-280 0.30% 25.2% East of Campus Local Palo Alto East Oregon, ECR South 3.53% Palo Alto North University, Embarcadero 6.85% 10.4% Regional Fremont / Newark / East Alameda County Dumbarton, SR 237, US 101 5.48% Oakland / Berkeley / West Alameda County Dumbarton, US 101 [North]— [Does this mean north of Dumbarton?] 3.17% Contra Costa / Solano Counties Dumbarton, US 101 North 1.67% 10.3% West of Campus Local Portola Valley, Woodside Alpine Road, Sand Hill 1.99% 2.0% 100.00% 100.00% Source: Stanford Parking & Transportation Services & Fehr & Peers, 2016 £[101 !"#280 ·|}þ114 ·|}þ84 ·|}þ109 ·|}þ82 SandHillRd San t a C ruz A v e LaurelSt Unive r sity A v e Embarcad e r o RdAthertonAve ValparaisoAve Uni v e r s i t y D r WillowRd elCaminoReal F o othillE xp y San AntonioRd Oreg o n E x p y Junipero S erraBlvd Pag e M i l l Rd Westridge Dr Al m a S t MiddlefieldRd XX%Internal Trip Distribution 15% 9% 13% 2% 3% 13% 2.5 % 2.5 % 2% UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvveeeeeeee rrrrrrrrrrr ssssssssiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA vvvvvvvvvvvvvvAAA eeeeeeee r cc a dddddddd eeeee rrrrrrrr ooooooooo RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ddddddddddddddddddd 113 % 7%7% [££ LLauurreelllSSSSSttt elddddddddddddRRRRRRRRRRRRRRddddddddddddddd 2%2% OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeegggggggggggoooonn 3% 3.5%3.5%4.5 % 18 % 0.5% 1 . 5 % 8% 6% 1% 1% 1. 5 % 9% 1 6 % 1 1 . 5 % 4%5% W:\ S a n J o s e N D r i v e \ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J 1 5 _ P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 5 _ 1 5 8 5 _ S t a n f o r d _ G U P \ G r a p h i c s \ A D O B E \ F i g 6 _ 20 1 5 - 2 0 1 8 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S t a n f o r d C o m m u t e r s . a i 2015-2018 Distribution of Stanford Commuters Using Auto Trip Place of Residence XX%Project Trip Distribution Figure 6 Source: Stanford P&Ts Commuter Survey The cumulative 2035 conditions will also take into account the official forecasts of the redistribution of regional housing under the Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Initial investigations suggest that this may increase commute travel from beyond the study area by 2-3%, and reduce commute trips within the study area by a similar percentage. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 23 For cumulative 2035 conditions, the analysis will be based on current employee patterns but will also take into account the official forecasts of the redistribution of regional housing under the Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. The housing and trip distribution represented in the ABAG, MTC and VTA Plan Bay Area 2040 regional land use and travel model define the appropriate adjustments to existing residence patterns to be reflected in the TIA. Initial investigations suggest that this may increase the percentage of commute travel from beyond the study area boundaries by 2-3%, and reduce residence commute trip distribution from within the study area by a similar percentage. STANFORD RESIDENT DISTRIBUTION While Stanford collects data on resident travel behavior in the annual transportation survey, there is limited information on off-campus destinations. Therefore, the trip distribution for Stanford residents (faculty, staff and students) was developed using data from the Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP)4. The CTTP data for the Stanford campus and residents come from three census tracts that include the following areas: • West campus where some of the undergraduate housing is located, • East campus including some undergraduate dorms along with Escondido Village and Raines House where graduate student housing is located, and • Southwest campus where faculty and staff housing is located. The census tract that includes faculty and staff housing also includes the residential neighborhoods of College Terrace, Evergreen Park, and South Gate. The campus census tracts do on include the Stanford medical center or shopping center. Therefore, this census tract was considered an employment center and an off-campus destination for Stanford residents. The data for these three census tracts were combined to develop an off-campus distribution for all Stanford resident trips. The off-campus travel trip distribution was calculated by removing trips to the Stanford campus census tracts, which represented approximately 44% of the total trips. The remaining trips were used to calculate the percent of trips to each destination (city or county). Table 8 summarizes the distribution of trips base on the CTPP data for Stanford residents. After making the off-campus adjustment described above, approximately 55% of the resident trips were assigned to destinations within the City of Palo Alto. The CTPP data provided some detail regarding the trips to specific census tracts within the City of Palo Alto; therefore, trips within Palo Alto were assigned to four geographic areas: 4 US Census Transportation Planning Products Journey to Work from Place of Residence. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/5-Year-Data.aspx Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 24 • Downtown and northern Palo Alto – north of Oregon Expressway and east of El Camino Real • Southeast Palo Alto – south of Oregon Expressway and east of El Camino Real • Southwest Palo Alto – south of the campus and west of El Camino Real (includes research park) • Medical center and shopping center Figure 8 shows the trip distribution for Stanford residents. This distribution will be used for both the near- term (2015 – 2018) and cumulative analysis (2018 – 2035) conditions. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Transportation Impact Analysis Part 1 November 2016 25 TABLE 8: STANFORD RESIDENCE OFF-CAMPUS DESTINATIONS GEOGRAPHIC AREA Location Roadways Percent Palo Alto Local Palo Alto – Downtown University, Embarcadero 10.0% Palo Alto – Medical Center / Shopping Center Campus Dr., ECR, Junipero Serra 20.0% Palo Alto – South of Oregon / East of ECR Oregon, ECR, Alma 5.0% Palo Alto – California Avenue / Research Park ECR, Foothill 20.0% 55.0% North of Campus Local Menlo Park, Atherton ECR North 3.9% Redwood City / San Carlos ECR North, Santa Cruz 3.4% 7.3% Regional Northern Peninsula – Belmonte to Millbrae I-280, Alpine, Sand Hill 1.8% San Francisco I-280 4.1% South San Francisco / Daly City I-280, Alpine, Sand Hill 0.6% 6.5% South of Campus Local Los Altos Foothill 0.4% Mountain View ECR South, Foothill 6.8% 7.2% Regional Santa Clara County I-280, US 101 0.8% Santa Cruz County I-280, US 101 1.0% Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, North San Jose US 101, ECR South, Foothill 6.2% Campbell / Central San Jose I-280 0.2% Cupertino / Saratoga / Los Gatos I-280, Foothill 1.1% Downtown – East San Jose US 101, I-280 8.3% South San Jose I-280 0.5% 18.1% East of Campus Local East Palo Alto University, Embarcadero 0.6% 0.6% Regional Alameda County Dumbarton, US 101 3.3% Contra Costa County Dumbarton, US 101 1.1% Fremont / Milpitas Dumbarton, US 101 0.7% 5.1% West of Campus Local Portola Valley, Woodside Alpine Road, Sand Hill 0.4% 0.4% 100% 100% Source: US Census Transportation Planning Products & Fehr & Peers, 2016 XX% £[101 !"#280 ·|}þ114 ·|}þ84 ·|}þ109 ·|}þ82 S a n d HillR d San t a C ruz A v e LaurelSt Unive r sity A v e Embarcad e r o Rd AthertonAve ValparaisoAve Uni v e r s i t y D r WillowRd elCaminoReal FoothillExpy San AntonioRd Oreg o n E x p y Junipero S erraBlvd Pag e Mill R d Westridge Dr Al m a S t MiddlefieldRd 3% 4% 0%0.5 % 5% UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeee rrrrrrrrrrr ssssssssiiiiiiiiittttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA vvvvvvvvvvvvAAAAAA eeee EEEEEEEEEEEE mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm bbbbbbbbbbbbbb aaaa rr cc a 10%10% 5%5% FFFFFFFFFFooooooooooooooooooottttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllEEEEEEEEEEEExxxxxxxxpppppppppppppyyyyyyyyyy MMillRRRRRRRRddddddddddd 20%20% WWWWWWWWWWWWiiilllo1%1% 6% 3% 3 % 2% 2% 2 % 1 5 % 4 % 1%4% 3% 8% 4% 15% 2% UnniivvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrrrrrssssssiiiiiittttttttttyyyyyyyyyyDDDDDDDDDDrrrrrrr 20%20% W:\ S a n J o s e N D r i v e \ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J 1 5 _ P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 5 _ 1 5 8 5 _ S t a n f o r d _ G U P \ G r a p h i c s \ A D O B E \ F i g 7 _ T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n _ A u t o _ O f f _ C a m p u s . a i Figure 7 Distribution of Stanford Residents Using Auto Off-Campus XX%Project Trip Distribution Source: US Census, CTPP Data Stanford, CA Internal Trip Distribution Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 APPENDIX A STANFORD TDM PROGRAM Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM A large proportion of Stanford employees and students live within three to five miles of campus which facilitates active transportation modes. The campus itself is approximately two miles wide and relatively flat. These factors alone make walking and biking very attractive; however, infrastructure and support mechanisms are in place to ensure that people have the resources they need and to facilitate a culture of active transportation commuting. BICYCLE PROGRAM Bicycle programs encourage employees and students to bike by creating biking groups or buddies, providing incentives for cyclists and providing resources and information on bicycling. Stanford provides ongoing bicycle safety classes and conducts outreach to students to promote bicycle safety awareness. The program includes a student-to-student exchange to promote peer education. In addition to safety messaging, Stanford conducts ongoing promotions such as bicycle giveaways and other financial incentives. Stanford also provides a commute buddy program which matches experienced bicyclists with new ones to assist them in adjusting to the commute. The experienced bicyclist will provide guidance on how to load bicycles onto transit vehicles, which routes to take to and from campus, as well as what kind of gear is needed during the fall and winter to be prepared for rain. Stanford provides a rider’s guide with bicycle routes, lanes, and paths to campus making it easier for people to bike and walk. Bicycle commuters ride in a “bike train”; Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 2 BICYCLE SHOP AND REPAIR FACILITIES Stanford has a full service bike shop on campus that also provides bike rentals and sales. The bike shop website provides a variety of resources including safety and security education as well as maps and links to other bike resources. Bike repair stations at key locations allow cyclists to conduct repairs as needed. This encourages commuters to bike because it is a convenient way to make routine repairs and maintenance. It also gives riders peace of mind if they choose this mode choice as their primary transportation option. Do-it-yourself bike repairs stands include an air pump and basic tools such as Phillips/Flat-head screwdrivers, 15/32 mm combination wrench, 8/9/10 mm combination wrenches, tire levers, Torx wrench, and Allen wrenches. Stanford has installed bicycle repair stations around the campus at centralized locations. BICYCLE PARKING, SHOWERS, AND LOCKERS Stanford provides locker and shower rentals for students and employees on campus in addition to bicycle rack parking throughout campus. Strategic bike parking locations on campus give employees and students more direct access to building facilities. Showers and lockers also promote biking and walking as it gives people a clean, easily accessible place to shower and get ready for work or school after their morning bicycle or walking commute. BICYCLE RENTALS A bicycle rental program provides flexibility for people who want to use bicycles as a form of transportation on a short-term basis. This helps eliminate vehicle trips made during the day by providing mobility options for people who chose to carpool, walk or take transit to work. Bicycle rentals are also effective in reducing vehicle trips when visitors are on campus and they need a mode to move about the campus without using a car. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Stanford has invested large amounts of time, effort and funding to implement bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements around the campus providing connectivity, access and safety for cyclists. The campus utilizes Bike repair station, Source: www.locallygrownnorthfield.org Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 3 Class I (off-street) and Class II (on-street) bicycle lanes. The recently completed 3.4 mile Perimeter Trail is the longest bicycle facility Stanford has invested in thus far. The Perimeter Trail is a high quality facility that parallels El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue the length of these campus frontages. It provides circulation within the campus and connects to other facilities in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. The Stanford campus is well connected to the surrounding neighborhoods and also includes a comprehensive network of pedestrian facilities within the campus to connect the various campus uses. These attractive and safe connections between buildings and the surrounding streets encourage people to walk more. Green spaces are integral to the design of the campus. The wide pedestrian pathways and small green spaces create a safe, comfortable walking environment for internal pedestrian trips. CAMPUS DESIGN The design of a site can facilitate walkability by creating an environment scaled to a human rather than a vehicle. Landscaping, paths, building fronts and other features provide non-motorized modes an opportunity to have an enjoyable experience as well as feel safe. Parking lots, driveways, large amounts of asphalt and other automobile oriented features introduce intermodal conflicts and are unattractive features for a pedestrian or bicyclist. By slowing down vehicle traffic or eliminating it completely from major pedestrian and bicycle facilities, safety for non-motorized modes is greatly increased. Additionally, by providing onsite amenities and services people do not have to leave campus in the midday to get their daily needs met. ON-SITE AMENITIES AND SERVICES Amenities and services located on-site can help to reduce the number of trips an employee or student needs to make during a regular day. Onsite amenities include, but are not limited to, the following: cafeterias, restaurants and coffee shops, book store, a full service post office, daycare centers, ATMs, barbershop, and fitness facilities (open to anyone with a Stanford ID). Stanford has designed a campus that connects these various amenities to student and employee activity areas. BUILDING AND CAMPUS DESIGN A pedestrian-friendly environment is created by orienting building entries towards plazas, parks, or adjacent roadways with pedestrian facilities, which encourages people to walk more. Stanford’s campus design creates a walkable environment, which facilitates the use of alternative modes when combined with the numerous facilities and resources provided to students and employees who chose a mode other than driving alone. Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 4 TRAFFIC CALMING & ROUNDABOUTS To create a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environment which in turn promotes site access via non- automobile modes, traffic calming features, including bulb-outs and crosswalks, have been installed on internal campus streets. These features reduce vehicle speeds and create a safe, comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Three new roundabouts have also been introduced on campus to improve safety and traffic operations on campus. A fourth roundabout is currently under construction and will open in fall 2016. The use of roundabouts on Campus Drive achieves a policy of not having traffic signals on campus while creating a better experience for pedestrian, bicyclists and auto users. The roundabouts have replaced traditional all-way stop sign locations. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Financial incentives can motivate people to use alternative modes by offsetting the financial cost of using those modes to provide a greater financial gain for the employee. When combined with positive messaging, financial incentives that assist people with their commute can be very effective. PRE-TAX COMMUTER BENEFITS The IRS tax code allows employers to set aside pre-tax income for employee commute expenses. Providing tax benefits to employees who choose to utilize non-drive alone transportation modes during their commute to and from work provides them with a financial incentive to use these alternative modes. In addition to providing transit passes for Caltrain and the VTA system, Stanford provides pre- tax commuter benefits for people using other transit systems or to pay for Caltrain parking permits. CAR SHARE RENTAL AND CARPOOL CREDITS People who join the Commute Club and rideshare are eligible for carpool credit to partially offset the cost of a carpool permit. Each member of the carpool is eligible for up to $150 of credit. Additionally members of the Commute Club are eligible for up to $102 per year in Zipcar driving credits and up to 12 free hourly car rental vouchers for use with Enterprise. COMMUTE CLUB GIVEAWAYS & PARKING PERMIT RETURN PROMOTION Stanford provides other financial incentives in the form of rewards for people who consistently commute using an alternative mode. In 2014 prizes valued at over $10,000 were given away throughout the year to Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 5 people who pledged to commute using an alternative form of transportation. Additionally, in the 2015- 2016 academic year Stanford is providing financial rewards to people who turn in their long-term parking commuter permit. MARKETING AND SUPPORT Marketing the TDM program by providing readily available information to employees increases awareness and improves participation. Clear messaging and information ensures that multiple TDM options are well understood. Stanford’s marketing program is extensive and includes positive messaging that helps create a culture of sustainable transportation awareness. WEBSITE AND ONE-STOP SHOP FOR INFORMATION Stanford maintains an all-inclusive website with commute planning tools and up-to-date information on transportation resources. The website includes educational resources such as commute cost and carbon emissions calculator. Having a one-stop-shop in the form of a website with bountiful resources empowers commuters to make alternative commuting choices easily and quickly. GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM Employees who use transit, carpools, or vanpools are guaranteed a ride home in case of emergency or if they need to work late which helps reduce concerns about using alternative modes. Having this program encourages employees to not drive alone to work. When an emergency occurs a commuter can either call Parking & Transportation Services to request a taxi or they can make their own arrangements and receive reimbursement at a later date. PERSONALIZED COMMUTE PLANNING SERVICES The Parking & Transportation Services website provides commute planning services that include links to transportation resources, mapping an individual’s commute and a contact form to receive personalized assistance for planning an individual commute. This type of personalized assistance is important for people with disabilities or who are not used to navigating transit systems or bicycle facilities. This resource combined with the Commute Buddy program makes it easy for a commuter to navigate the numerous transportation systems surrounding the campus. E-UPDATES FOR COMMUTE CLUB A monthly eUpdate, or newsletter, is sent out to all Commute Club members. The eUpdate includes stories that reinforce positive messaging and provides information on road closures, changes to the transit system or other relevant commuter information. Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 6 CAR RENTAL AND CAR SHARE Car sharing or rental programs on-site give employees who do not normally drive to work access to a vehicle. Employees who commute to work by biking, taking transit, or participating in carpools,can utilize a vehicle located on-site for errands or meetings. This helps reduce concerns and inconveniences of not having a vehicle during the day. Stanford provides credits for ZipCar as well as vouchers for Enterprise which allows commuters access to a vehicle during the work/school day. This continues to encourage individuals to use alternatives modes for commuting to and from the campus. NEW EMPLOYEE & STUDENT ORIENTATION When employees start working at Stanford they are provided with an orientation to the numerous resources for commuting other than driving alone. This provides employees with an opportunity to ask questions and start forming sustainable commute habits early on in their career with Stanford. This program has helped to engrain the culture of sustainable transportation in the employee base at Stanford. Additionally, new students are provided with pamphlets and other information resources to plan their commutes to and from campus. PROMOTIONAL EVENTS AND POSITIVE MESSAGING By using positive messaging to convey the benefits of carpooling, transit, and active modes, employees are encouraged to use alternative modes. Events like transportation fairs provide information on alternative modes in the context of a fun event, which sends positive messaging to employees. Those who currently use these modes will feel good about their decisions and continue using them. In addition, employees may find commute buddies interested in riding transit, biking, or walking to work together which helps to create a culture of alternative commuting. COMMUTE BUDDY Having companions when commuting to work can make it more enjoyable and safe. The commute buddy program pairs more experienced commuters with inexperienced commuters. This allows first time bicycle, transit or pedestrian commuters to get familiar with the routes and traffic patterns. It can also encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety by forming groups of people to “bike train” or “walk train” into work. OTHER MEASURES Measures that do not fit within the categories already described are included as “other” measures. Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 7 TELECOMMUTING/FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULE PROGRAM Telecommuting allows employees to work remotely via telecommunications, reducing trips made to the employer site. Additionally, flexible work schedules allow employees to set or modify their arrival and departure times which can alleviate some demand during typical peak travel periods and may provide the flexibility people need to use alternative modes of transportation. Other types of alternative work schedules, such as compressed schedules or staggered work hours, can be incorporated by managers to create more flexibility for employees. TRANSPORTATION & PARKING SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Transportation & Parking Services Department supports the Stanford campus by planning for its parking and transportation needs. In addition to planning for the long-term transportation infrastructure needs of the campus, the department manages the very robust TDM program and has staff on board developing, marketing, implementing, and evaluating the TDM program. Having dedicated personnel on campus makes the TDM program robust, consistent and reliable. Employees and students have a designated point of contact for questions about the various TDM measures, which allows them to easily stay informed on various TDM functions and program eligibility. COMMUTER SURVEYS Surveys are key for effective marketing and for targeting the TDM program to commuter needs, residential location and preferences. Surveys are administered by Stanford’s Parking & Transportation Services Department. They are conducted at regular intervals, typically on a semi-annual or annual basis, in order to keep track of transportation behavior changes and preferences. Incentives are provided to complete the survey which boosts participation. PARKING MANAGEMENT Parking policies can effect driving behavior by requiring the user to pay for the cost of the parking space rather than taking for granted the availability of free parking. TIERED PARKING PRICING & PARKING MONITORING There are several parking permit types that commuters and residents can purchase for campus use. Student residents are only allowed to have one vehicle on campus and are not allowed to purchase the commuter parking permits. These permits are only valid for the residential location for which they were purchased. All permits can be purchased on a monthly, academic year or annual basis. Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 8 FRESHMAN PARKING POLICY Stanford students are not permitted to bring cars to campus for the duration of their freshman year (Fall through Spring quarters). This includes students who have enough credits to be considered sophomores at any time during their first academic year at Stanford. Parking restrictions have been applied to freshmen, as they are the least impacted by a “no vehicle” policy. Freshmen are required to live in residence halls with board plans, and any freshman who needs employment can obtain a job on campus. Freshmen are also supported by a wide array of special social activities in their residence halls and elsewhere on campus. PARKING LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION The campus includes parking located away from building frontages which does not impede access to the building by other modes. It also provides a more attractive street frontage for pedestrians and bicyclists. RIDESHARE Stanford University is a regional employer that attracts people from all over the San Francisco Bay Area. The University spends a lot of resources to supplement existing transit services and to get people onto bicycles or walking. However, some people do not live close enough to transit facilities to use them or their schedule may not be conducive to using transit. For these people ridesharing can be a great resource as it provides a door to door commute service and is highly flexible. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES The Stanford campus has pick up and drop off zones at strategic locations that provide more convenient access to/from major buildings for modes other than drive alone. This can improve carpool and vanpool ridership by providing convenient passenger access near the main entries to buildings or other centralized locations that generate high pedestrian traffic. PRIORITY PARKING Reserved parking spaces for carpools and vanpools near major building entrances prioritize non-single occupancy mode choices. Stanford provides these parking spaces for employees commuting in carpools or vanpools. Priority parking sign, Source: Fehr & Peers Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 9 RIDESHARE MATCHING SERVICES Rideshare programs help facilitate carpool and vanpools by matching drivers and passengers based on location and schedules. Stanford provides a variety of ride matching services including access to 511.org, customized commute planning, online ride matching with other Stanford employees, and listing vanpools online with contact information. SUBSIDIZED VANPOOLS AND CARPOOLS Stanford provides financial incentives for those who participate in vanpools or carpools including Carpool Credits, described above, which are earned through membership in the Commute Club. Additionally vanpools receive a $300 per month subsidy to defray the cost of monthly vanpool expenses. TRANSIT There are many transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area (refer to Figure 1). Navigating these systems can be overwhelming even for experienced transit riders. Stanford provides several resources to assist people in using the transit system in addition to providing an extensive shuttle system that connects to the various transit services. MARGUERITE SHUTTLE SYSTEM Operation of shuttle services to the nearby transit centers provides a critical last-mile connection for people who choose to travel on public transit. Stanford’s extensive Marguerite Shuttle System provides service to the East Bay, several Caltrain stations as well as around campus. The shuttle system is free and open to the public for use. FREE TRANSIT PASSES Employer subsidized transit passes are an effective way to get people using the transit system. By providing employees with a free alternative to driving alone Stanford increases the attractiveness of transit. Stanford provides both Go Passes and Eco Passes which allow free use of VTA buses and light rail, the Dumbarton Express, the Highway 17 Express, the Monterey-San Jose Express, and Caltrain. TRANSIT RIDERS GUIDE Stanford’s website contains a comprehensive listing of transit agencies. Stanford also provides a guide with Marguerite transit routes and schedules. The commute planning assistance website described above helps employees and students plan trips via transit, whether it’s for a commute trip or a quick errand or off-site Stanford General Use Permit Transportation Study August 2016 10 meeting nearby. Stanford also provides real time travel information for the Marguerite shuttle system using the Zoute public transit app. Ä391 ÄPX Ä522 ÄRXÄ390 Ä182 Ä104 Ä102Ä103 Ä101 Ä397 ÄU ÄKX ÄDB3 ÄDB ÄDB1 ÄM ®72 ®73 ®271 ®89 ®274 ®34 ®52 ®83 ®88 ®281 ®53 ®40 ®280 ®35 ®32 ®296 ®297 ®22 ®85 ®295 N: \ P R O J E C T S \ O t h e r _ O f f i c e _ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 5 - 1 5 8 5 _ N e x t G U P \ G I S \ T r a n s i t F i g u r e \ T r a n s i t F i g u r e \ F i g 2 T r a n s i t . m x d Figure 1 Marguerite Shuttle System and Transit Services Stanford Marguerite Shuttle Caltrain Light Rail Regional/Express Bus Local Bus Stanford Lands Water Parks Airports WindyHillOS Arastradero Preserve SMC SSE SP SHD SR SW SN STECH SY SEB SC SAE-F SO SOCA SCA SSLAC SRP SS SVA S1050A ÄRX Ä397Ä390 Ä522 ÄDB3 ÄU ÄDB1 Ä182 Ä104 ÄKX ÄDB Ä102Ä101 Ä103 ®72 ®88 ®271 ®297 ®22 ®35 ®89 ®296 ®83 ®281 ®280 ®295 ®85 W:\ W a l n u t C r e e k N D r i v e \ P R O J E C T S \ O t h e r _ O f f i c e _ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 5 - 1 5 8 5 _ N e x t G U P \ G I S \ T r a n s i t F i g u r e \ T r a n s i t F i g u r e \ F i g 2 T r a n s i t _ S t a n f o r d D e t a i l . m x d Figure 1 Marguerite Shuttle System and Transit Services Stanford Marguerite Shuttle Caltrain Regional/Express Bus Local Bus Stanford Lands Water Airports APPENDIX B: TRIP GENERATION COUNTS 3AM PETER COUTTS RD & PETER COUTTS CIRCLE.xls - Vehicles Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 19102020122502021 07:15 AM 110103020024903012 07:30 AM 3150621500411119136 07:45 AM 16 34 0 22 2 1 7 1 3 41 41 0 19 0 7 2 08:00 AM 52827228023411030177 08:15 AM 1 18 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 24 5 0 8 0 3 1 08:30 AM 314235010420428015 08:45 AM 2 19 1 3 2 0 4 0 4 32 4 0 11 0 5 2 7:15 - 8:15 25 87 3 9 4 22 5 140 72 61 2 18 448 7:30 - 8:30 25 95 2 6 6 28 5 140 68 66 2 20 463 7:45 - 8:45 25 94 4 9 5 24 9 119 61 65 1 18 434 8:00 - 9:00 11 79 5 9421 10 110 24 57 1 16 347 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\3AM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 7:00:00 AM Site Code: 00000003 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 PETER COUTTS RD Southbound PETER COUTTS CIRCLE Westbound PETER COUTTS RD Northbound RAIMUNDO WAY Eastbound 3AM PETER COUTTS RD & PETER COUTTS CIRCLE.xls - Bikes Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 0100100000000000 07:15 AM 0000000000000000 07:30 AM 0010005000004110 07:45 AM 0100023002105100 08:00 AM 0500214000003020 08:15 AM 0300201001001030 08:30 AM 0000000001001000 08:45 AM 0900100000000050 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\3AM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 7:00:00 AM Site Code: 00000003 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 PETER COUTTS RD Southbound PETER COUTTS CIRCLE Westbound PETER COUTTS RD Northbound RAIMUNDO WAY Eastbound 3PM PETER COUTTS RD & PETER COUTTS CIRCLE.xls - Vehicles Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 226271040323809125 04:15 PM 226336120425709015 04:30 PM 2352020400153011021 04:45 PM 226402150331527052 05:00 PM 3328210605357011258 05:15 PM 4 31 6 1 2 0 2 0 5 30 10 1 7 1 1 4 05:30 PM 546506220429515005 05:45 PM 437322080660603113 4:15 0 5:15 9 119 17 11 2 17 12 106 22 38 2 13 368 4:30 - 5:30 11 124 20 7 1 17 13 111 25 36 3 13 381 4:45 - 5:45 14 135 23 11 3 15 17 125 27 30 3 11 414 5:00 - 6:00 16 146 22 11 2 18 20 154 28 26 4 7 454 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\3PM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 4:00:00 PM Site Code: 00000003 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 PETER COUTTS RD Southbound PETER COUTTS CIRCLE Westbound PETER COUTTS RD Northbound RAIMUNDO WAY Eastbound 3PM PETER COUTTS RD & PETER COUTTS CIRCLE.xls - Bikes Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 0110000003100000 04:15 PM 0000000013100000 04:30 PM 0000000002100000 04:45 PM 0000000012000000 05:00 PM 2000200000000010 05:15 PM 1110000014001010 05:30 PM 4000000004101100 05:45 PM 2010000003000000 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\3PM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 4:00:00 PM Site Code: 00000003 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 PETER COUTTS RD Southbound PETER COUTTS CIRCLE Westbound PETER COUTTS RD Northbound RAIMUNDO WAY Eastbound 4AM STANFORD AVE & MEARS CT.xls - Vehicles Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 027002020036000000 07:15 AM 029001003052010000 07:30 AM 0334030218277100000 07:45 AM 05340306177116000000 08:00 AM 036101085590000000 08:15 AM 0 27 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:30 AM 047202031397000000 08:45 AM 039404036190000000 7:15 - 8:15 0 151 9 8 0 16 14 335 1 0 0 0 534 7:30 - 8:30 0 149 9 9 0 17 15 371 1 0 0 0 571 7:45 - 8:45 0 163 7 8 0 18 16 391 0 0 0 0 603 8:00 - 9:00 0 149 7 9 0 15 10 365 0 0 0 0 555 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\4AM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 7:00:00 AM Site Code: 00000004 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 STANFORD AVE Southbound MEARS CT Westbound STANFORD AVE Northbound Eastbound 4AM STANFORD AVE & MEARS CT.xls - Bikes Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 07:00 AM 0000000001000000 07:15 AM 0500000001000000 07:30 AM 0200100006000000 07:45 AM 0400000009000000 08:00 AM 0500000006000000 08:15 AM 0500000003000000 08:30 AM 0300100005000000 08:45 AM 0100000009000000 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\4AM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 7:00:00 AM Site Code: 00000004 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 STANFORD AVE Southbound MEARS CT Westbound STANFORD AVE Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 079401006341000000 04:15 PM 070300021048000000 04:30 PM 069202014244000000 04:45 PM 074203002056000000 05:00 PM 084002007044000000 05:15 PM 0 58 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 062300023252000000 05:45 PM 045102011147000000 4:15 0 5:15 0 297 7 7 0 3 2 192 0 0 0 0 508 4:30 - 5:30 0 285 6 7 0 1 2 191 0 0 0 0 492 4:45 - 5:45 0 278 7 5 0 2 2 199 0 0 0 0 493 5:00 - 6:00 0 249 6 403 3 190 0 0 0 0 455 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 STANFORD AVE Southbound MEARS CT Westbound STANFORD AVE Northbound Eastbound Site Code: 00000004 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\4PM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 4:00:00 PM Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds 04:00 PM 0300000001000000 04:15 PM 0500000000000000 04:30 PM 0200000001000000 04:45 PM 0700000001000000 05:00 PM 0400000003000000 05:15 PM 0800000002000000 05:30 PM 0400000002000000 05:45 PM 0400000001000000 Comment 3: 0 Comment 4: 0 STANFORD AVE Southbound MEARS CT Westbound STANFORD AVE Northbound Eastbound Site Code: 00000004 Comment 1: 0 Comment 2: 0 File Name: C:\TMC Data\Data 2015\FP Stanford 10-15\4PM FINAL.ppd Start Date: 10/8/2015 Start Time: 4:00:00 PM VehicleCount-6686 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6686 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[22] MEARS CT E OF STANFORD AVEData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=186, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 11 10 10 8 10 8 15 31 14 13 19 7 10 8 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 4 3 2 1 7 0 1 3 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 3 4 5 2 4 6 3 3 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 5 13 8 3 3 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 8 1 4 3 5 6 4 5 7 2 2 2 0 0 0 0AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (19), AM PHF=0.53 PM Peak 1400 - 1500 (31), PM PHF=0.60 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=201, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 18 16 7 4 9 11 33 15 7 18 15 19 5 6 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 3 0 0 2 8 6 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 1 0 5 2 10 4 2 6 4 7 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 11 5 2 5 5 7 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 1 2 2 5 4 0 1 4 3 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (26), AM PHF=0.54 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (34), PM PHF=0.77 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=198, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 18 13 9 9 17 10 17 30 13 16 8 17 5 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 2 7 8 2 3 5 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 2 1 5 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 2 3 6 2 5 12 5 4 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 3 1 1 3 3 3 5 4 5 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (23), AM PHF=0.72 PM Peak 1400 - 1500 (30), PM PHF=0.63 VehicleCount-6686 Page 1 VehicleCount-6684 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6684 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[22] MEARS CT E OF STANFORD AVEData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=190, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 18 20 11 11 6 9 11 27 19 15 8 8 7 8 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 4 0 5 7 4 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 4 2 3 1 1 0 4 2 6 1 3 2 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 8 5 5 3 3 2 5 10 6 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 4 2 2 2 2 6 8 4 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (27), AM PHF=0.84 PM Peak 1415 - 1515 (29), PM PHF=0.72 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=194, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 23 17 17 8 8 7 29 19 13 10 8 13 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 2 3 2 0 5 5 4 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 4 1 2 1 10 6 2 5 3 4 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 2 5 3 1 1 11 4 1 3 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 3 6 1 3 5 3 4 6 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (32), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (31), PM PHF=0.70 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=203, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 22 16 19 9 12 13 16 30 23 10 12 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 8 2 2 4 2 2 1 5 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 1 3 1 4 7 3 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 7 3 5 3 3 4 12 8 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12 1 4 1 4 5 6 9 11 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0715 - 0815 (27), AM PHF=0.56 PM Peak 1400 - 1500 (30), PM PHF=0.63 VehicleCount-6684 Page 1 VehicleCount-6688 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6688 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[23] MEARS CT N OF COUNT STATION 22Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:North (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=55, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 4 6 5 8 0 6 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (5), AM PHF=0.63 PM Peak 1700 - 1800 (8), PM PHF=0.40 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=61, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 3 1 5 4 8 4 1 7 8 6 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 AM Peak 1115 - 1215 (6), AM PHF=0.50 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (9), PM PHF=0.56 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=61, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 10 5 11 9 5 2 1 5 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (10), AM PHF=0.63 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (12), PM PHF=0.60 VehicleCount-6688 Page 1 VehicleCount-6690 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6690 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[23] MEARS CT N OF COUNT STATION 22Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:South (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=80, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 6 7 9 3 5 6 6 9 7 1 6 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0AM Peak 0930 - 1030 (11), AM PHF=0.92 PM Peak 1530 - 1630 (10), PM PHF=0.63 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=64, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 8 3 3 2 12 6 5 1 4 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0900 - 1000 (8), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (12), PM PHF=0.50 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=74, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 5 6 3 6 7 8 8 9 5 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 4 5 5 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (8), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1515 - 1615 (11), PM PHF=0.55 VehicleCount-6690 Page 1 VehicleCount-6691 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6691 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[24] MEARS CT S OF COUNT STATION 22Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:North (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=73, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6 13 3 2 3 3 5 2 10 8 5 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 2 1 2 1 2 0 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (13), AM PHF=0.65 PM Peak 1445 - 1545 (11), PM PHF=0.55 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=94, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 7 9 6 5 4 9 4 9 9 5 5 5 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 4 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 1 3 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (13), AM PHF=0.65 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (12), PM PHF=1.00 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=96, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 6 8 6 11 7 10 10 12 4 6 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 6 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 4 2 1 2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (11), AM PHF=0.69 PM Peak 1530 - 1630 (15), PM PHF=0.63 VehicleCount-6691 Page 1 VehicleCount-6693 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6693 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[24] MEARS CT S OF COUNT STATION 22Data type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:South (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=94, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 7 8 2 8 6 9 7 8 9 5 3 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 1 3 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 2 1 0 3 4 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0AM Peak 0930 - 1030 (14), AM PHF=0.58 PM Peak 1530 - 1630 (10), PM PHF=0.63 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=101, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 10 6 2 5 6 14 6 6 10 7 12 5 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 0 3 1 1 2 2 6 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 2 5 2 1 4 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 2 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 AM Peak 0815 - 0915 (11), AM PHF=0.92 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (15), PM PHF=0.75 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=111, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 9 4 8 11 7 10 13 6 11 6 7 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 2 2 7 1 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (11), AM PHF=0.69 PM Peak 1330 - 1430 (16), PM PHF=0.57 VehicleCount-6693 Page 1 EventCount-6695 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Event Counts EventCount-6695 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[25] PETER COUTTS CR E OF PETER COUTTS RDInput A:4 - West bound. - Lane= 0, Excluded from totals. Input B:2 - East bound. - Lane= 0, Added to totals. (/2.000) Data type:Axle sensors - Separate (Count) Profile: Name:Default ProfileScheme:Count events divided by setup divisorUnits:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015=410, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 25 16 17 18 24 23 27 35 36 42 50 28 29 19 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 4 5 4 6 4 7 9 9 13 11 8 14 10 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 7 3 3 3 8 4 9 11 7 14 4 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 2 7 5 9 4 9 7 8 14 14 9 2 4 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 3 2 6 6 7 8 10 8 8 11 7 5 1 0 1 2AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (25), AM PHF=0.89 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (50), PM PHF=0.88 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015=439, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 2 0 0 0 2 5 11 20 20 13 25 37 27 16 27 46 46 37 39 29 18 12 5 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 3 6 6 7 5 4 5 9 13 9 7 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 8 6 14 6 6 5 14 8 9 7 7 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 4 8 0 9 9 4 2 9 19 10 8 14 9 7 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 7 3 2 4 8 10 3 9 8 19 7 9 6 4 3 2 0 AM Peak 1130 - 1230 (33), AM PHF=0.59 PM Peak 1730 - 1830 (51), PM PHF=0.68 * Thursday, May 21, 2015=433, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 3 0 0 0 1 6 8 26 21 30 20 23 33 19 37 34 41 53 25 18 14 10 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 5 11 3 7 9 0 7 5 4 14 9 7 2 3 9 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 8 9 3 12 8 8 8 11 9 3 2 7 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 7 7 3 7 3 8 10 9 17 17 8 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 4 4 4 5 6 9 3 12 12 9 13 5 2 2 2 0 1AM Peak 0930 - 1030 (30), AM PHF=0.68 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (53), PM PHF=0.80 EventCount-6695 Page 1 EventCount-6694 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Event Counts EventCount-6694 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[25] PETER COUTTS CR E OF PETER COUTTS RDInput A:4 - West bound. - Lane= 0, Added to totals. (/2.000) Input B:2 - East bound. - Lane= 0, Excluded from totals. Data type:Axle sensors - Separate (Count) Profile: Name:Default ProfileScheme:Count events divided by setup divisorUnits:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015=402, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 34 40 38 31 15 20 25 26 30 35 31 31 17 11 7 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 9 13 11 13 6 7 8 5 11 5 8 11 4 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 10 6 3 3 3 7 6 7 7 7 8 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 9 10 7 5 6 5 11 4 10 9 5 3 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 9 11 9 1 4 5 4 8 13 7 7 4 6 1 0 1 1AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (42), AM PHF=0.83 PM Peak 1615 - 1715 (38), PM PHF=0.73 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015=429, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 2 0 0 1 2 8 31 43 30 35 25 30 27 25 26 31 39 25 17 16 9 5 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 4 11 7 10 8 7 8 5 5 8 11 5 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 9 5 11 7 10 5 6 6 9 7 7 7 6 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 13 13 10 2 5 7 4 7 7 10 7 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 10 6 6 9 10 7 10 8 7 11 6 1 7 4 0 0 0 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (46), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1700 - 1800 (39), PM PHF=0.88 * Thursday, May 21, 2015=418, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 34 46 33 33 21 34 22 29 24 33 29 30 20 11 9 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 15 9 10 1 9 4 4 4 11 9 8 10 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 9 2 11 5 9 6 10 9 9 6 7 2 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 12 10 7 7 7 5 6 10 5 5 7 6 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 12 15 5 8 11 6 5 6 9 8 10 1 1 4 1 0 0AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (52), AM PHF=0.76 PM Peak 1200 - 1300 (34), PM PHF=0.77 EventCount-6694 Page 1 VehicleCount-6710 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6710 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[27] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 1 E OF CAMPUS DRData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=227, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 13 5 1 0 1 1 0 9 12 10 6 13 8 13 14 12 9 12 18 20 13 13 12 12 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 1 1 0 3 5 4 4 1 1 3 1 5 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 7 4 2 6 2 2 5 3 6 6 3 3 4 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 2 1 6 2 4 3 0 9 6 3 1 4 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 0 6 5 5 3 4 5 3 1AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (15), AM PHF=0.54 PM Peak 1830 - 1930 (23), PM PHF=0.64 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=199, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 9 5 2 0 1 1 0 8 7 11 7 5 11 13 12 6 9 20 11 18 15 9 9 10 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 2 0 2 3 5 3 4 4 4 5 9 3 2 3 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 3 5 0 1 1 8 4 6 2 0 3 2 3 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 1 4 3 5 0 2 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 1 1 4 3 2 0 3 4 0 2 4 4 0 2 2 AM Peak 0715 - 0815 (12), AM PHF=0.75 PM Peak 1915 - 2015 (22), PM PHF=0.61 VehicleCount-6710 Page 1 VehicleCount-6713 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6713 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[27] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 1 E OF CAMPUS DRData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=132, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 11 11 13 10 8 11 4 10 4 9 7 9 8 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 3 2 2 3 0 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 5 1 3 2 4 0 2 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 0 2 3 1 5 0 1 4 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 1 1 1 0 2AM Peak 0815 - 0915 (15), AM PHF=0.75 PM Peak 1930 - 2030 (13), PM PHF=0.81 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=117, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 11 8 10 5 3 8 5 10 7 7 7 12 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 4 1 4 0 2 3 1 1 1 2 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 4 1 2 1 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 6 0 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 AM Peak 1115 - 1215 (13), AM PHF=0.54 PM Peak 2000 - 2100 (12), PM PHF=0.60 VehicleCount-6713 Page 1 VehicleCount-6716 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6716 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[28] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 2 E OF SERRA STData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=1043, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 17 9 5 6 2 5 13 20 38 59 49 50 45 39 48 48 64 93 110 82 88 66 46 41 3 2 2 2 1 1 4 0 9 13 17 13 10 10 9 13 13 27 33 30 29 19 12 15 4 5 4 1 2 0 1 3 6 8 13 11 12 16 7 14 14 19 20 25 21 25 15 12 9 4 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 4 9 18 14 12 5 15 13 10 14 23 22 12 16 16 12 9 5 3 0 1 1 1 3 6 10 12 15 7 13 14 7 12 11 18 23 30 19 18 16 10 8 6AM Peak 0915 - 1015 (63), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (110), PM PHF=0.83 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=1065, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 19 4 6 0 4 6 10 37 45 54 52 55 51 41 56 65 66 98 101 86 66 67 40 36 4 1 1 0 2 1 3 7 14 13 18 13 9 11 19 10 9 22 36 27 20 16 7 15 3 4 0 3 0 0 1 2 7 6 18 13 14 19 9 12 21 25 28 29 21 19 19 15 5 11 5 3 1 0 1 2 4 10 10 14 8 11 13 13 11 16 18 23 22 18 13 14 6 10 7 6 0 1 0 1 2 1 13 15 9 13 17 10 8 14 18 14 25 14 20 14 18 12 6 3 AM Peak 0845 - 0945 (60), AM PHF=0.83 PM Peak 1730 - 1830 (113), PM PHF=0.78 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=1083, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 24 10 5 1 6 7 11 32 41 55 43 51 51 62 53 65 65 101 96 94 64 61 48 37 3 4 2 0 2 0 1 8 11 15 14 9 9 12 14 16 13 18 27 36 9 17 12 13 11 11 1 1 1 1 3 3 7 13 15 8 9 19 18 12 17 20 24 22 18 27 20 14 5 14 7 5 1 0 1 0 0 7 7 11 7 19 13 20 10 16 16 33 22 19 18 17 10 7 4 3 0 1 0 2 4 7 10 10 14 14 14 10 12 17 16 16 26 25 21 10 7 12 12 2 AM Peak 1130 - 1230 (61), AM PHF=0.80 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (110), PM PHF=0.83 VehicleCount-6716 Page 1 VehicleCount-6718 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6718 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[28] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 2 E OF SERRA STData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=870, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 13 6 3 3 1 7 10 25 51 59 46 44 35 37 52 41 51 66 80 64 69 60 28 19 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 3 18 11 15 11 9 7 12 7 7 19 20 18 22 16 10 9 3 4 2 2 1 0 4 1 4 9 13 16 13 3 6 13 15 19 21 14 20 19 13 12 7 5 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 7 12 5 10 6 20 12 7 13 10 18 11 14 21 5 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 17 23 10 10 17 4 15 12 12 16 28 15 14 10 1 2 2AM Peak 0930 - 1030 (66), AM PHF=0.72 PM Peak 1830 - 1930 (84), PM PHF=0.75 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=863, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 11 5 5 0 3 5 7 40 44 70 47 53 51 28 55 39 52 69 62 65 56 45 28 23 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 6 12 18 18 12 9 7 20 2 8 16 18 20 10 12 8 10 1 5 1 5 0 0 1 2 10 11 18 9 9 20 7 12 17 19 17 18 18 21 11 12 5 7 1 3 0 0 2 1 4 5 4 21 10 14 11 6 11 8 17 19 14 8 15 9 2 6 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 19 17 13 10 18 11 8 12 12 8 17 12 19 10 13 6 2 3 AM Peak 0845 - 0945 (74), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1730 - 1830 (72), PM PHF=0.95 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=981, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 14 5 3 1 5 7 8 39 62 58 55 55 45 57 49 62 46 72 69 85 53 58 45 28 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 7 14 14 16 8 13 13 12 16 6 18 20 29 12 10 12 11 4 7 0 2 1 2 3 2 14 14 15 13 9 7 11 13 8 19 19 16 18 16 24 15 7 9 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 17 12 10 15 8 16 9 13 13 23 15 18 15 14 10 8 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 5 11 17 17 16 23 17 17 15 25 8 12 18 20 10 10 8 2 2 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (63), AM PHF=0.93 PM Peak 1900 - 2000 (85), PM PHF=0.73 VehicleCount-6718 Page 1 VehicleCount-6721 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6721 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[29] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 3 E OF SERRA STData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=711, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 0 2 3 2 4 12 36 38 45 35 19 32 24 22 39 45 78 82 45 53 37 29 24 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 6 14 13 1 9 6 5 7 7 20 20 13 11 11 10 6 3 3 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 8 10 8 7 6 6 4 13 10 20 23 11 10 6 11 4 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 17 11 5 7 6 7 8 5 12 11 16 26 13 16 10 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 10 13 16 7 5 10 4 8 7 17 22 13 8 16 10 4 7 1AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (48), AM PHF=0.86 PM Peak 1745 - 1845 (91), PM PHF=0.88 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=777, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 4 2 2 3 4 12 25 44 57 45 35 38 36 31 46 49 89 71 49 51 27 31 18 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 7 25 10 10 9 8 11 16 12 17 18 20 7 12 5 5 3 3 2 0 1 0 1 4 10 10 12 8 9 12 10 7 11 11 28 19 10 15 7 7 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 11 8 14 9 9 7 8 6 13 26 15 11 15 4 10 5 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 4 8 16 12 13 7 8 11 5 13 13 18 19 8 14 4 9 3 1 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (64), AM PHF=0.64 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (90), PM PHF=0.80 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=687, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 6 2 1 0 3 9 22 57 37 19 30 30 26 29 37 50 75 71 58 35 41 28 13 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 15 15 6 5 7 5 7 10 7 16 22 14 13 9 6 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 6 11 11 4 11 11 8 6 10 13 17 21 14 6 15 6 8 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 3 6 16 4 6 9 7 7 9 10 16 17 12 13 8 10 7 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 6 15 7 3 5 5 6 7 7 14 25 16 17 8 7 9 4 3 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (57), AM PHF=0.89 PM Peak 1730 - 1830 (85), PM PHF=0.85 VehicleCount-6721 Page 1 VehicleCount-6722 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6722 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[29] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 3 E OF SERRA STData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=764, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 2 2 2 3 9 13 60 69 60 35 30 27 29 34 38 53 73 71 49 39 28 18 15 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 11 19 11 10 7 6 8 8 11 18 13 8 10 9 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 16 16 5 3 7 5 6 12 11 21 16 15 7 3 11 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 5 20 13 10 9 8 6 15 12 7 11 20 27 19 9 8 2 3 0 2 0 1 1 2 5 6 26 29 15 10 9 7 3 8 11 20 14 15 7 13 8 3 6 1AM Peak 0815 - 0915 (77), AM PHF=0.66 PM Peak 1645 - 1745 (79), PM PHF=0.94 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=841, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 1 0 3 3 6 14 47 84 82 54 46 35 39 36 51 48 75 81 41 41 21 16 12 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 11 18 28 16 10 11 3 10 10 12 20 22 13 8 9 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 8 19 25 11 12 13 9 9 14 12 24 26 9 13 4 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 13 25 16 14 10 3 9 9 9 16 13 14 6 10 4 2 3 3 1 0 0 2 2 3 4 15 22 13 13 14 8 18 8 18 8 18 19 13 10 4 5 1 2 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (100), AM PHF=0.89 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (81), PM PHF=0.78 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=749, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 3 0 0 0 10 15 53 86 62 34 29 24 32 36 39 52 72 57 57 34 28 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 24 21 14 7 6 8 4 14 15 21 17 11 7 3 5 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 18 16 9 8 10 11 12 6 21 13 8 14 8 9 2 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 3 13 16 14 7 8 7 4 12 8 7 16 15 15 5 5 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 5 7 24 28 11 4 6 1 9 8 11 9 22 17 17 14 11 2 2 0 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (86), AM PHF=0.77 PM Peak 1700 - 1800 (72), PM PHF=0.82 VehicleCount-6722 Page 1 VehicleCount-6729 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6729 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[30] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 4 S OF SERRA STData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:North (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=954, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 3 4 3 0 11 14 38 92 88 51 35 46 44 47 60 70 111 82 42 30 28 29 21 1 0 4 3 0 0 2 8 22 23 12 5 13 14 8 8 24 22 23 14 6 11 7 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 12 20 21 12 9 13 9 6 10 14 30 23 7 10 2 14 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 4 4 6 28 26 17 12 11 10 16 26 16 32 19 11 11 9 5 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 5 12 22 18 10 9 9 11 17 16 16 27 17 10 3 6 3 0 5AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (94), AM PHF=0.84 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (112), PM PHF=0.88 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=961, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 9 4 3 1 2 10 18 46 100 88 60 54 41 48 41 59 74 96 66 44 39 29 14 15 1 0 3 0 1 0 5 5 31 15 23 16 7 9 12 13 10 29 21 10 12 11 4 4 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 3 8 18 26 17 11 11 9 9 17 20 23 18 12 14 6 5 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 22 34 29 9 8 14 11 10 13 16 26 13 11 7 3 1 7 0 5 0 0 1 1 7 6 11 17 18 11 19 9 19 10 16 28 18 14 11 6 9 4 2 3 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (100), AM PHF=0.74 PM Peak 1645 - 1745 (106), PM PHF=0.91 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=1004, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 7 8 2 2 1 10 17 49 89 82 60 36 49 46 42 61 74 104 73 53 53 39 32 15 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 9 22 24 20 7 18 16 10 14 22 27 23 18 15 10 11 7 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 7 8 25 18 16 7 10 10 12 12 13 26 19 12 9 13 14 1 12 0 3 0 1 0 3 2 12 27 13 13 11 17 9 11 16 12 25 22 9 10 10 2 3 1 3 3 0 1 1 7 5 20 15 27 11 11 4 11 9 19 27 26 9 14 19 6 5 4 1 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (94), AM PHF=0.87 PM Peak 1645 - 1745 (105), PM PHF=0.97 VehicleCount-6729 Page 1 VehicleCount-6725 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6725 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[30] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 4 S OF SERRA STData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:South (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - Total=967, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 4 5 3 0 10 12 42 93 87 46 42 45 44 45 61 74 107 74 50 37 31 32 18 1 0 3 3 0 0 2 7 22 24 12 8 9 13 9 11 22 22 21 17 9 13 8 8 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 15 23 27 12 9 17 12 9 13 18 30 24 11 11 3 15 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 4 5 6 24 21 12 13 9 7 15 20 15 30 14 9 11 10 6 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 3 14 24 15 10 12 10 12 12 17 19 25 15 13 6 5 3 1 5AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (99), AM PHF=0.92 PM Peak 1700 - 1800 (107), PM PHF=0.89 * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=966, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 9 4 3 1 3 8 11 44 104 83 51 45 48 54 47 59 76 100 56 51 36 36 21 16 2 1 2 0 1 1 4 4 34 17 16 12 7 12 16 15 12 28 23 13 9 10 5 6 3 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 12 19 26 15 9 14 12 11 15 21 26 13 12 14 8 9 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 19 32 23 13 7 14 11 12 18 19 29 7 15 6 6 3 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 3 5 9 19 17 7 17 13 19 8 11 24 17 13 11 7 12 4 2 2 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (104), AM PHF=0.76 PM Peak 1645 - 1745 (107), PM PHF=0.92 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=1028, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 10 3 2 1 8 8 49 86 77 58 37 44 43 42 68 74 103 87 62 64 42 35 17 3 2 3 0 0 0 2 10 23 24 18 6 15 14 11 16 20 27 28 17 19 9 14 8 5 3 2 0 1 0 0 2 9 26 23 18 7 12 11 11 15 13 22 22 16 9 14 16 1 15 0 2 0 1 0 3 1 14 23 13 14 12 11 8 13 17 14 30 21 11 14 12 1 3 1 2 4 0 0 1 5 3 16 14 17 8 12 6 10 7 20 27 24 16 18 22 7 4 5 2 AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (88), AM PHF=0.85 PM Peak 1645 - 1745 (106), PM PHF=0.88 VehicleCount-6725 Page 1 VehicleCount-6736 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6736 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[31] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 5 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=248, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 16 27 18 21 21 9 12 9 16 19 24 15 9 10 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 10 3 10 8 3 2 3 5 0 8 8 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 7 4 2 5 3 5 2 3 12 4 0 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 4 7 5 6 1 1 3 3 2 5 6 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 6 4 4 2 2 4 1 5 5 7 1 2 1 1 2 1 0AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (29), AM PHF=0.72 PM Peak 1615 - 1715 (27), PM PHF=0.56 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=244, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 14 26 17 16 13 12 9 10 21 12 24 21 16 9 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 6 3 2 5 3 2 4 7 8 5 8 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 6 4 3 4 1 4 4 4 6 5 4 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 4 2 8 4 3 3 2 5 1 4 9 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 3 1 4 0 2 2 8 0 6 2 3 6 3 1 1 0 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (26), AM PHF=0.81 PM Peak 1745 - 1845 (25), PM PHF=0.69 VehicleCount-6736 Page 1 VehicleCount-6735 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6735 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[31] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 5 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=240, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 9 16 20 13 14 12 6 8 15 15 25 18 16 14 14 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 2 4 4 0 3 5 4 6 5 4 0 5 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 10 3 5 4 1 1 5 6 4 3 4 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 5 3 5 1 2 1 1 4 3 8 4 4 5 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 5 3 4 2 4 3 1 2 7 6 4 4 3 2 0 0AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (21), AM PHF=0.53 PM Peak 1700 - 1800 (25), PM PHF=0.78 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=240, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 6 15 11 15 12 14 12 6 14 16 16 15 23 22 16 13 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 2 2 3 3 3 5 4 6 4 6 4 5 5 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 8 2 4 6 5 3 2 2 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 5 8 2 2 2 1 2 5 5 4 6 5 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 4 4 0 5 3 2 2 9 9 2 1 1 0 AM Peak 0815 - 0915 (18), AM PHF=0.56 PM Peak 2030 - 2130 (24), PM PHF=0.67 VehicleCount-6735 Page 1 VehicleCount-6745 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6745 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[32] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 6 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=37, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 7 4 0 2 2 2 1 5 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak 1000 - 1100 (7), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1700 - 1800 (5), PM PHF=0.63 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=45, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 6 1 0 3 3 2 5 2 2 9 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (8), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (9), PM PHF=0.75 VehicleCount-6745 Page 1 VehicleCount-6737 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6737 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[32] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 6 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=48, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 3 7 2 5 5 3 2 1 6 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 1 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (5), AM PHF=0.63 PM Peak 1230 - 1330 (8), PM PHF=0.50 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=54, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 1 6 3 7 3 4 4 5 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AM Peak 1145 - 1245 (6), AM PHF=0.50 PM Peak 1745 - 1845 (8), PM PHF=0.67 VehicleCount-6737 Page 1 VehicleCount-6742 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6742 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[33] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 7 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=50, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 5 2 4 3 4 3 5 4 2 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (5), AM PHF=0.42 PM Peak 1315 - 1415 (6), PM PHF=0.75 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=55, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 2 6 7 5 4 3 4 7 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 1 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (7), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1215 - 1315 (9), PM PHF=0.75 VehicleCount-6742 Page 1 VehicleCount-6740 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6740 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[33] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 7 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=47, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 3 3 3 3 6 0 1 4 3 5 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (6), AM PHF=0.50 PM Peak 1330 - 1430 (8), PM PHF=0.50 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=42, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 7 5 1 1 0 6 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (11), AM PHF=0.46 PM Peak 1300 - 1400 (6), PM PHF=0.75 VehicleCount-6740 Page 1 VehicleCount-6753 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6753 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[34] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 8 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=278, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 24 24 22 22 15 12 13 18 19 12 22 26 13 12 12 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 6 3 2 2 5 6 5 4 13 2 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 11 0 3 3 3 5 2 8 7 5 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 8 4 2 4 5 5 7 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14 6 6 3 8 2 3 3 6 1 8 4 2 5 6 0 1 0AM Peak 0745 - 0845 (32), AM PHF=0.57 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (31), PM PHF=0.60 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=286, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 22 26 21 17 11 14 16 22 19 19 19 28 13 15 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 4 5 4 3 2 1 3 5 7 7 7 6 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 6 3 0 3 8 4 3 4 3 5 3 7 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 7 5 5 6 5 8 4 6 5 9 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 5 3 5 3 3 2 7 7 2 4 7 3 2 1 1 1 0 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (28), AM PHF=0.58 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (28), PM PHF=0.78 VehicleCount-6753 Page 1 VehicleCount-6746 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6746 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[34] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 8 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=317, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 22 20 26 19 17 17 19 13 18 17 26 26 15 23 18 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 9 5 4 1 4 4 6 7 9 13 2 3 4 4 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 2 8 8 4 8 6 3 5 3 7 7 2 7 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 9 5 3 5 3 7 4 2 4 3 1 5 3 4 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 4 4 3 4 5 2 2 5 3 7 5 6 10 9 1 0 1AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (30), AM PHF=0.83 PM Peak 1715 - 1815 (30), PM PHF=0.58 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=308, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 19 21 19 16 14 20 19 11 21 18 21 33 18 19 16 9 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 6 3 5 6 5 0 0 5 5 10 8 5 7 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 3 2 5 9 3 3 6 2 6 4 5 3 3 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 3 6 11 3 3 5 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 7 5 3 4 5 5 4 8 4 3 8 6 4 4 2 2 1 AM Peak 0800 - 0900 (21), AM PHF=0.75 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (33), PM PHF=0.75 VehicleCount-6746 Page 1 VehicleCount-6756 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6756 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[35] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 9 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=306, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 0 0 0 0 2 8 13 16 19 18 9 23 18 18 11 20 15 27 27 19 10 12 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 6 5 2 6 3 5 2 6 4 4 11 8 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 5 5 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 6 5 2 1 4 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 5 3 1 7 4 5 1 3 3 11 5 3 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 8 6 3 9 2 6 6 6 4 5 0 1AM Peak 1145 - 1245 (24), AM PHF=0.86 PM Peak 1815 - 1915 (34), PM PHF=0.77 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=275, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 6 4 0 0 0 3 4 17 16 16 18 13 16 14 9 13 20 17 21 18 15 21 8 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 5 3 4 2 3 1 5 4 5 6 7 5 9 2 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 6 5 3 3 3 5 6 1 2 3 3 8 0 4 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 1 5 3 8 3 3 5 3 6 3 7 0 4 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 1 7 7 3 1 2 4 1 10 3 4 4 6 3 1 2 0 AM Peak 0715 - 0815 (21), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1645 - 1745 (24), PM PHF=0.60 VehicleCount-6756 Page 1 VehicleCount-6754 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6754 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[35] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 9 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=296, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 0 0 0 0 1 6 6 9 10 15 17 16 14 11 19 22 25 23 30 22 18 15 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 5 2 6 6 6 7 8 3 6 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 7 3 2 7 4 2 6 7 7 3 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 4 6 6 4 4 3 4 5 8 7 10 2 8 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 7 2 4 1 6 7 9 4 6 5 4 5 0 1AM Peak 1130 - 1230 (23), AM PHF=0.82 PM Peak 1915 - 2015 (31), PM PHF=0.78 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=262, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 5 1 0 0 3 1 6 11 17 18 16 12 9 8 11 16 21 18 23 20 25 9 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 5 10 3 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 2 2 3 2 7 8 4 4 4 2 3 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 2 4 2 2 2 1 5 2 7 7 7 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 6 3 8 3 3 1 4 4 5 7 7 4 6 0 1 0 AM Peak 0945 - 1045 (21), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 2015 - 2115 (25), PM PHF=0.63 VehicleCount-6754 Page 1 VehicleCount-6759 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6759 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[36] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 10 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=182, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 7 1 0 0 0 4 6 6 14 10 6 8 6 8 16 9 11 17 15 14 11 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 8 4 5 5 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 0 3 2 0 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 4 2 3 2 5 5 1 5 4 7 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 2 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 1AM Peak 0845 - 0945 (16), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1530 - 1630 (19), PM PHF=0.59 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=209, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 5 6 2 1 1 1 2 10 7 7 7 10 10 9 8 12 13 16 24 24 8 14 5 7 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 3 3 1 0 0 3 1 3 8 1 5 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 5 3 2 6 4 7 3 2 4 0 2 4 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 4 1 3 6 3 5 4 8 3 3 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 6 10 5 2 2 0 2 1 AM Peak 1045 - 1145 (11), AM PHF=0.92 PM Peak 1815 - 1915 (29), PM PHF=0.72 VehicleCount-6759 Page 1 VehicleCount-6757 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6757 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[36] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 10 W OF OLMSTED RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=179, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 3 7 1 0 0 0 1 7 7 7 6 13 8 4 7 14 8 11 12 13 25 11 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 2 6 3 3 1 7 3 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 5 3 0 1 1 2 0 3 2 3 6 4 4 2 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 3 7 2 4 4 6 4 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 0 4 2 1 0 3 0 1 3 3 8 3 2 1 1AM Peak 1100 - 1200 (13), AM PHF=0.81 PM Peak 2000 - 2100 (25), PM PHF=0.78 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=208, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 6 3 1 0 3 1 1 6 9 9 11 10 10 14 3 8 13 10 21 19 14 15 13 8 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 4 1 4 8 3 2 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 4 1 1 2 1 2 0 4 1 4 2 5 4 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 3 3 5 0 2 3 5 6 6 4 7 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 4 4 4 6 1 5 2 3 7 3 2 2 6 3 1 AM Peak 0830 - 0930 (13), AM PHF=0.54 PM Peak 1815 - 1915 (25), PM PHF=0.78 VehicleCount-6757 Page 1 VehicleCount-6762 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6762 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[37] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 11 E OF ESCONDIDO RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=163, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17 26 20 14 19 25 12 9 9 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 7 7 1 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 5 5 2 7 2 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 6 3 1 4 10 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 10 10 5 6 1 7 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak 1000 - 1100 (26), AM PHF=0.65 PM Peak 1345 - 1445 (30), PM PHF=0.75 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=172, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 18 20 25 21 18 15 18 15 6 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 5 7 7 6 3 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 5 0 4 3 3 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 4 4 7 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 10 9 10 1 6 10 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 1045 - 1145 (26), AM PHF=0.65 PM Peak 1245 - 1345 (27), PM PHF=0.68 VehicleCount-6762 Page 1 VehicleCount-6767 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6767 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[37] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 11 E OF ESCONDIDO RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=119, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 14 21 12 18 14 13 6 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 3 3 2 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 5 3 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 11 1 8 4 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 6 3 4 4 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0AM Peak 1030 - 1130 (25), AM PHF=0.57 PM Peak 1200 - 1300 (18), PM PHF=0.56 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=118, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 12 12 17 18 6 17 10 10 7 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 3 2 4 0 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 7 1 2 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 4 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 6 4 3 4 5 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AM Peak 1030 - 1130 (22), AM PHF=0.79 PM Peak 1300 - 1400 (17), PM PHF=0.61 VehicleCount-6767 Page 1 VehicleCount-6765 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6765 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[38] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 12 E OF ESCONDIDO RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:East (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=599, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 15 5 3 2 0 1 6 14 11 11 21 26 29 41 38 30 25 47 65 49 42 48 51 19 7 2 0 0 0 1 2 6 3 6 6 3 8 7 8 10 5 14 23 9 10 13 17 4 8 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 5 10 11 17 4 2 16 19 16 14 14 6 7 7 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 9 9 5 9 4 6 11 10 14 10 11 13 16 5 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 5 3 5 9 6 14 9 10 7 7 9 14 7 8 12 3 8AM Peak 1130 - 1230 (36), AM PHF=0.90 PM Peak 1800 - 1900 (65), PM PHF=0.71 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=627, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 27 8 8 3 6 2 1 6 18 20 24 25 35 36 21 32 35 49 60 45 43 42 40 41 8 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 5 4 5 10 9 12 6 2 9 6 6 9 12 18 8 11 2 7 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 2 3 6 8 9 14 7 10 8 15 19 10 8 6 9 6 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 5 5 6 4 9 7 2 8 6 13 17 17 12 9 10 11 2 8 4 0 0 1 1 0 3 6 8 7 3 8 3 6 12 12 15 18 9 11 9 13 13 3 AM Peak 1030 - 1130 (31), AM PHF=0.78 PM Peak 1815 - 1915 (63), PM PHF=0.83 VehicleCount-6765 Page 1 VehicleCount-6771 Page 1 Traffic Data Service -- Campbell, CA Vehicle Counts VehicleCount-6771 -- English (ENU) Datasets: Site:[38] ESCONDIDO VILLAGE DW 12 E OF ESCONDIDO RDData type:Axle sensors - Paired (Class/Speed/Count) Profile: Included classes:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Speed range:0 - 100 mph. Direction:West (bound)Name:Default ProfileScheme:Vehicle classification (Scheme F) Units:Non metric (ft, mi, ft/s, mph, lb, ton) * Wednesday, May 20, 2015 - Total=628, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 3 2 0 1 1 11 21 43 57 52 55 36 41 42 30 26 30 49 32 19 32 24 13 4 1 0 0 1 1 2 5 10 11 6 11 8 14 14 8 5 10 20 11 2 11 5 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 6 18 11 17 14 6 16 9 10 8 17 12 10 8 4 2 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 17 10 9 10 4 5 3 4 7 3 5 11 7 3 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 11 18 19 18 17 5 11 8 8 8 8 5 6 2 2 8 3 8AM Peak 1030 - 1130 (63), AM PHF=0.88 PM Peak 1745 - 1845 (52), PM PHF=0.65 * Thursday, May 21, 2015 - Total=643, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 23 4 5 1 4 5 6 15 45 64 48 51 50 35 31 29 28 35 39 34 32 26 17 16 4 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 10 12 8 14 9 8 11 7 9 13 7 11 12 8 2 4 0 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6 25 13 14 14 8 7 8 9 3 10 5 7 4 5 1 2 6 1 1 0 0 3 3 2 10 11 13 12 17 13 5 7 3 6 6 11 6 11 7 2 3 8 2 1 0 0 1 2 11 19 16 14 11 10 6 8 7 7 13 16 7 7 3 3 9 1 AM Peak 0845 - 0945 (67), AM PHF=0.67 PM Peak 1200 - 1300 (50), PM PHF=0.74 VehicleCount-6771 Page 1 8 | Transportation: Vehicle Miles Traveled Marguerite on Palm Drive. Photo: Steve Castillo Photography Stanford 2018 General Use Permit: SB 743 VMT Analysis Prepared for: Stanford University November 2016 SJ15-1585 Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Table of Contents Senate Bill 743 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed CEQA Guidelines and Technical Report .................................................................................................................. 2 Standards of Significance and Impact Thresholds ................................................................................................. 4 Populations Included in the Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 6 Proximity to Transit ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Numeric Significance Thresholds for 2018 GUP ...................................................................................................... 8 Methodology for Calculating 2018 GUP VMT ....................................................................................................................... 10 Campus Population .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 General Methodology for COunting VMT .............................................................................................................. 14 Worker VMT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Residential VMT ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Daily Vehicle Trip Validation ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Stanford VMT Trip Length ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Fall 2015 Campus VMT Generation ........................................................................................................................... 21 Fall 2018 Campus VMT Generation ........................................................................................................................... 22 2018 GUP VMT Impact Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Fall 2035 Campus VMT Generation ........................................................................................................................... 23 VMT Comparison and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 25 SB 743 Evaluation Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 25 Comparison of Changes ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Stanford’s Travel Reduction Program ....................................................................................................................................... 27 2018 GUP Consistency with Sustainable Communities Strategy ................................................................................... 30 Appendices Appendix A: Fall 2015 Existing VMT Calculations Appendix B: Fall 2018 without GUP Project VMT Calculations Appendix C: Fall 2035 ith GUP Project VMT Calculations Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 1 This report presents an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed Stanford 2018 General Use Permit (GUP) in terms of criteria proposed by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement California State Law Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013). OPR proposes that metrics based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be used to evaluate a project’s transportation effects, and that projects within 1/2 mile of certain transit facilities be presumed to result in less-than-significant impacts to transportation. OPR also suggests numeric thresholds of significance related to generation of VMT. SENATE BILL 743 SB 743 was signed into law in 2013 with the intent to change the focus of transportation impact assessments conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In its explanation of its Revised Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743, OPR states: Senate Bill 743 mandates a change in the way that public agencies evaluate transportation impacts of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. Legislative findings in that bill plainly state that California’s foundational environmental law can no longer treat vibrant communities, transit and active transportation options as adverse environmental outcomes. On the contrary, aspects of project location and design that influence travel choices, and thereby improve or degrade our air quality, safety, and health, must be considered. SB 743 reflects a Legislative policy to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. SB 743 requires OPR to prepare proposed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Under SB 743, the criteria must promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. SB 743 dictates that once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include new thresholds, automobile delay, as described by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or congestion, shall no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA in all locations in which the new thresholds are applied. The Legislature gave OPR the option of applying the new thresholds only to transit priority areas, or more broadly to areas throughout the State. A “transit priority area” is an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Public Resources Code section 21064.3 defines a “major transit stop” to mean a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 2 PROPOSED CEQA GUIDELINES AND DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT OPR released its preliminary discussion draft of the CEQA Guidelines amendments to implement SB 743 in August 2014. The initial draft focused generally on an assessment whether a project would result in VMT that would exceed regional averages, and OPR proposed to apply the new VMT-based thresholds broadly throughout the State rather than limiting their application to transit priority areas. In presentations on the preliminary draft, OPR explained that the shift from level of service metrics to VMT will provide important benefits. Elimination of congestion-based metrics can remove a key barrier to infill development. Congestion based analyses often result in measures to expand roadways and intersections, which result in high capital and maintenance costs. Further, level of service does not equate to quality of life. OPR has shown that level of service metrics do not measure the total amount of time that an individual spends commuting; rather the focus is on delay at a single intersection. Total travel time can be reduced by bringing housing and jobs closer together. According to OPR, VMT-based metrics attack regional congestion and overall driving behavior. Reducing VMT also will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, OPR has explained that VMT is easier to model than congestion based approaches. In the revised draft CEQA Guidelines released on January 2016, Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA, OPR continues to propose applying a new VMT-based approach to all areas of the State. Agencies would have a two-year period to transition to the new VMT-based approach. As under the initial draft, once this transition period ends, automobile delay can no longer be considered a significant adverse effect under CEQA. The revised draft CEQA Guidelines include a presumption that development projects that are located within one-half mile of an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor will not cause a significant transportation impact. A high-quality transit corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. In its explanation document, OPR notes that this presumption encourages transit oriented development, and “transit- oriented development itself is a key strategy for reducing VMT, and thereby reducing environmental impacts and developing healthy, walkable communities.” A key difference between the revised draft CEQA Guidelines and the initial draft is that, except for the presumption that projects near major transit stops and high quality transit corridors will not result in significant impacts, the revised draft CEQA Guidelines themselves do not set forth specific standards to assess whether a project’s VMT effect is significant. Much of the detail is now found in a draft Technical Advisory. Where a development project is not presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact, the draft Technical Advisory recommends thresholds for specific types of land uses, including the following: Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 3 • Residential: A project exceeding both existing city household VMT per capita minus 15 percent, and existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent, may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Office: A project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Retail: A net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Mixed Use: Lead agencies can evaluate each component independently, and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g. residential and retail). In the analysis of each use, a project may take credit for internal capture. OPR explains that 15 percent better than existing averages is roughly consistent with the reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board for the larger metropolitan planning organizations pursuant to SB 375. For development in an unincorporated county, residential VMT that both exceeds 15 percent below existing VMT per capita in the aggregate of all incorporated jurisdictions in that county, and exceeds 15 percent below existing regional VMT per capita, may indicate a significant transportation impact. In addition, the draft Technical Advisory suggests screening thresholds to determine whether a quantitative analysis is needed. Agencies could determine not to conduct additional analysis for projects that generate fewer trips than the threshold for studying consistency with a congestion management plan (typically 100 trips). Further, agencies may create maps that identify low-VMT areas and presume that projects in those areas that incorporate features similar to the existing low-VMT development will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. The draft Technical Advisory also provides guidance for addressing impacts to transit. OPR states that a project that blocks access to a transit stop or blocks a transit route may interfere with transit functions. By contrast, when evaluating multimodal transportation networks: [L]ead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new users as an adverse impact. Any travel-efficient infill development is likely to add riders to transit systems, potentially slowing transit vehicle mobility, but also potentially improving overall destination proximity. Meanwhile, such development improves regional vehicle flow generally by loading less travel onto the regional network than if that development was to occur elsewhere. OPR recognizes that increased demand throughout a region may cause a cumulative impact requiring new or additional transit infrastructure. However, OPR states such impacts may be best addressed through a fee program that fairly allocates the cost of improvements not just to projects that locate near transit, but rather across a region to all projects that impose burdens on the entire transportation system. More information is available on the OPR website at https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 4 The remainder of this document evaluates the VMT generation of the proposed Stanford 2018 General Use Permit. It does so in the context of the stated intent of SB 743 and the draft proposals developed by OPR for performing SB 743 assessments in CEQA documents. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT THRESHOLDS In its January 2016 Revised Proposed Changes to the CEQA Guidelines, OPR proposes the following criteria for analyzing transportation impacts of land use projects: Proposed New Section 15064.3. Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts. (a) Purpose. Section 15064 contains general rules governing the analysis, and the determination of significance of, environmental effects. Specific considerations involving transportation impacts are described in this section. Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of a project’s potential transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel and safety of all travelers. A project’s effect on automobile delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact. (b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts. (1) Vehicle Miles Traveled and Land Use Projects. A development project that results in vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, development projects that locate within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor may be presumed to cause a less-than- significant transportation impact. Similarly, development projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions may be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. Other than the two presumptions listed in proposed CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)(1), OPR does not propose to establish numeric significance criteria through the CEQA Guidelines. OPR proposes to change the transportation questions in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines to read as follows: XVI. Transportation-- Would the project: (a) Conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the safety or performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lands and pedestrian paths (except for automobile level of service)? Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 5 (b) Cause substantial additional vehicle miles traveled (per capita, per service population, or other appropriate efficiency measure)? (c) Substantially induce additional automobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas (i.e., by adding new mixed-flow lanes) or by adding new roadways to the network? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? OPR’s January 2016 draft Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA provides numeric thresholds that an agency could choose to use when assessing the significance of a project’s additional vehicle miles traveled in the event that the presumptions in proposed CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)(1) do not apply. Based on OPR’s Revised Proposed Changes to the CEQA Guidelines and OPR’s draft Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the following significance criteria are used to assess VMT in this report: 1. Is the project within 1/2 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor? If so, the project will be presumed to result in a less than significant impact on VMT. 2. Alternatively, the project will be considered to result in a significant impact to VMT if project- related VMT exceeds the following numeric thresholds: • Residential Per Capita VMT: A project exceeding both existing household VMT per capita in the aggregate of all incorporated jurisdictions in the County minus 15 percent and existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent. • Worker Per Capita VMT: A project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per worker. OPR’s draft Technical Advisory states that lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently, and apply the significance threshold for each project type included. In the analysis of each use, a project may take credit for internal capture. Based on this guidance, residential and worker VMT are assessed independently in this report. The site-specific data used in the analysis account for internal capture. OPR’s draft Technical Advisory also recommends the following additional significance threshold for all projects: • Would the project result in development outside of areas contemplated for development in a Sustainable Communities Strategy? Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 6 POPULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS Stanford anticipates that the 2018 GUP will continue to cover all of its lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. However, the GUP does not apply to land uses within those areas that are permitted as of right. The single family and two-family residences in the faculty/staff subdivision are permitted as of right, and therefore are not included in this VMT analysis. In addition, Stanford does not propose development under the 2018 General Use Permit in two areas zoned for medium-density faculty and staff housing (the Peter Coutts housing area and the Olmsted Terrace housing area). Nor does Stanford propose development outside the Academic Growth Boundary, including on the Stanford Golf Course. Therefore, these areas are not included in the VMT analysis. The VMT analysis includes all of the Academic Campus and Campus Open Space lands, including the Stanford Driving Range, which Stanford proposes to designate as Academic Campus rather than medium density residential. Thirty-eight existing faculty/staff housing units are included in the study area for the 2018 GUP. These units are located in the Searsville and Olmsted staff rental subdivision and were included in the VMT analysis. PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT As explained above, OPR proposes that lead agencies generally should presume that residential, retail, and office projects, as well as mixed use projects that are a mix of these uses, proposed within 1/2 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will have a less than significant impact on VMT. A major transit stop is a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Figure 1 shows the major transit stops and stops along high quality transit corridors on and near the Stanford campus, and land area within 1/2 mile of such stops and corridors. Transit services are provided by Stanford (Marguerite), Caltrain, VTA, Sam Trans and Dumbarton Express. The figure demonstrates that 99 percent of the proposed new development is within a 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a major transit corridor. Development under the proposed 2018 GUP constitutes infill development that represents increased intensity and density compared to existing levels of Stanford. The 2009 Sustainable Development Plan concluded that the pattern of development that Stanford is implementing promotes compact urban development, and prevents sprawl. Stanford is located adjacent to Caltrain stations, and is well served by transit. Therefore, project-specific or location-specific information does not appear to indicate that the project will generate significant levels of VMT. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 7 Figure 1: Components of Stanford Worker and Resident VMT Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 8 Based on the revised draft CEQA Guidelines proposed by OPR for assessment of VMT, the proposed 2018 General Use Permit can be presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact. Nevertheless, because OPR has not finalized the proposed CEQA Guidelines and its recommendations may change, Fehr and Peers has performed a quantitative assessment of VMT generated by the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. NUMERIC SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR 2018 GUP The numeric benchmarks against which the 2018 GUP VMT will be compared are: • the Bay Area regional daily average home-based-work VMT per worker; and • both the Bay Area regional daily average and the Santa Clara County daily average home-based VMT per resident. The VTA transportation model is consistent with the recommendations in OPR’s draft Technical Advisory on geographic scope, covering the entire Bay Area region, and modeling standards described in the California Transportation Commission Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. The VTA model is a trip- based model. OPR’s draft Technical Advisory states that home-based trips can be the focus for analysis of residential projects, and home-based-work trips can be the focus of the analysis for office projects1. Therefore, the VTA model is a reliable source to establish the Bay Area and Santa Clara County average VMT per worker and per resident at an aggregate level. Table 1 presents the VTA model estimates for the regional and Santa Clara County benchmarks. TABLE 1: VMT BENCHMARKS FOR 2018 GUP Traveler and Trip Type Daily Average VMT per Capita Santa Clara County Bay Area Worker Home-Based-Work VMT per Worker N/A 16.18 Resident Home-Based VMT per Capita (Home-based Work + Home-based Other) 13.08 17.33 Source: 2015 VTA Travel Model OPR’s draft Technical Advisory recommends that regional, not city or county-level VMT averages should be used for judging impacts of employment-generating projects. The draft Technical Advisory also recommends that the benchmark for residential projects should be the higher of the county-level and regional averages. In this case, the regional average is higher and will represent the benchmark for residential VMT generation. 1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA Implementing Senate Bill 743, January 20, 2016, page III 16. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 9 OPR’s draft Technical Advisory does not address travel by college students. Trips to and from elementary, middle and high schools, and to some extent colleges, are included as a type of home-based “other” trip generated by residential projects, and therefore are included in the resident VMT per capita analyses. However, trips by Stanford students traveling to and from the campus are not captured as Stanford-related resident trips. The omission of VMT from students traveling to and from the campus would leave a large gap in the VMT picture for Stanford University; therefore, Stanford has elected to also include student trips in its assessment of Worker VMT. Stanford students behave like workers in that they travel by foot, bicycle, mass transit and automobiles to and from their work site (campus) on a regular basis from a variety of locations around the Bay Area. Stanford has data regarding the locations where students live, the frequency of their commutes, and the transportation modes that they use. Accordingly, for this analysis, Stanford students are considered to be part of the “Worker” population and the VMT associated with their travel to and from the campus is included in the Worker VMT. Worker VMT also is presented without including the Stanford student population as a sensitivity analysis to confirm that employee VMT, without accounting for student travel, would also be beneath the numeric significance standards. OPR’s draft Technical Advisory recommends setting thresholds of significance at 15 percent below the relevant benchmark. Taking all of these recommendations into account, Table 2 indicates the VMT generation thresholds to be applied to the proposed 2018 GUP. These thresholds will be used for determining whether the 2018 GUP would have significant VMT impacts. TABLE 2: APPLICABLE BENCHMARKS AND NUMERIC SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Traveler and Trip Type Daily VMT per Capita Benchmark (region-wide average) Numeric Threshold of Significance (85% of benchmark) Worker Home-Based-Work VMT per Worker 16.18 13.75 Resident Home-Based VMT per Capita 17.33 14.73 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016 Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 10 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING 2018 GUP VMT In its Revised Proposed Changes to the CEQA Guidelines, OPR proposes general guidance regarding selection of a methodology to assess a project’s vehicle miles traveled: Proposed New Section 15064.3. Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts (b) (4) Methodology. The lead agency’s evaluation of the vehicle miles traveled associated with a project is subject to a rule of reason. A lead agency should not confine its evaluation to its own political boundary. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. For the VMT analysis, Fehr and Peers considered whether calculation of project-related VMT should be performed exclusively through the use of a regional transportation model. To determine whether an existing regional transportation model would be representative of travel patterns at Stanford, Fehr and Peers gathered relevant information about Stanford’s worker and resident populations including driving patterns such as mode choice and single occupant vehicle rates, and the cordon counts measuring the number of vehicular trips in and out of the campus over the past 15 years. Fehr and Peers compared this available site-specific data to the assumptions used in and campus results from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) models for the traffic analysis zones that represent the Stanford campus. Fehr and Peers found that these models do not accurately represent travel characteristics at Stanford. This result is not surprising because universities tend to be unique land uses in terms of travel characteristics, with an unusual mix of employment-generating land uses, visitor-generating land uses, and onsite housing occupied by workers and students. The travel assumptions for universities and colleges in the forecast models are based on regional or national averages that contain a mixture of urban and suburban campuses. In addition, the models do not reflect the extensive set of TDM programs offered by Stanford and the high level of participation in the TDM programs. In addition to the unique travel characteristics, the regional models do not perform any specific validation for college campuses including mode of travel. College travel in the models is only validated in terms of regional averages on travel generation and non-mode –specific county-to-county movements. Therefore, it is not reasonable to rely solely on the regional models for calculating VMT for the Stanford campus. For improved accuracy in calculating Stanford-specific VMT, the VTA’s methodologies for calculating the project VMT have been followed; however, the model’s assumptions on land use, trip rates, travel modes, Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 11 and trip length have been replaced with Stanford specific data. The description below explains the methodologies used to calculate Stanford’s worker and resident VMT. The VMT estimations were made for three timeframes: • Fall 2015 Existing Conditions, • Fall 2018 Conditions prior to Implementation of the 2018 GUP, and • Fall 2035 Conditions with Implementation of the 2018 GUP. CAMPUS POPULATION An understanding of the campus population is relevant both to developing an inventory of contributors to worker and resident VMT, and to determining the total numbers of workers and residents to use as the denominators in arriving at VMT per capita. The typical weekday population on the Stanford campus is made up of students, faculty, staff, contractors and other onsite workers, visitors, and household members of students, faculty and staff residing on the campus. The worker VMT calculations includes students, faculty, staff, contractors and other onsite workers. The resident VMT calculations includes students, faculty, staff, and other household members living on campus within the study area. Visitors are not included in the populations that OPR recommends for evaluation in comparison to the SB 743 significance thresholds, and therefore the visitor VMT is not included in this analysis. However, VMT associated with Stanford visitors is included in greenhouse gas and air quality analyses prepared by Ramboll Environ. For the SB 743 analysis the following population groups were considered in the VMT calculations. Workers • Undergraduate Students – all undergraduate students • Graduate Students – all graduate students • Faculty – professoriate faculty members and regular benefits-eligible employees in academic/instructional positions, including Academic Council faculty, Center fellows, Medical Center line faculty, lecturers, acting professors, coaches, some emeriti, and teaching fellows • Staff – regular benefits-eligible employees in non-academic positions such as human resources, information technology, facilities, financial aid, etc. • Post- doctoral students (post-docs) – trainees by appointment with doctoral degrees, for the purpose of advanced studies and training under mentorship of a Stanford faculty member, involved in research projects • Contingent – salaried workers with roles that are comparable to academic staff, working less than 50% FTE and/or working less than six months • Casual – hourly workers less than 50% FTE and working no more than 980 hours a year, including summer camp staff, summer grounds/facilities work, special projects in academic units Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 12 • Temporary workers – hourly workers at 50% FTE or more working no longer than six months, including summer camp staff, summer grounds/facilities work, special projects in academic units • Other non-employee academic affiliates – affiliated teaching staff, adjunct professors, visiting scholars, typically not full time • Third party contract workers – food service workers at on-campus cafeterias and childcare center workers • Janitorial contract workers – working off-peak hour morning and evening shifts • Construction contract workers – related to ongoing construction projects on campus Residents • Faculty / staff – faculty and staff living on campus within the study area • Graduate students – graduate students (single and married) living on campus within the study area • Undergraduate students – undergraduate students living on campus within the study area • Other household members - spouses, children and other household members of graduate students, faculty, and staff living on campus within the study area Table 3 provides the campus worker populations by group and the associated growth for Fall 2015, Fall 2018 and Fall 2035. Table 4 shows the campus resident populations by group and the added housing growth in the study area for each time period. Stanford proposes to increase the amount of on campus housing for students and faculty/staff. The change in where students, faculty and staff live is reflected in the VMT calculation methodology for workers and residents. By Fall 2018, Stanford will have increased the student housing by up to 2,436 beds. The additional beds means that Stanford will reduce the off-campus student population by 2,016, which reduces worker VMT because moving off campus students to campus eliminates home-based work trips. Resident VMT would increase to some extent because the ratio of graduate student housing to undergraduate student housing would shift toward a higher proportion of graduate student housing, which has a higher VMT per resident than undergraduate student housing. Some spouses of graduate students would have home-based work trips off-campus and both the graduate students and spouses would have home-based-other trips. By Fall 2035, Stanford is proposing to add up to 3,150 beds/ housing units with up to 550 of those new housing units occupied by faculty/staff. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 13 Table 3: Worker Population Growth – Fall 2015, 2018, & 2035 Fall 2015 Fall 2015 to Fall 2018 Fall 2018 to Fall 2035 Population Total Increase Total Increase Total Students Undergraduate students 6,994 91 7,085 1,700 8,785 Graduate students 9,196 332 9,528 1,200 10,728 Total Students 16,190 423 16,613 2,900 19,513 Stanford Faculty & Staff Faculty 2,959 114 3,073 789 3,862 Staff 8,612 373 8,985 2,438 11,423 Post-Doctoral Students 2,264 139 2,403 961 3,364 Total Faculty/Staff 13,835 626 14,461 4,188 18,649 Stanford Other Workers* Casual 2,080 87 2,167 579 2,746 Contingent 980 41 1,021 273 1,294 Temporary 1,390 58 1,448 387 1,835 Non-Employee Affiliates (including Non-matriculated Students) 2,636 111 2,747 733 3,480 Total Stanford Other Workers 7,086 297 7,383 1,971 9,354 Non-Stanford Workers Third Party Contractors 300 24 324 72 396 Janitorial Shift Contractors 240 19 259 57 316 Construction Contractors 1,200 0 1,200 0 1,200 Total Non-Stanford Workers 1,740 43 1,783 129 1,912 Grand Total 38,851 1,389 40,240 9,188 49,428 * - employee totals expressed as Full Time Equivalents Source: Stanford LUEP & Fehr & Peers, 2016 Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 14 Table 4: Study Area Resident Population Growth – Fall 2015, 2018, & 2035 Fall 2015 Fall 2015 to Fall 2018 Fall 2018 to Fall 2035 Population Affiliates Population1 Added Housing2 Affiliates Population1 Added Housing2 Affiliates Population1 Graduate Student 5,001 6,065 2,220 7,221 8,507 9003 8,183 9,497 Undergraduate Student 6,401 6,401 216 6,617 6,617 1,700 8,317 8,317 Postdoctoral Students 28 28 0 28 28 N/A4 N/A N/A Faculty / Staff 385 98 0 38 98 550 616 1540 Total 12,592 15,250 19,354 Source: Stanford LUEP & Fehr & Peers, 2016 1 Population = Stanford affiliates plus other household members – spouses and children 2 Added Housing = beds for students and dwelling units for faculty and staff 3 The application proposes 3,150 new housing units, 550 of which may be occupied by faculty/staff. For purposes of analysis, this report assumes 900 beds are for graduate students, 1,700 are for graduate students, and 550 are for faculty/staff. 4 Because post-doctoral students are eligible for rental faculty-staff housing, they are included in the faculty/staff population potentially housed under the 2035 General Use Permit. 5 38 faculty live within the study area boundary for this VMT Report. Additional faculty/staff live within other areas of the campus, as described on page 6. GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR COUNTING VMT OPR’s January 2016 draft Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA presents considerations about what types of VMT to count in a CEQA analysis. OPR provides two approaches to measuring VMT, and an example to illustrate the differences between the two. In the example, the following hypothetical travel day (all by automobile) is considered: 1. Residence to coffee shop 2. Coffee shop to work 3. Work to sandwich shop 4. Sandwich shop to work 5. Work to residence 6. Residence to store 7. Store to residence A trip-based assessment of a project’s effect on travel behavior counts VMT from individual trips to and from the project. It is the most basic, and traditionally most common, method of counting VMT. A trip- based VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 5, 6, and 7. For residential projects, the sum of home-based trips is called home-based VMT. A tour-based assessment counts the entire home-back-to-home tour that includes the project. A tour- based VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in one tour, and 6 and 7 in a second tour. A tour-based assessment of the workplace would include segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Together all tours comprise household VMT. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 15 Based on the data available to conduct this analysis and the format of the VTA travel model, Fehr and Peers has completed a trip-based assessment for both the worker and resident populations at Stanford. OPR states in its draft Technical Advisory that where a trip-based approach is used for residential and office projects, “home based trips can be the focus for analysis of residential projects; home-based work trips can be the focus of the analysis for office projects.” Stanford Parking & Transportation Services (P&TS) conducts an annual transportation survey to evaluate the performance of its TDM programs and preferences of Stanford workers and residents. The annual survey includes all university faculty and staff, undergraduate and graduate students, post-doctoral students, and affiliates of the University. The most recent survey had a response rate of 35%. The survey collects a wide range of travel characteristics including key data on mode of travel, time of travel, and frequency - days per week on campus. These travel characteristics along with data for Santa Clara County from the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) and the VTA travel demand model were used to calculate the VMT for campus workers and residents Worker analysis: Based on available site-specific data, data from the California Household Travel Survey, and assumptions from the VTA model, Fehr and Peers determined the home-based work trips for those Stanford workers who travel directly from their residences to and from their work sites within the study area, including trips from the Stanford campus to other destinations and internal to the Stanford campus during the workday. Fehr and Peers adjusted the data using data from the California Household Travel Survey on the number of workers who travel directly from home to work without making stops along the way. The resulting Stanford-specific home-based work VMT per worker can be compared to the relevant average home-based work VMT per worker in the VTA model using the same trip counting methodology, resulting in an apples-to-apples comparison. Resident analysis: Fehr and Peers determined the VMT per campus resident based on the sum of all home- based trips, including both home-based trips to and from work (home-based work trips) and home-based trips to and from other destinations (home-based other trips). For household members who are Stanford workers (faculty, staff and students), site-specific assumptions were made regarding the frequency, length, and mode of home-based work trips. For other home-based work trips by other household members and for home-based other trips for all residents, default assumptions were used. Figure 2 shows the components of Worker and Resident VMT and the relationship between these two calculations. Worker VMT is focused on trips that start at home and end at work, or start at work and end at home. Trips with an intermediate stop between home and work, such as the grocery store or cleaners, are not included in the calculation of Worker VMT. Resident VMT includes all trips that originate at the home, including trips related to work, shopping, recreation, or school. Many of home-based trips are relatively short, but there is a larger number of trip types included in the Resident VMT as compared to the Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 16 Worker VMT. Therefore, Resident VMT on a per person basis may be larger than Worker VMT per person. In addition, Stanford Worker VMT is very low due to Stanford’s aggressive TDM program that significantly reduces the number of drive-alone commuters. Stanford is largely calculated based on average defaults given that little information is available with regard to non-Stanford employee household members’ trips and home-based other trips. Figure 2: Components of Stanford Worker and Resident VMT WORKER VMT As presented in Table 1, the regional benchmark for Worker VMT is based on HBW trips. Therefore, Worker VMT calculation was based on the worker population on the campus, the place of residence, and their travel behavior on their daily commute. Worker VMT was calculated for all 12 categories of workers using the same methodology. Nine of the worker categories were included in the P&TS annual transportation survey, so their travel behavior was determined from the survey results. For the other three categories – third party contractors, janitorial contractors and construction contractors – the travel behavior was determined based on available data for Santa Clara County from the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) and VTA model. For each worker category, the following factors were developed: • Commute Frequency – the number of days per week a worker travels to campus. Utilizing the responses from the transportation survey, a weighted average was calculated based on how often the nine categories of Stanford workers were on campus. The commute frequency accounts for part-time workers, alternative work schedules, and telecommuting. For third party contractors, Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 17 janitorial and construction workers, it was conservatively assumed these workers traveled to campus every work day. • Commute Mode – percent of commuters traveling by automobile by driving alone or in a carpool or vanpool. Stanford’s surveyed drive-alone rate for employees and students living off-campus is around 50% which substantially reduces the amount of vehicle miles traveled compared to all workers in the county with a drive-alone rate of 77%. For third party contractors, janitorial contractors and construction contractors, the auto mode split was assumed to be 87% (drive alone, carpool, and vanpool) based on the US Census Journey to Work data. • Vehicle Occupancy – was calculated for each of the nine Stanford worker categories based on the surveyed number of drive-alone commuters, carpool participants and vanpool participants. For third party contractors, janitorial contractors and construction contractors, the vehicle occupancy was assumed to be 1.07 persons per vehicle (drive alone, carpool, and vanpool) based on the US Census Journey to Work data. • Trip Length – average weighted trip lengths for each worker category were calculated based on the worker place of residence and commute mode. By considering the mode by geography the average trip length accounts for the high use of Caltrain and Dumbarton Bridge Express bus service by Stanford workers. For third party contractors, janitorial contractors and construction contractors, the trip length was assumed to be the VTA model’s average HBW trip length for Santa Clara County. Using these factors the number of daily trips and commute VMT for each worker category can be calculated as follows: Daily HBW VMT = Number of Workers X Frequency X Mode / Occupancy X 2 trips per day X Trip Length In the VTA model, HBW trips represent 73% of the all trips to the work place. The remaining 27% are trips that have one or more intermediate stops between the work place and home. The Stanford VMT methodology above assumes 100% of the trips are between home and work, so the Stanford VMT must be reduced by 27% for a valid comparison with the VTA benchmark. Another adjustment to the Stanford VMT estimate is to account for absenteeism - vacations and sick days. For the Stanford VMT analysis, absenteeism was assumed to be 10%, which is approximately three weeks of vacation or sick leave per year. The final calculation of the Stanford VMT for worker home-based work trips is shown below: Stanford HBW VMT = Daily VMT * 73% HBW trips * 90% absenteeism factor The sum of this calculation represents the total daily VMT for Stanford workers. The total daily VMT is divided by the total number of workers to develop the VMT per capita that is compared to the SB 743 thresholds. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 18 RESIDENTIAL VMT The residential benchmark presented in Table 1 includes all home-based trips. The VTA model includes two basic trip types for residential units. Home-based Work (HBW), trips between home and work, and Home- based Other (HBO), trips between home and other activities such as shopping, recreation, school, etc. In order to estimate the number of trips for each trip type, it was necessary to establish daily trip generation rates for the three categories of households on the Stanford campus: faculty/staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students. Fehr & Peers conducted 24-hour vehicle counts at faculty/staff and graduate student housing locations to establish local daily trip generation rates. Undergraduate student trip rates were developed by adjusting the graduate student housing rates for factors such as: no freshman cars on campus, parking permits sales, and marital status (single). Once the daily trip generation rates were established for each residential use, these daily trip totals were used to estimate the resident VMT. The following sections describe how the total daily trips were used to calculate the daily VMT. The methodology was applied to each residential category: faculty/staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students. Figure 3 shows the process flow of the residential VMT calculations: • HBW versus HBO Trips – In the VTA model, HBW trips represent 24% of the total daily trips for Santa Clara residents and the remaining 76% of the trips are HBO trips. For Stanford residents, the HBW percentage varies based on the population. For faculty/staff housing, the HBW trips would be similar to the county average; however, for graduate student housing the number of HBW trips would be lower since many of the graduate students do not travel to off-campus jobs. For couples and married graduate students, their spouses may travel off-campus to jobs. For undergraduate students, it was assumed that all trips are HBO. The resulting HBW percentages for faculty/staff households, graduate student households, and undergraduate students were 24%, 3% and 0%, respectively. • On- and Off-Campus Trips – Once the numbers of HBW and HBO trips were established, the trips for each trip type were divided into trips made on-campus (internal) and trips made off campus. The annual transportation survey captures information on peak period travel on- and off-campus by faculty, staff and graduate students. Using the survey data, the following splits were assumed for the campus residents: o Faculty/staff 85% off-campus / 15% on-campus o Graduate Students 70% off-campus / 30% on-campus o Undergraduate Students 50% off-campus / 50% on-campus Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 19 • Off-Campus & On-Campus Trip Length – The P&TS transportation survey does not capture sufficient information to determine trip lengths for spouses of faculty, staff or graduate students who work off-campus. Similarly, the survey is not designed to capture the trip lengths of the home- based other trips made by residents. Therefore, for the HBW of other household members and HBO off-campus trips, the trip lengths from the VTA model were used. For trips on-campus an average trip length of one mile was used since the core campus is approximately two miles wide. Using these factors the HBW and HBO VMT for Stanford residents can be calculated for each resident category, by trip type and for on-campus and off-campus travel. HBW Off-Campus Daily VMT = Daily Trips x HBW % X Off-Campus % X HBW Off-Campus Trip Length Figure 3: Calculation of Resident Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 20 The sum of these calculations represents the total daily VMT for Stanford residents. The total daily VMT is divided by the total number of residents to develop the VMT per capita that is compared to the SB 743 thresholds. Since the residential trip generation was based on actual counts no adjustment was needed for comparing the residential VMT to the VTA model outputs. DAILY VEHICLE TRIP VALIDATION In addition to the annual transportation survey conducted by P&TS, Santa Clara County performs an ongoing traffic monitoring program at Stanford that was required as a condition of the 2000 GUP. The annual cordon monitoring includes the collection of 24-hour traffic volumes at 16 campus gateways (roadways) and peak period origin / destination license plate counts. The traffic count data are collected for all five weekdays over eight weeks during the spring and fall by an independent third party for Santa Clara County. The origin / destination data are collected one day per week during the eight week period. The origin / destination data are used to determine the number of trips that pass through the campus without an origin or destination within the campus. Pass through trips include patients using the medical center, patrons of the shopping center, and drivers using the campus roadways to access the surrounding communities. To validate the daily vehicle trip estimates for the workers and residents used in this report and to determine the daily vehicle trips by visitors for use in the greenhouse gas and air quality analyses, Fehr & Peers compared the vehicle trips estimated for workers (including students) and residents to the volume of traffic entering and exiting the campus cordon each day. In addition to the trips made by Stanford affiliates, estimates were made for the following other trip types that would access the campus: • Known Visitor trips – visitors that are known to, or tracked by, Stanford such as formal conference attendees, student tours, tour buses, Alumni center visitors, scheduled events, etc. • General Visitor trips – visitors that come to campus for business meetings, academic meetings, social meetings, vendors, etc. • Worker Non-Commute trips – these are trips that Stanford workers make off campus during the work day. • Deliveries / Trucks – these trips include deliveries to the campus and heavy construction trucks/vehicles. • Fleet Vehicles- vehicles that are operated by Stanford including Marguerite buses, maintenance vehicles, car share vehicles and public safety vehicles. Based on the analysis of the daily cordon volumes, Stanford workers and residents would account for approximately 58 percent of the daily traffic. Visitors would be approximately 25 percent of daily traffic and pass through trips accounted for 14 percent of daily traffic. Trucks and fleet vehicles make up the remaining 3 percent of daily traffic. This breakdown of trips assigns 86 percent of the traffic passing through the cordon to employee commute, residents living on campus, deliveries to the campus (including construction Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 21 vehicles), and visitors to the Stanford campus. Approximately, two thirds of the daily traffic is related to Stanford affiliates (employees and students) and the remaining one-third are visitors to the campus. Based on engineering judgment, this breakdown in the trips validates that the estimates for employee and resident trips are a reasonable proportion of the total trips traveling into and out of the cordon. STANFORD VMT TRIP LENGTH As explained in the preceding sections, estimated trip lengths for the worker and resident categories were calculated using the Stanford annual travel survey and the VTA travel model. The average trip length by worker category was used in the detailed VMT calculations which are documented in Appendices A – C. For third party contractors, janitorial contractors and construction contractors, non-Stanford household members, and home-based other trips, Stanford did not have data for trip length and default trip lengths from the VTA model were used. A comparison between the Santa Clara countywide average trip lengths by trip type from the VTA model and the average trip lengths for the county among respondents to the CHTS generally confirms the reasonableness of the VTA model estimates. The VTA model estimates are about 7 percent higher than CHTS for HBW trips and about 11 percent higher for HBO trips. Therefore, the VTA model estimates were used for this SB 743 analysis where site-specific data were not available to maintain consistency between the project-specific analysis and the model-produced benchmark to which it is compared. FALL 2015 CAMPUS VMT GENERATION Using the methodology described above, estimates of worker and resident VMT for the conditions existing in Fall 2015 were prepared using the following assumptions. The study area in Fall 2015 included 22,661 employees and contractors and an enrollment of 16,190 students. The worker population was 38,851. Approximately 11,402 students were living on-campus, along with 38 faculty and 28 postdoctoral scholars, and 1,124 other household members, resulting in a total resident population within the study area of 12,592 students, faculty, and staff including spouses and family members. Using group-specific trip generation and mode choice rates, typical weekday vehicle trip generation for the SB 743 trip categories worker home- based-work (HBW) and resident all home-based (HBW + HBW) VMT are indicated in Table 5. As a sensitivity test, Worker VMT excluding students has been provided. The detailed VMT calculations for Fall 2015 Existing Conditions are documented in Appendix A. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 22 TABLE 5: FALL 2015 TYPICAL WEEKDAY VMT Traveler Trip Purposes Population VMT VMT per Person Workers (Including Students) HBW 38,851 170,220 4.38 Workers (Excluding Students) HBW 22,661 152,840 6.74 Study Area Residents HBW + HBO 12,592 116,590 9.22 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016 FALL 2018 CAMPUS VMT GENERATION As discussed previously, some growth under the 2000 GUP is anticipated between 2015 and 2018. This growth includes an increase of 966 employees and contractors, and an increase in enrollment of 423 students. Stanford also plans to add 2,436 student beds on the campus by 2018. The additional beds will increase the campus residential population by approximately 2,560 people including spouses and family members. In addition, the University Terrace subdivision located adjacent to the campus will open by Fall 2018. This housing development will add 180 dwelling units for Stanford faculty and staff within easy walking and bicycling distance to the campus, reducing the trip lengths for 180 Stanford workers. Since the number of added student beds exceeds the student enrollment growth, there will be a reduction of students currently living off campus and commuting to the campus by 2018, which also will reduce worker VMT. In Fall 2018, the GUP study area will provide jobs for approximately 23,630 on- and off-campus employees and contractors, and have a resident population of 15,250 students, faculty, and staff including spouses and family members. Using the methodology outlined above, the estimated SB 743 VMT for workers and residents is shown in Table 6. Similar to the 2015 analysis, Worker VMT excluding students has been provided as a sensitivity analysis. Detailed support for the VMT calculations are provided in Appendix B. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 23 TABLE 6: FALL 2018 TYPICAL WEEKDAY VMT Traveler Trip Purposes Population VMT VMT per Person Workers (Including Students) HBW 40,240 168,160 4.18 Workers (Excluding Students) HBW 23,627 158,070 6.69 Residents HBW + HBO 15,250 153,000 10.05 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016 2018 GUP VMT IMPACT EVALUATION FALL 2035 CAMPUS VMT GENERATION Between 2018 and 2035, the campus is anticipated to add 6,288 employees and contractors and increase enrollment by 2,900 students. The campus resident population within the study area would increase by 4,103 persons including spouses and families. In 2035, the GUP study area would include 29,915 employees and contractors and an enrollment of 19,513 students. The worker population including employees, contractors and students will be 49,428. The estimate of Fall 2035 travel is based on group-specific trip generation and mode choice rates as described above. Trip lengths for the 2035 calculations were adjusted from the 2015 levels based on the projected changes in the 2040 VTA travel model, taking into account the regional forecasts of growth patterns and future distribution of Bay Area housing and jobs and improvements and transportation system and services and their effects on travel mode choice. The 2035 trip lengths were increased by 2% to 3% based on a review of the future trip lengths from the VTA 2040 model. The detailed calculations are documented in Appendix C. The resulting Fall 2035 VMT for campus workers and residents is indicated in the Table 7. Similar to the previous scenarios, Worker VMT excluding students has been provided as a sensitivity analysis. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 24 TABLE 7: FALL 2035 TYPICAL WEEKDAY VMT Traveler Trip Purposes Population VMT VMT per Person* Workers (Including Students) HBW 49,428 205,447 4.24 Workers (Excluding Students) HBW 29,915 194,275 6.61 Residents HBW + HBO 19,354 198,220 11.08 * - Worker HBW trips were adjusted by +2% and Resident HB trips were adjusted by +3% to reflect changes in trip length derived from the VTA model. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016 Worker and residential VMT per person generated by the project in 2035 and the SB 743 VMT Thresholds of Significance are shown in Table 8. The 2018 GUP home-based work VMT per worker, and home-based VMT per resident are well below the SB 743 thresholds, allowing a determination of less-than-significant impacts for the project. TABLE 8: FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT COMPARED TO SB 743 THRESHOLDS Traveler Trip Purposes Fall 2035 VMT per Person SB 743 Threshold VMT per Person Finding Workers HBW 4.24 13.75 Less than Significant Residents HBW + HBO 11.08 14.73 Less than Significant Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016 Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 25 VMT COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS SB 743 EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS Table 9 shows that Stanford’s VMT generation for workers are substantially lower that the SB 743 thresholds. Therefore, the worker VMT generated by the proposed 2018 GUP would represent a less-than- significant impact. Primary reasons that Stanford’s VMT generation is so low compared to the regional averages are: an aggressive and successful TDM program, and the provision of on campus housing for faculty and students. TABLE 9: STANFORD WORKER VMT 2015, 2018, & 2035 Traveler Trip Purpose Population VMT VMT per Person Threshold of Significance 2015 Workers HBW 38,851 170,220 4.38 13.75 2018 Workers HBW 40,240 168,010 4.18 13.75 2035 Workers HBW 49,428 209,342 4.24 13.75 Table 10 shows that Stanford’s VMT generation for residents are substantially lower that the SB 743 thresholds. Therefore, the residential VMT generated by the proposed 2018 GUP would represent a less- than-significant impact. The primary reason that Stanford’s VMT generation is so low compared to the regional averages is that Stanford campus residents can commute to work or class without using personal vehicles. TABLE 10: STANFORD RESIDENT VMT 2015, 2018, & 2035 Traveler Trip Purpose Population VMT VMT per Person Threshold of Significance 2015 Residents HBW + HBO 12,592 116,160 9.22 14.73 2018 Residents HBW + HBO 15,250 153,000 10.08 14.73 2035 Residents HBW + HBO 19,354 198,220 10.62 14.73 Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 26 COMPARISON OF CHANGES Fall 2015 and Fall 2018 Conditions Table 9 shows that between Fall 2015 and Fall 2018 VMT per worker will be reduced. The reasons for the reduction in the VMT per worker are that the University Terrace housing development, located in Palo Alto adjacent to the campus, will add 180 faculty housing units. Due to the proximity to campus, a substantial portion of these workers will chose to use alternative modes of travel (bike, walk, or use Marguerite) to campus. For those that do choose to drive to campus their average trip length would be reduced from over 11 miles to less than 2 miles. During this same time period Stanford plans to add 2,436 student beds to the campus, while increasing enrollment by only 420 students. The new student housing will allow for more off campus students to live on campus. This will reduce worker VMT associated with student commuters. Table 10 shows that VMT per resident will increase slightly between Fall 2015 and 2018, but will remain at a level that is well below regional averages. The increase in resident VMT per capita is due to the fact that the Escondido Village Graduate Student Residences project will add an unusually high number of graduate student beds, which will shift the ratio of graduate student to undergraduate beds on the campus. Because graduate students drive more than undergraduate students, this proportionate shift will slightly increase VMT per campus resident. Fall 2018 and Fall 2035 Conditions Table 9 shows that between Fall 2018 and Fall 2035 VMT per worker VMT would increase primarily due to the projected increase in trip length for the Bay Area. The amount of the increase in VMT per worker is reduced by adding 550 faculty housing units on the campus. Since these units would be in the core area of the campus, these workers would chose to use alternative modes of travel including bicycling, walking, or the riding the Marguerite. VMT per resident would increase between Fall 2018 and Fall 2035, but would remain at a level that is well below regional averages. During this time period Stanford would construct up to 550 faculty/staff units. These new faculty/staff would generate additional home-based trips at a per capita rate that is higher than the addition of student housing units. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 27 STANFORD’S TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The success of Stanford University’s acclaimed Travel Demand Management (TDM) program is monitored by annual cordon counts, Stanford can add or remove TDM activities based on their success and cost effectiveness in reducing trips. This flexibility in the program operation has been a key to making the most cost effective program feasible and effective. The key strategies in Stanford’s TDM program include: • Direct incentives to commuters who choose alternative modes • Parking permits and meters at all campus parking structures or lots • Fare-free shuttles (last-mile to Caltrain and campus circulator shuttles) • Subsidized carpools and vanpools with expanded rideshare matching • Subsidized transit passes (Go-Pass and Eco-Pass) • Extensive promotional campaigns offering cash rewards and prizes • A commute buddy program and individualized commute planning services • Subsidized car share memberships • Bicycle infrastructure and end-of-trip facilities Stanford currently provides free Caltrain Go-passes and VTA Eco-passes to their employees that live outside the Stanford zip codes. Stanford also provides the Marguerite shuttles that provide last mile connections to Caltrain and internal mobility within the campus. Figure 4 shows the coverage of the Marguerite service on the campus. In addition to the free transit passes available to all employees, campus employees can participate in the Commute Club where they receive a monetary incentive (Clean Air Cash) if they don’t drive alone to campus. Anyone driving a vehicle to the campus must pay for parking. Stanford Parking & Transportation Services administers the TDM program including the Commute Club that provides information, management, and incentives for commuters (employees and students) living off campus who commit to not driving alone. In 2003, the drive alone rate for Stanford commuters (workers and off campus students) was 72%. As the TDM program has expanded the drive alone rate of Stanford commuters has decreased to around 50%. Figure 5 shows how the commuter drive-alone rate has decreased between 2003 and 2015. This decrease in solo drivers directly reduces the number of vehicle trips to the campus and vehicles miles traveled. At the simplest level, a two person carpool reduces the VMT generated by the users by almost half. For riders of the east bay shuttle service, each Dumbarton Express or U-Line coach carries between 30 to 40 passengers in a single trip. For Caltrain riders, each peak period train can carry hundreds of passengers. WindyHillOS Arastradero Preserve SMC SSE SP SHD SR SW SN STECH SY SEB SC SAE-F SO SOCA SCA SSLAC SRP SS SVA S1050A ÄRX Ä397Ä390 Ä522 ÄDB3 ÄU ÄDB1 Ä182 Ä104 ÄKX ÄDB Ä102Ä101 Ä103 ®72 ®88 ®271 ®297 ®22 ®35 ®89 ®296 ®83 ®281 ®280 ®295 ®85 W:\ W a l n u t C r e e k N D r i v e \ P R O J E C T S \ O t h e r _ O f f i c e _ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 5 - 1 5 8 5 _ N e x t G U P \ G I S \ T r a n s i t F i g u r e \ T r a n s i t F i g u r e \ F i g 2 T r a n s i t _ S t a n f o r d D e t a i l . m x d Figure 4 Marguerite Shuttle System and Transit Services Stanford Marguerite Shuttle Caltrain Regional/Express Bus Local Bus Stanford Lands Water Airports Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 29 Based on the success of the TDM program in getting more people into fewer vehicles, Stanford’s VMT per worker would be expected to be substantially below County or regional averages. Figure 5: Historical Mode Share Source: Stanford Parking & Transportation Services, 2015 Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 30 2018 GUP CONSISTENCY WITH SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY For a land use project such as the 2018 General Use Permit, the draft OPR Technical Advisory recommends determining whether the project would result in development outside of areas contemplated for development in a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). OPR explains that developing a location where the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and SCS do not specify any development may indicate a significant impact on transportation. The draft OPR Technical Advisory recommends an additional analysis for the adoption of land use plans such as General Plans, Area Plans, and Community Plans. Stanford proposes only minor amendments to the Stanford Community Plan; the proposed 2018 General Use Permit does not include adoption of a new land use plan. Nevertheless, the additional considerations for land use plans are presented here. The OPR draft Technical Advisory states that for the purpose of determining whether a land use plan is consistent with the SCS, all of the following must be true: • Development specified in the plan is also specified in the SCS (i.e., the plan does not specify development in outlying areas specified as open space in the SCS) • Taken as a whole, development specified in the plan leads to VMT that is equal to or less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee specified in the SCS Review of maps produced by MTC showing the 2040 growth projections under the RTP and SCS indicates increases of in both residents and jobs for the Stanford transportation analysis zones (TAZ). Therefore, the proposed 2018 GUP is consistent with the SCS in terms of proposing additional land use in locations where the SCS contemplates development. The analysis presented in the preceding sections of this report also indicates that the proposed 2018 GUP would generate less than 85% of the VMT per resident and VMT per worker compared to the existing regional averages. The proposed 2018 GUP is also consistent with the regional goals and targets expressed in the Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy. Stanford General Use Permit SB743 VMT Analysis November 2016 Page 31 TABLE 11: 2018 GUP CONSISTENCY WITH SCS GOALS & TARGETS SCS Goals and Targets Stanford 2018 GUP Reduce GHG by 15% per capita Through its transportation services, travel demand management programs, on-campus housing and low-carbon fleets, Stanford will continue to keep its vehicle miles per capita and resulting emissions at levels that achieve or exceed the regional goals. VMT per capita will be lower than 15% below the regional average Improve air quality and reduce exposure Reduce VMT per capita by 10% Direct growth to occur within established urban growth boundaries protecting open space and ag land The 2018 GUP development areas are within SCS transportation analysis zones designated for population and employment growth within the Plan Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan and SCS. Source: Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy, http://planbayarea.org/plan-bay-area/goals-targets.html APPENDIX A: FALL 2015 EXISTING VMT CALCULATIONS APX A - Final - Fall 2015 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx VMT Pop-VMT Summary STANFORD FALL 2015 EXISTING VMT POPULATION & VMT SUMMARY Category Source Tab Workers People VMT People VMT People VMT Worker Commute - all employee types including all resident F/S z 22,661 232,628 Worker Student Tab Student Commute to Campus (live off campus)z 4,788 26,462 z 4,788 26,462 Worker Student Tab Resident Students - Grad / Undergrad z 11,402 0 z 11,402 0 Worker Student Tab Residents Commute Trips - Off Campus (HBW) Faculty / Staff (including other household members)z 98 235 Resident Daily Graduate Students (including other household members)z 6,065 5,038 Resident Daily Undergrad Students z 6,401 0 Resident Daily Post Doctoral z 28 0 Resident Daily Home-based Other (HBO) Faculty / Staff (including other household members)z Same 1,264 Resident Daily Graduate Students (including other household members)z as 75,322 Resident Daily Undergrad Students z above 34,299 Resident Daily Post Doctoral Students z 434 Resident Daily Totals z 38,851 259,090 z 16,190 26,462 z 12,592 116,591 VMT / Person - Workers including Students Absentee HBW VMT* VMT** VMT** Adjustments for comparison to model HBW VMT 90% 73% 170,222 4.38 1.63 9.22 Threshold - 85% of the VTA Model Regional VMT 13.75 14.73 VMT / Person - Workers Excluding Students Absentee HBW VMT* Adjustments for comparison to model HBW VMT 90% 73% 152,837 6.74 Residents All AgesWorkers * For the comparison to the VTA model threshold, the manual calculation is reduced to reflect that HBW trips are only 73% of trips at the work place and by 10% for daily absenteeism. ** No adjustments required for Student or Resident VMT since the calculated and model results are directly comparable. Students APX A - Final - Fall 2015 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Worker Student VMT STANFORD FALL 2015 EXISTING VMT WORKER / STUDENT COMMUTE VMT (HBW) BC DEFGHI JKLM Workers Workers / Students Commute Population Total Daily Vehicle Trips Home - Work Trip Length VMT VMT / Capita Days per Year VT VMT VMT / Capita Benefit Eligible Employees Off Campus - Faculty 2,022 2,022 92% 58% 1.14 1,880 12.47 23,441 11.6 222 417,315 5,203,917 2,574 Off-Campus - Staff 8,612 8,612 92% 58% 1.14 8,006 12.47 99,839 11.6 222 1,777,407 22,164,261 2,574 Faculty Subdivision 899 899 92% 58% 1.00 959 2.00 1,919 2.1 222 212,990 425,979 474 Resident Faculty / Staff 38 38 92% 80% 1.00 56 1.00 56 1.5 222 12,418 12,418 327 Post-Docs Off-Campus 2,236 2,236 96% 31% 1.18 1,110 9.48 10,522 4.7 222 246,412 2,335,983 1,045 On-Campus 28 28 96% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 222 0 0 0 Casual 2,080 2,080 20% 80% 1.10 603 13.39 8,080 3.9 222 133,960 1,793,719 862 Contingent 980 980 52% 63% 1.09 587 12.25 7,193 7.3 222 130,354 1,596,836 1,629 Temporary 1,390 1,390 78% 65% 1.16 1,208 12.76 15,413 11.1 222 268,165 3,421,786 2,462 Non-Employee Affiliates Non-Employee Affiliates: 20% FTEs 1,259 1,259 17% 83%1.05 338 11.88 4,020 3.2 222 75,118 892,407 709 Non-Employee Affiliates: FTEs 1,377 1,377 85% 83% 1.05 1,850 11.88 21,983 16.0 222 410,795 4,880,239 3,544 Subtotal Workers (Stanford Employees) 20,921 20,921 16,599 11.60 192,466 9.2 222 3,684,932 42,727,544 2,042 Third Party Contractors 300 300 100% 87% 1.07 487 14.21 6,924 23.1 222 108,178 1,537,214 5,124 Janitorial Shift Workers 240 240 100% 87%1.07 390 14.21 5,540 23.1 222 86,543 1,229,771 5,124 Construction 1,200 1,200 100% 87% 1.07 1,949 14.21 27,698 23.1 222 432,713 6,148,856 5,124 Subtotal Workers (Contract Workers) 1,740 1,740 2,826 14.21 40,161 23.1 na 627,434 8,915,841 5,124 Total Workers (excluding students) 22,661 22,661 19,425 11.98 232,628 10.3 na 4,312,366 51,643,385 2,279 Students Off Campus - Graduate 4,195 4,195 82% 41% 1.12 2,519 9.15 23,046 5.5 208 523,894 4,793,631 1,143 Off Campus - Undergraduate 593 593 89% 50% 1.12 469 7.29 3,416 5.8 150 70,286 512,385 864 Non-Matriculated (trips in visitor trips) 918 0 0% 0% 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 208 000 Subtotal Student Non-resident 5,706 4,788 2,987 8.86 26,462 5.5 na 594,180 5,306,017 1,108 Resident - Graduate 5,001 5,001 100% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 208 000 Resident -Uundergraduate 6,401 6,401 100% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 150 000 Subtotal Student Residents 11,402 11,402 0 1.00 0 0.0 na 0 0 0 Total Stanford Students 17,108 16,190 2,987 26,462 1.6 na 594,180 5,306,017 328 Total Wokers (including Students) 39,769 38,851 22,412 259,090 6.7 na 4,906,547 56,949,402 1,466 Column B Workers & Students provided by Stanford LUEP/IRDS Column C Population equals workers or student except for Non-Matriculating Students whose trips are treated as visitors. Residential tables add family members. Column D P&TS Survey commute frequency adjustment for how often workers come to campus Column E P&TS Survey vehicle mode split including drive alone, carpool, and vanpool For non Stanford workers (third party, janitorial and construction) mode split from Census Fact Finder 2014 Journey to Work data Santa Clara County workers Column F P&TS Survey vehicle occupancy drive alone = 1, carpool = 2 and vanpool = 5 Column G Calculation = Population * Commute Frequenct * Vehicle Mode Split / Vehicle Occupancy Column H Average one-way trip length ror campus workers and off campus students, calculated by P&TS from place of residence and survey mode choice data For non Stanford workers (third party, janitorial and construction) HBW trip length from from VTA 2015 model checked against CHTS 2012 for Santa Clara County workers Column I Calculation = Daily Vehicle Trips x Trip Length Column J Calculation total VMT / total population Column K Workers estimated by P&TS adjusting for weekends, holidays and standard PTO for Stanford Students estiamted by P&TS based on academic schedule for Grad and Undergrads Column L & M Calculations Commute Frequency Vehicle Mode Split Vehicle Occup Daily Annual APX A - Final - Fall 2015 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Residential Daily VMT STANFORD FALL 2015 EXISTING VMT Resident Daily VMT BCD EFGH IJKLMNOPQRDT UVWXYZ HBW HBO HBW HBO External Internal % % % % % % External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal Existing Faculty / Staff 38 98 300 24% 76% 100% 24% 76% 85% 15% 16 56 194 34 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 179 56 1,230 34 1,499 15.3 5.0 Graduate Student 5,001 6,065 16,349 24% 76% 12% 3% 97% 70% 30% 451 0 11,128 4,770 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 5,038 0 70,552 4,770 80,359 13.2 4.9 Undergraduate Student 6,401 6,401 9,345 24% 76% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0 0 4,673 4,672 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 0 0 29,627 4,672 34,299 5.4 3.7 Post Doctoral 28 28 92 24% 76% 0% 0% 100% 70% 30% 0 0 64 28 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 0 0 406 28 434 15.5 4.7 11,468 12,592 26,086 467 56 16,059 9,504 5,217 56 101,814 9,504 116,591 9.3 4.5 Column B Affiliates External / Internal Trips Households for Faculty Staff source LUEP/IRDS Split derived from P&TS Survey info on peak period travel Students for Grad & Undergrad source LUEP/IRDS Calculated daily trips by type Cloumn C Population Affiliates Population Affiliates Population Affiliatespulation Trip Length F/S 38 98 38 98 588 1,540 HBW & HBO trip lengths from from VTA 2015 model checked against CHTS 2012 for Palo Alto Residents Grads 5,001 6,065 7,265 8,507 8,183 9,497 Interal trip length F&P assumption based on campus size (~2 miles wide) UG 6,401 6,401 6,617 6,617 8,317 8,317 Post Doc 282828282828 12,592 15,250 19,382 Column T, U, V, W Calulate Daily VMT Column D Daily Trip Generation (Fehr & Peers) Affiliate Number Rate Trips Column X Total VMT / Total Population Faculty 38 7.89 300 Grads 5,001 3.27 16,349 Column Y Total VMT / Total Vehicle Trip Undergrad 6,401 1.46 9,345 Post Doc 28 3.27 92 Column Z Average Trip Length Columns E & F Relationship of HBW to HBO for Palo Alto Residents for weekdays from CHTS 2012 Column G Stanford Force Adjustment - shift between the proportion of HBW and HBO due to Graduate affiliates & spouses. Columsn H & I Adjusted HBW & HBO split for daily trips to reflect fewer HBW trips for Students Fall 2015 2018 GUP 2035 GUP HBW HBOHBW VMT / capita Average Trip LenTotal Total Daily VMT (Weekday) HBO HBW HBO Trip Length (miles)Vehicle Trips Column J & K Column L, M, N, O Column P, Q, R, S Stanford Workforce Adjustment HBOStanford AdjustedResident Type Stanford Affiliates Units/Afflilia tes Population Daily Trips (weekday) Palo Alto Distribution APX A - Final - Fall 2015 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Annual VMT STANFORD FALL 2015 EXISTING VMT POPULATION & ANNUAL VMT SUMMARY Category Source Tab Workers Annual VMT Worker Commute - all employee types including all resident F/S z 22,661 4,312,366 51,643,385 Worker Tab Student Commute to Campus (live off campus)z 4,788 594,180 5,306,017 Worker Tab Resident Students - Grad / Undergrad z 11,402 0 0 Worker Tab Worker Tab Residents Home-based Work / Home-based Other (All Trips) Faculty / Staff (including family members)z 98 109,500 616,735 Resident Annual Graduate Students (including family members)z 6,065 5,264,378 27,554,538 Resident Annual Undergraduate Students z 6,401 1,962,450 7,612,107 Resident Annual Post Doctoral z 28 33,580 140,506 Visitors General Visitors (Vendor) - business/academic meetings, deliveries by auto, informal unhosted conferences z 4,032,408 25,001,480 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Worker Non-Commute Trips z 301,920 935,952 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Deliveries via trucks z 336,108 2,083,870 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Non-event Visitor Trips - Alumni Center, Conferences, Tours distributed over 303 days excludes Sundays & Holidays z 3,338,443 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Event Visitor Traffic (not typical weekday)z 6,652,357 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Marguerite Shuttle/Bus Fleet z 1,591,383 Other GHG Inputs (column H) LBRE Fleet z 434,000 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Bonair Fleet z 3,173,772 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Public Safety Fleet z 232,720 Other GHG Inputs (column H) Totals z 51,443 16,946,891 136,317,264 F&P Use Only Annual VMT Total Population APX A - Final - Fall 2015 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Residential Annual VMT Resident Annual VMT BCD EFGH I JKLMNOPQRS T Total Annual HBW HBO Internal Total Total Total Total External Internal External Internal VMT VMT External Internal External Internal miles/trip miles/trip miles/trip Daily Annual VT VMT Existing Faculty / Staff 38 98 300 16 56 194 34 1,499 376,332 0 0 266 34 5.10 7.80 1.00 2,109 240,403 109,500 616,735 Graduate Student 5,001 6,065 16,349 451 0 11,128 4,770 80,359 16,714,712 0 0 11,579 4,770 5.10 7.80 1.00 95,086 10,839,827 5,264,378 27,554,538 Undergraduate Student 6,401 6,401 9,345 0 0 4,673 4,672 34,299 5,144,823 0 0 4,673 4,672 5.10 7.80 1.00 41,121 2,467,284 1,962,450 7,612,107 Post Doctoral 28 28 92 0 0 64 28 434 108,874 0 0 64 28 5.10 7.80 1.00 527 31,632 33,580 140,506 11,468 12,592 26,086 467 56 16,059 9,504 116,591 22,344,740 0 0 16,582 9,504 138,844 13,579,146 7,369,908 35,923,886 F/S Week daysper year 251 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 365 Graduate Week days per year 208 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 322 Columns B through K Carried over from Residential VMT Daily Calculation UG Week days per year 150 30 Weekends / No Holiday days per year 60 210 Post Doc Week daysper year 251 Same as F/S 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 365 Column L Calculated annual week day VMT using week days shown Columns M, N, O Weekend trip generation was assumed to be equal to daily based on ITE Trip Generation data.ITE Trips Rates Saturday Sunday Averaged ITE shows that Saturday trip generation is 5 - 9 percent higher and Sunday is 8 percent lower. Single Family Housing - Faculty D.U. 9.57 10.08 105% 8.77 92% 98% Made all trips either HBO or Internal. Condo/Townhouse - Faculty D.U. 6.59 7.16 109% 6.07 92% 100% Used same internal to external trips for weekend. Graduate Apartments - Low Rise D.U. 6.59 7.16 109% 6.07 92% 100% Columns P, Q, R Weekend trip lengths from CHTS 2012 data for Palo Alto Trip Length Weekends / Holidays Resident Type Stanford Affiliates Units/Afflili ates Population Daily Trips (weekday) Vehicle Trips HBW HBO Vehicle Trips HBW HBO Weekday APX A - Final - Fall 2015 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Other GHG Inputs STANFORD FALL 2015 EXISTING VMT Other Trips (Vistiors, Events & Fleets) - Source Ramboll & Stanford BCDE F G HIJKL M N Categories Population Mode Split: % Driving Persons/ vehicle Trips per Vehicle per Year Total Vehicle Trips Trip Length [miles] Fall 2015 Total VMT 2018 Baseline 2035 GUP Fleet Assumption (Passenger, Vans, Bus, Mix) Proposal for Scaling for 2018/2035 Athletic events 411,250 68% 3 2 186,083 26.0 4,838,167 0% 4,838,167 0% 4,838,167 Passenger No change Alumni center 53,540 75% 1.25 2 64,248 25.0 1,606,200 8% 1,734,696 22% 2,118,064 Passenger KSF Big 5 50,000 75% 2.5 2 30,000 25.0 750,000 3% 769,500 17% 900,315 Passenger Students Conferences - to and from 20,472 75% 1.25 2 24,566 25.0 614,160 8% 663,293 22% 809,881 Passenger KSF Conferences - during 20,472 25% 1.25 6 24,566 2.5 61,416 8% 66,329 22% 80,988 Passenger KSF Camps (DAPER) - Visitors 6,079 100% 2 4 12,157 25.0 303,925 3% 314,258 26% 395,966 Passenger UG Beds Camps (DAPER) - Locals 6,079 100% 2 6 18,236 10.0 182,355 3% 188,555 26% 237,579 Passenger UG Beds Walking Tours - Buses 40,000 100% 40 2 2,000 25.0 50,000 0% 50,000 0%50,000 Passenger No change Walking Tours - Cars 40,000 100% 3 2 26,667 25.0 666,667 0% 666,667 0% 666,667 Passenger No change Stanford Live Performances, Major events 64,388 75% 2 2 48,291 10.0 482,910 0% 482,910 0% 482,910 Passenger No change Visitors by Tour Bus 170,000 100% 40 2 8,500 40.0 340,000 0% 340,000 0% 340,000 Coach buses, Vans No change Executive Education - to and from 1,300 100% 1 2 2,600 25.0 65,000 8% 70,200 22% 85,714 Passenger KSF Executive Education - during 1,300 25% 1 6 1,950 10.0 19,500 8% 21,060 22% 25,714 Passenger KSF Camps (Academic) - Visitors 300 100% 2 2 300 25.0 7,500 3% 7,755 26% 9,771 Passenger UG Beds Camps (Academic) - Locals 300 100% 2 2 300 10.0 3,000 3% 3,102 26% 3,909 Passenger UG Beds Marguerite Shuttle/Bus Fleet 1,591,383 0% 1,591,383 0% 1,591,383 Bus TBD LBRE Fleet 434,000 0% 434,000 0% 434,000 Mix Planned reduction Bonair Fleet 3,173,772 0% 3,173,772 0% 3,173,772 Mix No change Public Safety Fleet 232,720 0% 232,720 0% 232,720 Passenger No change Category Annual Trips Daily Trips Fall 2015 2018 Baseline 2035 GUP Avg Day Cordon Number of days Vendors / business or academic meetings 25,001,480 8% 27,001,599 22% 32,968,952 Passenger Worker Non-commute - Personal Business 935,952 8% 1,010,828 22% 1,234,221 Passenger Deliveries / trucks @ 2% of traffic 2,083,870 8% 2,250,579 22% 2,747,957 Trucks Event Trips 540,995 299,917 NA 6,652,357 6,695,507 6,980,045 Non-Event Trips (daily)344,484 150,547 500 3,338,443 3,520,985 4,065,599 11,088 303 Fleet Vehicles NA NA 5,431,875 5,431,875 5,431,875 APPENDIX B: FALL 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT VMT CALCULATIONS APX B - Final - Fall 2018 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx VMT Pop-VMT Summary STANFORD FALL 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT POPULATION & VMT SUMMARY Category Source Tab Workers People VMT People VMT People VMT Worker Commute - all employee types including all resident F/S z 23,627 240,595 Worker Tab Student Commute to Campus (live off campus)z 2,731 15,128 z 2,731 15,128 Worker Tab Resident Students - Grad / Undergrad z 13,882 0 z 13,882 0 Worker Tab Residents Commute Trips - Off Campus (HBW) Faculty / Staff (including other household members)z 98 235 Resident Daily Graduate Students (including other household members)z 8,507 7,328 Resident Daily Undergrad Students z 6,617 0 Resident Daily Post Doctoral z 28 0 Home-based Other (HBO) Faculty / Staff (including other household members)z Same 1,264 Resident Daily Graduate Students (including other household members)z as 109,420 Resident Daily Undergrad Students z above 35,459 Resident Daily Post Doctoral Students z 434 Resident Daily Totals z 40,240 255,723 z 16,613 15,128 z 15,250 154,140 VMT / Person - Workers Including Students Absentee HBW VMT* VMT** VMT** non-students only (HBW trips) 90% 73% 168,010 4.18 0.91 10.08 Threshold - 85% of the VTA Model Regional VMT 13.75 14.73 VMT / Person - Workers Excluding Students Absentee HBW VMT* Adjustments for comparison to model HBW VMT 90% 73% 158,071 6.69 Residents All AgesWorkers * For the comparison to the VTA model threshold, the manual calculation is reduced to reflect that HBW trips are only 73% of trips at the work place and by 10% for daily absenteeism. Students APX B - Final - Fall 2018 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Worker Student VMT STANFORD FALL 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT WORKER / STUDENT COMMUTE VMT (HBW) BC DEFGHI JKLM Work - Commuters Workers / Students Commute Population Total Daily Vehicle Trips Home - Work Trip Length VMT VMT / Capita Days per Year VT VMT VMT / Capita Benefit Eligible Employees Off Campus - Faculty 1,956 1,956 92% 58% 1.14 1,818 12.47 22,676 11.6 222 403,693 5,034,056 2,574 Off-Campus - Staff 8,985 8,985 92% 58% 1.14 8,353 12.47 104,163 11.6 222 1,854,389 23,124,232 2,574 University Terrace 180 180 92% 58% 1.00 192 2.00 384 2.1 222 42,645 85,291 474 Faculty Subdivision 899 899 92% 58% 100% 959 2.0 1,918.8 2.1 222 212989.642 425,979 473.8 Resident Faculty / Staff 38 38 92% 80% 1.00 56 1.00 56 1.5 222 12,418 12,418 327 Post Doctoral Off-Campus 2,375 2,375 96% 31% 1.18 1,179 9.48 11,177 4.7 222 261,730 2,481,198 1,045 On-Campus 28 28 96% 0% 100% 0 9.5 0.0 0.0 222 0 0 0.0 Casual 2,167 2,167 20% 80% 1.10 629 13.39 8,418 3.9 222 139,563 1,868,744 862 Contingent 1,021 1,021 52% 63% 1.09 612 12.25 7,494 7.3 222 135,808 1,663,642 1,629 Temporary 1,448 1,448 78% 65% 1.16 1,258 12.76 16,057 11.1 222 279,355 3,564,566 2,462 Non-Employee Affiliates Non-Employee Affiliates: 20% FTEs 1,312 1,312 17% 83% 1.05 353 11.88 4,189 3.2 222 78,281 929,974 709 Non-Employee Affiliates: FTEs 1,435 1,435 85% 83% 1.05 1,928 11.88 22,909 16.0 222 428,097 5,085,797 3,544 Subtotal Workers (Stanford Employees) 21,844 21,844 17,338 11.50 199,441 9.1 222 3,848,968 44,275,898 2,027 Third Party Contractors 324 324 100% 87% 1.07 526 14.21 7,478 23.1 222 116,833 1,660,191 5,124 Janitorial Shift Workers 259 259 100% 87% 1.07 421 14.21 5,978 23.1 222 93,394 1,327,128 5,124 Construction 1,200 1,200 100% 87% 1.07 1,949 14.21 27,698 23.1 222 432,713 6,148,856 5,124 Subtotal Workers (Contract Workers) 1,783 1,783 2,896 14.21 41,154 23.1 na 642,940 9,136,175 5,124 Total Workers (excluding students) 23,627 23,627 20,234 11.89 240,595 10.2 na 4,491,908 53,412,073 2,261 Students Off Campus - Graduate 2,263 2,263 82% 41% 1.12 1,359 9.15 12,432 5.5 208 282,616 2,585,933 1,143 Off Campus - Undergraduate 468 468 89% 50% 1.12 370 7.29 2,696 5.8 150 55,470 404,378 864 Non-Matriculated (trips in visitor trips) 977 0 0% 0% 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 208 000 Subtotal Student Non-resident 3,708 2,731 1,729 8.75 15,128 5.5 na 338,086 2,990,311 1,095 Resident - Graduate 7,265 7,265 100% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 208 000 Resident -Uundergraduate 6,617 6,617 100% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 150 000 Subtotal Student Residents 13,882 13,882 0 1.00 0 0.0 na 0 0 0 Total Stanford Students 17,590 16,613 1,729 15,128 0.9 na 338,086 2,990,311 180 Total Wokers (including Students) 41,217 40,240 21,962 255,723 6.4 na 4,829,994 56,402,384 1,402 Column B Workers & Students provided by Stanford LUEP/IRDS Column C Population equals workers or student except for Non-Matriculating Students whose trips are treated as visitors. Residential tables add family members. Column D P&TS Survey commute frequency adjustment for how often workers come to campus Column E P&TS Survey vehicle mode split including drive alone, carpool, and vanpool For non Stanford workers (third party, janitorial and construction) mode split from Census Fact Finder 2014 Journey to Work data Santa Clara County workers Column F P&TS Survey vehicle occupancy drive alone = 1, carpool = 2 and vanpool = 5 Column G Calculation = Population * Commute Frequenct * Vehicle Mode Split / Vehicle Occupancy Column H Average one-way trip length ror campus workers and off campus students, calculated by P&TS from place of residence and survey mode choice data For non Stanford workers (third party, janitorial and construction) HBW trip length from from VTA 2015 model checked against CHTS 2012 for Santa Clara County workers Column I Calculation = Daily Vehicle Trips x Trip Length Column J Calculation total VMT / total population Column K Workers estimated by P&TS adjusting for weekends, holidays and standard PTO for Stanford Students estiamted by P&TS based on academic schedule for Grad and Undergrads Column L & M Calculations Commute Frequency Vehicle Mode Split Vehicle Occup Daily Annual APX B - Final - Fall 2018 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Residential Daily VMT STANFORD FALL 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT Resident Daily VMT BCD EFGH IJKLMNOPQRDT UVWXYZ HBW HBO HBW HBO External Internal % % % % % % External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal Existing Faculty / Staff 38 98 300 24% 76% 100% 24% 76% 85% 15% 16 56 194 34 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 179 56 1,230 34 1,499 15.3 5.0 Graduate Student 7,265 8,507 23,750 24% 76% 12% 3% 97% 70% 30% 656 0 16,166 6,928 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 7,328 0 102,492 6,928 116,748 13.7 4.9 Undergraduate Student 6,617 6,617 9,661 24% 76% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0 0 4,831 4,830 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 0 0 30,629 4,830 35,459 5.4 3.7 Post Doctoral 28 28 92 24% 76% 0% 0% 100% 70% 30% 0 0 64 28 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 0 0 406 28 434 15.5 4.7 13,948 15,250 33,803 672 56 21,255 11,820 7,507 56 134,757 11,820 154,140 10.1 4.6 Column B Affiliates External / Internal Trips Households for Faculty Staff source LUEP/IRDS Split derived from P&TS Survey info on peak period travel Students for Grad & Undergrad source LUEP/IRDS Calculated daily trips by type Cloumn C Population Affiliates Population Affiliates Population Affiliatespulation Trip Length F/S 38 98 38 98 588 1,540 HBW & HBO trip lengths from from VTA 2015 model checked against CHTS 2012 for Palo Alto Residents Grads 5,001 6,065 7,265 8,507 8,183 9,497 Interal trip length F&P assumption based on campus size (~2 miles wide) UG 6,401 6,401 6,617 6,617 8,317 8,317 Post Doc 282828282828 12,592 15,250 19,382 Column T, U, V, W Calulate Daily VMT Column D Affiliate Number Rate Trips Column X Total VMT / Total Population Faculty 38 7.89 300 Grads 7,265 3.27 23,750 Column Y Total VMT / Total Vehicle Trip Undergrad 6,617 1.46 9,661 Post Doc 28 3.27 92 Column Z Average Trip Length Columns E & F Relationship of HBW to HBO for Palo Alto Residents for weekdays from CHTS 2012 Column G Stanford Force Adjustment - shift between the proportion of HBW and HBO due to Graduate affiliates & spouses. Columsn H & I Adjusted HBW & HBO split for daily trips to reflect fewer HBW trips for Students Resident Type Stanford Affiliates Units/Afflilia tes Population Daily Trips (weekday) Palo Alto Distribution Column J & K Column L, M, N, O Column P, Q, R, S Stanford Workforce Adjustment HBOStanford Adjusted VMT / capita Average Trip LenTotal Total Daily VMT (Weekday) HBO HBW HBO Trip Length (miles)Vehicle Trips Fall 2015 2018 GUP 2035 GUP HBW HBOHBW APX B - Final - Fall 2018 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Annual VMT STANFORD FALL 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT POPULATION & ANNUAL VMT SUMMARY Category Source Tab Workers People VT Annual VMT Worker Commute - all employee types including all resident F/S z 23,627 4,491,908 53,412,073 Worker Tab Student Commute to Campus (live off campus)z 2,731 338,086 2,990,311 Worker Tab Resident Students - Grad / Undergrad z 13,882 0 0 Worker Tab Residents Home-base Work / Home-based Other (All Trips) Faculty / Staff (including family members)z 98 109,500 616,735 Resident Annual Graduate Students (including family members)z 8,507 7,647,500 40,031,490 Resident Annual Undergraduate Students z 6,617 2,028,810 7,869,489 Resident Annual Post Doctoral z 28 33,580 140,506 Resident Annual Visitors General Visitors (Vendor) - business/academic meetings, deliveries by auto, informal unhosted conferences z 4,355,001 27,001,599 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Worker Non-Commute Trips z 326,074 1,010,828 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Deliveries via trucks z 362,997 2,250,579 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Non-event Visitor Trips - Alumni Center, Conferences, Tours distributed over 303 days excludes Sundays & Holidays z 3,520,985 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Event Visitor Traffic (not typical weekday)z 6,695,507 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Marguerite Shuttle/Bus Fleet z 1,591,383 Other GHG Inputs (column J) LBRE Fleet z 434,000 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Bonair Fleet z 3,173,772 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Public Safety Fleet z 232,720 Other GHG Inputs (column J) Totals z 55,490 19,693,456 150,971,977 Annual VMT Total Population APX B - Final - Fall 2018 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Residential Annual VMT Resident Annual VMT BCD EFGH IJKLMNOPQRS T Total Annual HBW HBO Internal Total Total Total Total External Internal External Internal VMT VMT External Internal External Internal miles/trip miles/trip miles/trip Daily Annual VT VMT Existing Faculty / Staff 38 98 300 16 56 194 34 1,499 376,332 0 0 266 34 5.10 7.80 1.00 2,109 240,403 109,500 616,735 Graduate Student 7,265 8,507 23,750 656 0 16,166 6,928 116,748 24,283,576 0 0 16,822 6,928 5.10 7.80 1.00 138,140 15,747,914 7,647,500 40,031,490 Undergraduate Student 6,617 6,617 9,661 0 0 4,831 4,830 35,459 5,318,781 0 0 4,831 4,830 5.10 7.80 1.00 42,512 2,550,708 2,028,810 7,869,489 Post Doctoral 28 28 92 0 0 64 28 434 108,874 0 0 64 28 5.10 7.80 1.00 527 31,632 33,580 140,506 13,948 15,250 33,803 672 56 21,255 11,820 154,140 30,087,562 0 0 21,983 11,820 183,287 18,570,658 9,819,390 48,658,220 F/S Week daysper year 251 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 Graduate Week days per year 208 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 Columns B through K Carried over from Residential VMT Daily Calculation UG Week days per year 150 30 Weekends / No Holiday days per year 60 Post Doc Week daysper year 251 Same as F/S 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 Column L Calculated annual week day VMT using week days shown Columns M, N, O Weekend trip generation was assumed to be equal to daily based on ITE Trip Generation data.ITE Trips Rates Saturday Sunday Averaged ITE shows that Saturday trip generation is 5 - 9 percent higher and Sunday is 8 percent lower. Single Family Housing - Faculty D.U. 9.57 10.08 105% 8.77 92% 98% Made all trips either HBO or Internal. Condo/Townhouse - Faculty D.U. 6.59 7.16 109% 6.07 92% 100% Used same internal to external trips for weekend. Graduate Apartments - Low Rise D.U. 6.59 7.16 109% 6.07 92% 100% Columns P, Q, R Weekend trip lengths from CHTS 2012 data for Palo Alto Trip Length Weekends / Holidays Resident Type Stanford Affiliates Units/Afflili ates Population Daily Trips (weekday) Vehicle Trips HBW HBO Vehicle Trips HBW HBO Weekday APX B - Final - Fall 2018 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Other GHG Inputs STANFORD FALL 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT Other Trips (Vistiors, Events & Fleets) - Source Ramboll & Stanford BCDE F G HIJKL M N Categories Population Mode Split: % Driving Persons/ vehicle Trips per Vehicle per Year Total Vehicle Trips Trip Length [miles] Fall 2015 Total VMT 2018 Baseline 2035 GUP Fleet Assumption (Passenger, Vans, Bus, Mix) Proposal for Scaling for 2018/2035 Athletic events 411,250 68% 3 2 186,083 26.0 4,838,167 0% 4,838,167 0% 4,838,167 Passenger No change Alumni center 53,540 75% 1.25 2 64,248 25.0 1,606,200 8% 1,734,696 22% 2,118,064 Passenger KSF Big 5 50,000 75% 2.5 2 30,000 25.0 750,000 3% 769,500 17% 900,315 Passenger Students Conferences - to and from 20,472 75% 1.25 2 24,566 25.0 614,160 8% 663,293 22% 809,881 Passenger KSF Conferences - during 20,472 25% 1.25 6 24,566 2.5 61,416 8% 66,329 22% 80,988 Passenger KSF Camps (DAPER) - Visitors 6,079 100% 2 4 12,157 25.0 303,925 3% 314,258 26% 395,966 Passenger UG Beds Camps (DAPER) - Locals 6,079 100% 2 6 18,236 10.0 182,355 3% 188,555 26% 237,579 Passenger UG Beds Walking Tours - Buses 40,000 100% 40 2 2,000 25.0 50,000 0% 50,000 0% 50,000 Passenger No change Walking Tours - Cars 40,000 100% 3 2 26,667 25.0 666,667 0% 666,667 0% 666,667 Passenger No change Stanford Live Performances, Major events 64,388 75% 2 2 48,291 10.0 482,910 0% 482,910 0% 482,910 Passenger No change Visitors by Tour Bus 170,000 100% 40 2 8,500 40.0 340,000 0% 340,000 0% 340,000 Coach buses, Vans No change Executive Education - to and from 1,300 100% 1 2 2,600 25.0 65,000 8% 70,200 22% 85,714 Passenger KSF Executive Education - during 1,300 25% 1 6 1,950 10.0 19,500 8% 21,060 22% 25,714 Passenger KSF Camps (Academic) - Visitors 300 100% 2 2 300 25.0 7,500 3% 7,755 26% 9,771 Passenger UG Beds Camps (Academic) - Locals 300 100% 2 2 300 10.0 3,000 3% 3,102 26% 3,909 Passenger UG Beds Marguerite Shuttle/Bus Fleet 1,591,383 0% 1,591,383 0% 1,591,383 Bus TBD LBRE Fleet 434,000 0% 434,000 0% 434,000 Mix Planned reduction Bonair Fleet 3,173,772 0% 3,173,772 0% 3,173,772 Mix No change Public Safety Fleet 232,720 0% 232,720 0% 232,720 Passenger No change Category Annual Trips Daily Trips Fall 2015 2018 Baseline 2035 GUP Avg Day Cordon Number of days Vendors / business or academic meetings 25,001,480 8% 27,001,599 22% 32,968,952 Passenger Worker Non-commute - Personal Business 935,952 8% 1,010,828 22% 1,234,221 Passenger Deliveries / trucks @ 2% of traffic 2,083,870 8% 2,250,579 22% 2,747,957 Trucks Event Trips 540,995 299,917 NA 6,652,357 6,695,507 6,980,045 Non-Event Trips (daily)344,484 150,547 500 3,338,443 3,520,985 4,065,599 11,088 303 Fleet Vehicles NA NA 5,431,875 5,431,875 5,431,875 APPENDIX C: FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT CALCULATIONS APX C - Final - Fall 2035 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx VMT Pop-VMT Summary STANFORD FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT POPULATION & VMT SUMMARY Category Source Tab Workers People VMT People VMT People VMT Worker Commute - all employee types including all resident F/S z 29,915 295,708 Worker Tab Student Commute to Campus (live off campus)z 3,013 16,677 z 3,013 16,677 Worker Tab Resident Students - Grad / Undergrad z 16,500 0 z 16,500 0 Worker Tab Residents Commute Trips - Off Campus (HBW) Faculty / Staff (including other household members)z 1,511 3,630 Resident Daily Graduate Students (including other household members)z 9,497 8,243 Resident Daily Undergrad Students z 8,317 0 Resident Daily Post Doctoral Students z 28 0 Resident Daily Home-based Other (HBO) Faculty / Staff (including other household members)z Same 19,523 Resident Daily Graduate Students (including other household members)z as 123,249 Resident Daily Undergrad Students z above 44,567 Resident Daily Post Doctoral z 434 Resident Daily Totals z 49,428 312,386 z 19,513 16,677 z 19,353 199,646 2035 Trip Length Adjustment based on VTA Model (2% HBW / 3% HBO)318,633 17,011 205,517 VMT / Person - Workers Including Students Absentee HBW VMT* VMT** VMT** non-students only (HBW trips) 90% 73% 209,342 4.24 0.87 10.62 Threshold - 85% of the VTA Model Regional VMT 13.75 14.73 VMT / Person - Workers Excluding Students Absentee HBW VMT* Adjustments for comparison to model HBW VMT 90% 73% 198,166 6.62 Residents All AgesWorkers * For the comparison to the VTA model threshold, the manual calculation is reduced to reflect that HBW trips are only 73% of trips at the work place and by 10% for daily absenteeism. Students APX C - Final - Fall 2035 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Worker Student VMT STANFORD FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT WORKER / STUDENT COMMUTE VMT (100% HOME BASED) BC DEFGHI JKLM Workers Workers / Students Commute Population Total Daily Vehicle Trips Home - Work Trip Length VMT VMT / Capita Days per Year VT VMT VMT / Capita Benefit Eligible Employees Off Campus - Faculty 2,195 2,195 92% 58% 1.14 2,041 12.47 25,447 11.6 222 453,020 5,649,158 2,574 Off-Campus - Staff 11,423 11,423 92% 58% 1.14 10,620 12.47 132,427 11.6 222 2,357,561 29,398,787 2,574 University Terrace 180 180 92% 58% 1.00 192 2.00 384 2.1 222 42,645 85,291 474 Faculty Subdivision 899 899 92% 58% 100% 959 2.0 1,918.8 2.1 222 212989.6416 425,979 473.8 Resident Faculty / Staff 588 588 92% 80% 1.00 866 1.00 866 1.5 222 192,149 192,149 327 Post-Docs Off-Campus 3,336 3,336 96% 31% 1.18 1,656 9.48 15,699 4.7 222 367,634 3,485,170 1,045 On-Campus 28 28 96% 0% 100% 0 9.5 0.0 0.0 222 0 0 0.0 Casual 2,746 2,746 20% 80% 1.10 797 13.39 10,665 3.9 222 176,826 2,367,699 862 Contingent 1,294 1,294 52% 63% 1.09 775 12.25 9,495 7.3 222 172,068 2,107,835 1,629 Temporary 1,835 1,835 78% 65% 1.16 1,594 12.76 20,344 11.1 222 353,942 4,516,305 2,462 Non-Employee Affiliates Non-Employee Affiliates: 20% FTEs 1,662 1,662 17% 83% 1.05 447 11.88 5,308 3.2 222 99,182 1,178,277 709 Non-Employee Affiliates: FTEs 1,818 1,818 85% 83% 1.05 2,443 11.88 29,026 16.0 222 542,399 6,443,705 3,544 Subtotal Workers (Stanford Employees) 28,003 28,003 22,389 11.24 251,578 9.0 222 4,970,416 55,850,355 1,994 Third Party Contractors 396 396 100% 87% 1.07 643 14.21 9,132 23.1 222 142,671 2,027,352 5,124 Janitorial Shift Workers 316 316 100% 87% 1.07 514 14.21 7,300 23.1 222 114,049 1,620,630 5,124 Construction 1,200 1,200 100% 87% 1.07 1,949 14.21 27,698 23.1 222 432,713 6,148,856 5,124 Subtotal Workers (Contract Workers) 1,912 1,912 3,106 14.21 44,130 23.1 na 689,433 9,796,838 5,124 Total Workers (excluding students) 29,915 29,915 25,495 11.60 295,708 9.9 na 5,659,849 65,647,193 2,194 Students Off Campus - Graduate 2,545 2,545 82% 41% 1.12 1,528 9.15 13,982 5.5 208 317,833 2,908,174 1,143 Off Campus - Undergraduate 468 468 89% 50% 1.12 370 7.29 2,696 5.8 150 55,470 404,378 864 Non-Matriculated (trips in visitor trips) 1,397 0 0% 0% 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 208 000 Subtotal Student Non-resident 4,410 3,013 1,898 8.79 16,677 5.5 na 373,304 3,312,553 1,099 Resident - Graduate 8,183 8,183 100% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 208 000 Resident -Uundergraduate 8,317 8,317 100% 0% 1.00 0 1.00 0 0.0 150 000 Subtotal Student Residents 16,500 16,500 0 1.00 0 0.0 na 0 0 0 Total Stanford Students 20,910 19,513 1,898 16,677 0.9 na 373,304 3,312,553 170 Total Wokers (including Students) 50,825 49,428 27,393 312,386 6.3 na 6,033,153 68,959,745 1,395 Column B Workers & Students provided by Stanford LUEP/IRDS Column C Population equals workers or student except for Non-Matriculating Students whose trips are treated as visitors. Residential tables add family members. Column D P&TS Survey commute frequency adjustment for how often workers come to campus Column E P&TS Survey vehicle mode split including drive alone, carpool, and vanpool For non Stanford workers (third party, janitorial and construction) mode split from Census Fact Finder 2014 Journey to Work data Santa Clara County workers Column F P&TS Survey vehicle occupancy drive alone = 1, carpool = 2 and vanpool = 5 Column G Calculation = Population * Commute Frequenct * Vehicle Mode Split / Vehicle Occupancy Column H Average one-way trip length ror campus workers and off campus students, calculated by P&TS from place of residence and survey mode choice data For non Stanford workers (third party, janitorial and construction) HBW trip length from from VTA 2015 model checked against CHTS 2012 for Santa Clara County workers Column I Calculation = Daily Vehicle Trips x Trip Length Column J Calculation total VMT / total population Column K Workers estimated by P&TS adjusting for weekends, holidays and standard PTO for Stanford Students estiamted by P&TS based on academic schedule for Grad and Undergrads Column L & M Calculations Commute Frequency Vehicle Mode Split Vehicle Occup Daily Annual APX C - Final - Fall 2035 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Residential Daily VMT STANFORD FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT Resident Daily VMT BCD EFGH IJKLMNOPQRDT UVWXYZ HBW HBO HBW HBO External Internal % % % % % % External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal External Internal Existing Faculty / Staff 588 1,511 4,637 24% 76% 100% 24% 76% 85% 15% 247 866 2,996 528 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 2,764 866 18,995 528 23,152 15.3 5.0 Graduate Student 8,183 9,497 26,751 24% 76% 12% 3% 97% 70% 30% 738 0 18,209 7,804 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 8,243 0 115,445 7,804 131,493 13.8 4.9 Undergraduate Student 8,317 8,317 12,143 24% 76% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0 0 6,072 6,071 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 0 0 38,496 6,071 44,567 5.4 3.7 Post Doctoral 28 28 92 24% 76% 0% 0% 100% 70% 30% 0 0 64 28 11.17 1.0 6.34 1.0 0 0 406 28 434 15.5 4.7 17,116 19,353 43,623 985 866 27,341 14,431 11,008 866 173,342 14,431 199,646 10.3 4.6 Column B Affiliates External / Internal Trips Households for Faculty Staff source LUEP/IRDS Split derived from P&TS Survey info on peak period travel Students for Grad & Undergrad source LUEP/IRDS Calculated daily trips by type Cloumn C Population Affiliates Population Affiliates Population Affiliatespulation Trip Length F/S 38 98 38 98 588 1,511 HBW & HBO trip lengths from from VTA 2015 model checked against CHTS 2012 for Palo Alto Residents Grads 5,001 6,065 7,221 8,507 8,183 9,497 Interal trip length F&P assumption based on campus size (~2 miles wide) UG 6,401 6,401 6,617 6,617 8,317 8,317 Post Doc 282828282828 12,592 15,250 19,353 Column T, U, V, W Calulate Daily VMT Column D Daily Trip Generation (Fehr & Peers) Affiliate Number Rate Trips Column X Total VMT / Total Population Faculty 588 7.89 4,637 Grads 8,183 3.27 26,751 Column Y Total VMT / Total Vehicle Trip Undergrad 8,317 1.46 12,143 Post Doc 28 3.27 92 Column Z Average Trip Length Columns E & F Relationship of HBW to HBO for Palo Alto Residents for weekdays from CHTS 2012 Column G Stanford Force Adjustment - shift between the proportion of HBW and HBO due to Graduate affiliates & spouses. Columsn H & I Adjusted HBW & HBO split for daily trips to reflect fewer HBW trips for Students Fall 2015 2018 GUP 2035 GUP HBW HBOHBW VMT / capita Average Trip LenTotal Total Daily VMT (Weekday) HBO HBW HBO Trip Length (miles)Vehicle Trips Column J & K Column L, M, N, O Column P, Q, R, S Stanford Workforce Adjustment HBOStanford AdjustedResident Type Stanford Affiliates Units/Afflilia tes Population Daily Trips (weekday) Palo Alto Distribution APX C - Final - Fall 2035 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Annual VMT STANFORD FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT POPULATION & VMT SUMMARY Category Source Tab Workers People VT Annual VMT Worker Commute - all employee types including all resident F/S z 29,915 5,659,849 65,647,193 Worker Student Tab Student Commute to Campus (live off campus)z 3,013 373,304 3,312,553 Worker Student Tab Resident Students - Grad / Undergrad z 16,500 0 0 Worker Student Tab Residents Home-based Work / Home-based Other (All Trips) Faculty / Staff (including family members)z 1,511 1,692,505 9,525,154 Resident Annual Graduate Students (including family members)z 9,497 8,613,822 45,087,773 Resident Annual Undergraduate Students z 8,317 2,550,030 9,891,078 Resident Annual Post Doctoral z 28 33,580 168,975 Resident Annual Visitors General Visitors (Vendor) - business/academic meetings, deliveries by auto, informal unhosted conferences z 5,313,101 32,968,952 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Worker Non-Commute Trips z 397,810 1,234,221 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Deliveries via trucks z 442,856 2,747,957 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Non-event Visitor Trips - Alumni Center, Conferences, Tours distributed over 303 days excludes Sundays & Holidays z 4,065,599 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Event Visitor Traffic (not typical weekday)z 6,980,045 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Marguerite Shuttle/Bus Fleet z 1,591,383 Other GHG Inputs (column L) LBRE Fleet z 434,000 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Bonair Fleet z 3,173,772 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Public Safety Fleet z 232,720 Other GHG Inputs (column L) Totals z 68,781 25,076,857 187,061,374 Annual VMT Total Population APX C - Final - Fall 2035 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Residential Annual VMT Resident Annual VMT BCD EFGH IJKLMNOPQRS T Total Annual HBW HBO Internal Total Total Total Total External Internal External Internal VMT VMT External Internal External Internal miles/trip miles/trip miles/trip Daily Annual VT VMT Existing Faculty / Staff 588 1,511 4,637 247 866 2,996 528 23,152 5,811,240 0 0 4,109 528 5.10 7.80 1.00 32,578 3,713,915 1,692,505 9,525,154 Graduate Student 8,183 9,497 26,751 738 0 18,209 7,804 131,493 27,350,444 0 0 18,947 7,804 5.10 7.80 1.00 155,591 17,737,328 8,613,822 45,087,773 Undergraduate Student 8,317 8,317 12,143 0 0 6,072 6,071 44,567 6,685,122 0 0 6,072 6,071 5.10 7.80 1.00 53,433 3,205,956 2,550,030 9,891,078 Post Doctoral 28 28 92 0 0 64 28 434 108,874 0 0 64 28 5.10 7.80 1.00 527 60,101 33,580 168,975 17,116 19,353 43,623 985 866 27,341 14,431 199,646 39,955,679 0 0 29,192 14,431 242,129 24,717,300 12,889,937 64,672,979 F/S Week daysper year 251 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 Graduate Week days per year 208 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 Columns B through K Carried over from Residential VMT Daily Calculation UG Week days per year 150 30 Weekends / No Holiday days per year 60 Post Doc Week daysper year 251 Same as F/S 52 Weekends / 10 Holiday days per year 114 Column L Calculated annual week day VMT using week days shown Columns M, N, O Weekend trip generation was assumed to be equal to daily based on ITE Trip Generation data.ITE Trips Rates Saturday Sunday Averaged ITE shows that Saturday trip generation is 5 - 9 percent higher and Sunday is 8 percent lower. Single Family Housing - Faculty D.U. 9.57 10.08 105% 8.77 92% 98% Made all trips either HBO or Internal. Condo/Townhouse - Faculty D.U. 6.59 7.16 109% 6.07 92% 100% Used same internal to external trips for weekend. Graduate Apartments - Low Rise D.U. 6.59 7.16 109% 6.07 92% 100% Columns P, Q, R Weekend trip lengths from CHTS 2012 data for Palo Alto Trip Length Weekends / Holidays Resident Type Stanford Affiliates Units/Afflili ates Population Daily Trips (weekday) Vehicle Trips HBW HBO Vehicle Trips HBW HBO Weekday APX C - Final - Fall 2035 VMT - 20161108-Ltr.xlsx Other GHG Inputs STANFORD FALL 2035 WITH PROJECT VMT Other Trips (Vistiors, Events & Fleets) - Source Ramboll & Stanford BCDE F G HIJKL M N Categories Population Mode Split: % Driving Persons/ vehicle Trips per Vehicle per Year Total Vehicle Trips Trip Length [miles] Fall 2015 Total VMT 2018 Baseline 2035 GUP Fleet Assumption (Passenger, Vans, Bus, Mix) Proposal for Scaling for 2018/2035 Athletic events 411,250 68% 3 2 186,083 26.0 4,838,167 0% 4,838,167 0% 4,838,167 Passenger No change Alumni center 53,540 75% 1.25 2 64,248 25.0 1,606,200 8% 1,734,696 22% 2,118,064 Passenger KSF Big 5 50,000 75% 2.5 2 30,000 25.0 750,000 3% 769,500 17% 900,315 Passenger Students Conferences - to and from 20,472 75% 1.25 2 24,566 25.0 614,160 8% 663,293 22% 809,881 Passenger KSF Conferences - during 20,472 25% 1.25 6 24,566 2.5 61,416 8% 66,329 22% 80,988 Passenger KSF Camps (DAPER) - Visitors 6,079 100% 2 4 12,157 25.0 303,925 3% 314,258 26% 395,966 Passenger UG Beds Camps (DAPER) - Locals 6,079 100% 2 6 18,236 10.0 182,355 3% 188,555 26% 237,579 Passenger UG Beds Walking Tours - Buses 40,000 100% 40 2 2,000 25.0 50,000 0% 50,000 0% 50,000 Passenger No change Walking Tours - Cars 40,000 100% 3 2 26,667 25.0 666,667 0% 666,667 0% 666,667 Passenger No change Stanford Live Performances, Major events 64,388 75% 2 2 48,291 10.0 482,910 0% 482,910 0% 482,910 Passenger No change Visitors by Tour Bus 170,000 100% 40 2 8,500 40.0 340,000 0% 340,000 0% 340,000 Coach buses, Vans No change Executive Education - to and from 1,300 100% 1 2 2,600 25.0 65,000 8% 70,200 22% 85,714 Passenger KSF Executive Education - during 1,300 25% 1 6 1,950 10.0 19,500 8% 21,060 22% 25,714 Passenger KSF Camps (Academic) - Visitors 300 100% 2 2 300 25.0 7,500 3% 7,755 26% 9,771 Passenger UG Beds Camps (Academic) - Locals 300 100% 2 2 300 10.0 3,000 3% 3,102 26% 3,909 Passenger UG Beds Marguerite Shuttle/Bus Fleet 1,591,383 0% 1,591,383 0% 1,591,383 Bus TBD LBRE Fleet 434,000 0% 434,000 0% 434,000 Mix Planned reduction Bonair Fleet 3,173,772 0% 3,173,772 0% 3,173,772 Mix No change Public Safety Fleet 232,720 0% 232,720 0% 232,720 Passenger No change Category Annual Trips Daily Trips Fall 2015 2018 Baseline 2035 GUP Avg Day Cordon Number of days Vendors / business or academic meetings 25,001,480 8% 27,001,598 22% 32,968,952 Passenger Worker Non-commute - Personal Business 935,952 8% 1,010,828 22% 1,234,221 Passenger Deliveries / trucks @ 2% of traffic 2,083,870 8% 2,250,579 22% 2,747,957 Trucks Event Trips 540,995 299,917 NA 6,652,357 6,695,507 6,980,045 Non-Event Trips (daily)344,484 150,547 500 3,338,443 3,520,985 4,065,599 11,088 303 Fleet Vehicles NA NA 5,431,875 5,431,875 5,431,875 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8296) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4157 El Camino Way: Hearing Request for CUP Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4157 El Camino Way, Unit C-3 & C-4 [17PLN-00051]: Request for a Hearing on the Director’s Tentative Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Medical Office use (Dentist). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301. Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) to the City Council approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow Medical Office Use, subject to findings and conditions of approval. Report Summary On February 16, 2017, Dr. Kathy Lee filed an application for a CUP for dental office, which is considered a medical office use and a conditionally permitted use in the CN zoning district as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.16. The entitlement request would allow tenant improvements to the interior of a 1,244 sf ground floor commercial office space in the mixed-use development known as the Hamlet (i.e. 4149 – 4161 El Camino Way). On May 30, 2017, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved the request (Attachment C). Notice of the proposed director’s decision was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the subject property. On June 12, 2017, a City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 request for hearing was submitted within the 14-day request period for the reasons outlined in this report and as described in the formal request letter included in Attachment D. Background The project site is located within a mixed-used development known as the Hamlet, which is comprised of two- and three-story commercial-office uses and residential condominium units that are located in seven separate buildings on a 50,447 sf lot. Plans for the Hamlet at the time of approval (circa 1983) were vague in regards to what portions of the project site were proposed to be used for retail and similar uses. At about the same time, the City was processing Code changes to restrict the total amount of office use allowed in the CN and CS zoning districts to 5,000 square feet, which went into effect while the Hamlet was being constructed (PAMC Section 18.16.050(b)). Correspondence between the City and the developer (see Attachment G), dated 1985, demonstrates that at the time the office space restriction went into effect, 30 percent of the commercial floor area was to be used for retail, personal or eating and drinking establishments uses; the remaining 70 percent of the commercial floor area would be used for medical, professional or general business offices. Although the planned office space exceeded the 5,000 square feet, the Hamlet was entitled to maintain its offices uses as legal, non-conforming uses. Because this was a non-conforming condition, however, the Hamlet could not expand or intensify its office uses. City records from the time of project approval are not available to specify which commercial spaces were to be used for retail, and which for office and in the intervening 30 years, the ground-floor commercial suites have been leased and subleased by subsequent condominium owners without regard to maintaining the approved ratio. This can be attributed to the lack of a clear designation or condition regarding space(s) to be maintained as retail, a lack of proactive oversight by the City in documenting the uses of each occupying business through the recordation of Use & Occupancy Permits, and the lack of record-keeping by condominium owners and the Hamlet’s Commercial Association. This lack of documentation has created an issue that cannot be fairly resolved by rejecting or imposing conditions on the current application. At this time, eight of the 11 commercial condominium spaces are occupied by businesses performing medical or health services that would be categorized as Medical Office Use. Because the City has no record of which condominiums were originally used for office purposes, and because each condominium is independently owned, the City does not have an equitable means to reduce office square footage to the original legal, non-conforming amount. New development proposals for use of ground-floor commercial space in the Hamlet are reviewed in relation to existing Use & Occupancy Permit records on file. Existing non-Retail or non-Retail-Like spaces are permitted to continue operating in a non-Retail or non-Retail-Like capacity if they maintain the same land use type (e.g. Medical Office Use such as a physical City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 therapist office to dental office) of the last tenant that occupied the space within the previous 12 months. The 12 month threshold is found in PAMC Section 18.70.040 (b) which states “On any site not subject to subsection (a), a nonconforming use of facilities designed and constructed for nonresidential purposes which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of one year or more shall not be resumed […]” If and when any space is vacant for 12 months or more, the City may have the ability to require ground floor retail use. The subject space (Suites C-3 and C-4) was sold to Dr. Kathy Lee and Shaun Woo (co-owner) in early November 2016. The previous owner and current president of the Hamlet Commercial Association, Dr. Larry Freeman, submitted a letter to the Planning Department which detailed the occupancy history of the commercial space in question. The letter (Attachment E) named the last four tenants (a psychologist, two nutritionists and a physical therapist) dating back 22 years that have occupied the space to practice their respective medical and health professions, with the last tenant moved out on November 30, 2016. These uses would be classified under Medical Office use. As such, the Planning Division determined the requested proposal to allow the suites to be utilized as a dental office would be consistent with the land use type the suites previously operated as, the property has not been vacant for more than 12 month, and would not be in conflict with PAMC Section 18.70.040 (b). Project Information Owner: Kathy Lee Architect: Thomas Bouffard Architects, Inc. Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 4157 El Camino Way, Condo Units C-3 & C-4 Neighborhood: Charleston Meadows Lot Dimensions & Area: (Condo Units C-3 and C-4) 31.5’ x 39.5’, 1,244 sf; The Hamlet (i.e. entire mixed-use development site) is located on a 1.16 acre (50,447 sf) lot Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; in City sidewalk fronting the width of the Hamlet complex Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): Existing commercial office space used most recently as a physical therapy office Existing Land Use(s): Medical Office Adjacent Land Uses & North: CN (medical offices, personal services and residential) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Zoning: West: CN (eating & drinking services, private education services, retail), PC- 4190 (Zen Hotel) East: RM-40 (multi-family condominiums) South: CS (Camino Place) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Earth Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CN; RM-40; RM-15 (subject Condo Units located in CN) Comp. Plan Designation: Commercial Neighborhood; Multi-Family Context-Based Design: Not Applicable; interior remodel work only Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable; interior remodel work only Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, immediately adjacent to north, east and south Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Director: Tentative approval of a CUP issued on May 30, 2017 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: Conditional Use Permit: Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are intended to provide for uses and accessory uses that are necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but cannot readily be classified as permitted uses in individual districts by reason of uniqueness of size, scope, or possible effect on public facilities or surrounding uses. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.060. CUP applications are subject to standard staff review process to evaluate compliance with applicable zoning district requirements and ensure application completeness. Not less than 21 days following the date an application is deemed complete, the director shall prepare a proposed written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the required findings specified in PAMC Section 18.76.010 (c). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the application. Any person may request a hearing by the PTC regarding the director’s tentative decision and the PTC is required to hold a noticed public hearing within 45 days. Following the hearing, the PTC makes a recommendation on the application, which is forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. Project Description The subject application is a request for a CUP to allow Medical Office Use in accordance with PAMC Section 18.16.040 (a) Table 1, in a ground floor commercial condominium space located in Unit C-3 and C-4 at 4157 El Camino Way. This site is within an existing mixed-use, commercial and residential complex known as the Hamlet (i.e. 4149-4161 El Camino Way). Construction would be limited to interior remodeling of the existing ground-floor commercial space to accommodate the proposed dental practice, which requires approval of a Building permit. Discussion City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Medical Office Use in the Commercial Neighborhood District (CN) is a permitted land use requiring a CUP and is subject to the following findings per PAMC Section 18.76.010 (c)(1)(2): 1. Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). With respect to the above findings, staff was able to make the determination that the project was not detrimental to the existing property or general welfare of the public and that it met the requirements of the applicable zoning code. Staff recommended findings and conditions of approval are included in the draft record of land use action and tentative letter of approval found in Attachments B and C. Hearing Request On June 12, 2017, a timely request for hearing was submitted by Mr. Ivan Khoshnevis after issuance of the Director’s decision for tentative approval of the CUP application. Mr. Khoshnevis listed six primary contentions of protest in his submitted hearing request letter. Provided below are those itemized contentions (quoted and italicized in bold) and planning staff’s response to each claim: “1 – Insufficient parking space for current tenant or owner of (Medical and other commercial businesses) at premises.” The applicant was required to submit a parking analysis and site layout of the existing parking conditions at the Hamlet complex (Attachment H). In addition, a site inspection was performed by the project planner to confirm the parking count and layout indicated in the provided analysis. A total of 59 commercial parking spaces (includes one accessible space) exist in the subterranean parking facility to serve the Hamlet’s 11 commercial condominium spaces. These spaces are located in close proximity to the commercial condominiums and are separated from the 92 residential parking spaces by an automated security gate. Utilizing the most restrictive parking space ratio (i.e. one space per 200 sf) for a permittable use (e.g. retail or personal service use) in the CN zoning district results in 57 required parking spaces, which is satisfied by the Hamlet’s current parking provision. As such, staff has determined there are a sufficient number of parking spaces for any array of commercial tenant uses provided at the complex. “2 – Lack of handicap dedicated parking space (Currently there is only one space in the garage).” City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 There is presently one accessible space provided in the commercial tenant parking area. Current parking standards would require the Hamlet to provide three (3) accessible spaces per PAMC Section 18.54.030 Table 1. Building plans on file dating back to 1984 indicate the general parking layout and provision of one accessible space coincides with the existing conditions found in the garage today. Because the applicant is not proposing any improvements to the garage or any increase in commercial floor area, the City cannot require alterations be made to the parking garage to bring it up to code at this time. Nonetheless, City staff can suggest that the condominium owners and the Hamlet’s Commercial Association pursue changes to the garage through a separate building permit process. “3 – This permit is in violation of current city of Palo Alto code, which prohibit any medical office to be operate (sic) at ground floor (Street level).” The provisions outlined in PAMC Section 18.40.180 – Retail Preservation are intended to protect and create neighborhood-serving retail opportunities, preserve ground-floor pedestrian-oriented streetscape experience, maintain reasonable retail lease rates, and prevent additional traffic associated with new office uses. This is accomplished by placing the restriction that any existing ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use permitted or operating as of March 2, 2015, can be replaced only by another Retail or Retail-Like use, as permitted in the applicable district. The applicant has submitted evidence that indicates the subject office suites (C-3 & C-4) have historically been leased for Medical Office use to health practitioners, as was true at the time the suites were purchased by the applicant and when the last tenant moved out in November 2016. As such, staff has determined the issuance of the requested CUP to allow Medical Office use in a ground-floor retail space is not in conflict with the aforementioned municipal code. (See the Background section above for more history on the use of ground floor units for office space.) “4 – Above unit should not be included in Grandfathered clause, since there was no history of medical or dental business at this location for at least past (sic) 10 years.” Dental offices are a conditionally permitted land use in the CN zoning district and categorized under Medical Office. To utilize the space for a non-conforming use, the applicant needs to demonstrate that the space was used for purposes that could be categorized under Medical Office use. As noted in the background section of this staff report, documentation (Attachment E) was submitted to the Planning Department which details the occupancy history of the subject space and indicates the tenants were utilizing the space for land uses that can be categorized as Medical Office Use and, as such, contradict the hearing requestor’s claim. “5 – Start of construction without permit which enforcement department red tagged the unit on early March 2017.” On January 23, 2017, a formal complaint was submitted to the City’s Code Enforcement Department via the 311 public reporting platform. The complaint reported unpermitted work City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 being performed at the subject site; a stop work order was subsequently issued the next day and posted at the site. In the following weeks, additional complaints of continued unpermitted work were reported informally by Mr. Khoshnevis at the Planning Department offices on multiple occasions. The complaint was furthering investigated by a City building inspector and on March 6, the subject site was red-tagged and utilities were pulled to restrict any further work from being performed until the required building permit has been issued As it relates to the tentatively approved CUP application, the aforementioned issues are unrelated. “6 – The ratio of allowed medical/Dental area to retail space exceed zoning department (sic), by allowing use of above property for Dental use.” There is no medical/dental to retail space ratio mandated by the PAMC. As noted previously, the Retail Preservation ordinance is applicable to existing ground-floor space permitted or operating as a Retail or Retail-Like use as of March 2, 2015. The subject site is not converting a space previously occupied by a Retail or Retail-Like use. As noted in the Background section, with the limited information staff has been able to find on this site, we believe only 70 percent of the commercial floor area was entitled to be used for office purposes. Unfortunately, in the years since the site’s construction, the commercial condominiums have changed hands and this requirement was not made clear to new commercial condominium owners. As such, the Hamlet’s ground-floor commercial spaces have not been regulated and over time developed organically into a de facto medical office center and because the commercial condominium spaces are individually owned rather than part of a planned community, enforcement of the prescribed ratios is difficult and it would not be fair to impose the retail requirement on the current applicant. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is an existing building that is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guidelines Section 15301. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 14, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 12, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Project Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2679 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditional Use Permit Tentative Approval (PDF) Attachment D: Request for Hearing (PDF) Attachment E: Correspondence from Hamlet Commercial Assoc. President (PDF) Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment G: City/Developer Correspondence (June 1985) (PDF) Attachment H: Parking Analysis (PDF) Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment B APPROVAL NO. _______ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4157 EL CAMINO WAY – SUITE C3 & C4: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N CALIFORNIA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [FILE NO. 17PLN-00051] On ______, 2017, the City Council upheld the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to approve the applicant’s request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Medical Office use (dentist office) located at 4157 El Camino Way – Suite C3 & C4, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On February, 16, 2017, the applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Medical Office use for the operation of a dental practice at the existing site located at 4157 El Camino Way – Suite C3 & C4. B. The proposed use is defined as a Medical Office use in accordance with PAMC Section 18.04.030 (95). This is a conditionally permitted land use in the CN zoning district in accordance with PAMC Section 18.16.040 – Table 1. C. Following staff review, the Director of Planning considered and proposed approval of the Conditional Use Permit application on May 30, 2017. D. Following a timely request for hearing received on June 12, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the project and recommended approval of the project to City Council. E. On_______, 2017, the City Council reviewed the request. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the project. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. In accordance with Guideline Section 15270 CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Because the request for a CUP was denied, CEQA did not apply. SECTION 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. The proposed use does not comply with the Findings for a Conditional Use Permit as required in Chapter 18.76.010 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This finding can be made in the affirmative. The proposed Medical Office use is a permitted conditional use in the Commercial Neighborhood District (CN). The 1,244 square foot subject tenant space (Unit “C”) is located in an existing building (Building #3) located at 4157 El Camino Way within a 75,050 square foot mixed-use development (4149-4161 El Camino Way). The proposed use meets the definition of Medical Office, as the tenant would provide consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the state of California. The use would be compatible with surrounding retail uses because the occupants would provide another customer base during weekday operating hours and would generally not add to parking demand during busy retail hours on weekends. The Medical Office use would not conflict with the adjacent uses in the vicinity and provides the requisite parking requirements as prescribed by municipal code for the CN zoning district and proposed use. Finding #2: The project will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). This finding can be made in the affirmative. The proposed Medical Office use is compatible with the parcel’s land use designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The Medical Office use would contribute to the area’s economic vitality and well-being of residents by providing nearby healthcare facilities. Though the proposed Medical Office use would exceed the maximum square footage for office uses permitted on the lot, based on the history of the site, the proposed use is appropriately treated as a legal non-conforming use. SECTION 4. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 1. The use shall be conducted in substantial conformance with the project plans received on May 26, 2017, and related documents on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall apply and obtain a Use & Occupancy Permit prior to the time of Building Permit. 3. This approval letter, including the Conditions of Approval, shall be printed on the plans submitted for any associated building permit review. 4. The use is limited to the “Medical Office” land use classification defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(95). “Medical Support Service” means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the state of California. Incidental medical and/or dental research within the office is considered part of the office use, where it supports the on- site patient services. Medical office use does not include the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the permit quantities as defined in Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Medical gas storage or use shall be allowed up to 1,008 cubic feet per gas type and flammable liquids storage and use shall be allowed up to 20 gallons total (including waste). 5. The use shall be operated in a manner to protect adjacent residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the business hours. 6. The proposed use shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 7. Any intensification of use, such as an increase in size of the 1,244 square foot tenant space, shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit and any other entitlements as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 8. Revocation or Modification of Approvals: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 9. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 5. VOTE. The requisite findings described in PAMC 18.76.010(c) for approval of a conditional use permit can be made for the proposed project. This decision is effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “4157 El Camino Way” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “4157 ECW_Revised 5.26.2017 (approved)” and dated 05/26/2017 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8039) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Annual Office Limit Extension Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Extension of Interim Ordinance 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet of Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of City to June 30, 2018 and Finding That the Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information, Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Find the proposed draft ordinance exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); and, 2. Recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) to extend the existing interim Annual Office Limit ordinance, Ordinance #5357 to expire on June 30, 2018. Additional time is needed to prepare a replacement ordinance as requested by the City Council and the current, interim ordinance imposes a limit on the fiscal year, which ends on June 30th. Background The City’s current Comprehensive Plan contains an overall cap of 3.2 million square feet on the amount of non-residential development that can occur in Downtown and in the City as a whole, but does not currently limit the pace of development. Over the course of six meetings from January through June of 2015, the City Council discussed the idea of limiting the pace of new office/R&D development. In October 2015, the Council adopted an interim Annual Office Limit ordinance. The interim ordinance established a two-year effective period and set a 50,000 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 square foot limit on the amount of net new office/R&D space that can be approved each fiscal year in specified areas of the City including Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino Real Corridor. At the January 30, 2017 City Council hearing on the draft Land Use Element for the Comprehensive Plan Update, Council approved a motion directing staff to bring forward a permanent annual limit ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update. To allow sufficient time for staff to prepare the permanent ordinance and to assure no lapse in the regulations, an extension of the existing interim ordinance is proposed. Additional background information is available in earlier staff reports on this subject, including a PTC report dated March 29, 2017 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56641) and a City Council Report, dated September 21, 2015 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56641). Discussion The work effort is underway for the preparation of the permanent ordinance and the PTC offered its input at the March 29, 2017 discussion referenced above. A project website (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/annual_office_limit.asp) provides the public additional information and opportunities to stay engaged in this effort. To allow sufficient time to complete the necessary work and public hearings for a permanent annual limit ordinance, staff is proposing to extend the interim ordinance to June 30, This date also makes sense because the current ordinance imposes a limit on the amount of development approved each fiscal year, and the City’s fiscal year runs until June 30. There are no changes proposed to the content of the interim ordinance, only a time extension is recommended. This would continue the existing regulation until a permanent ordinance is adopted. Running parallel with the adoption of the interim ordinance extension is an effort to develop a permanent ordinance. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss a framework for the new regulations on September 11, 2017 when it will consider the subject interim ordinance extension. The goal is to have the permanent ordinance in place early next year. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is considered exempt under Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 14, 2017. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 For the proposed extension of the interim ordinance, staff did not perform any specific public outreach. As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Next Steps Upon recommendation from the PTC, staff will forward the ordinance to City Council for review, which is tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2017. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Clare Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 617-3191 (650) 329-2679 clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Extension Ordinance (PDF) Attachment B: Interim Ordinance No. 5357, adopted October 26, 2015 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 170613 jb Lee/PLANNING 1 Ordinance No.__________ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending Interim Ordinance No. 5357 that Added Sections 18.85.200 through 18.85.208 to Chapter 18.85 of Title 18 Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Square Feet in Designated Areas of City The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. On October 26, 2015, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5357, and related findings, establishing an annual limit of 50,000 square feet of net new office/R&D development in specified areas of the City including Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino Real Corridor. By its terms, Ordinance No. 5357 will expire within two years of its effective date of November 26, 2015 or upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, whichever occurs earlier. B. On January 30, 2017, during consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City Council directed staff to prepare and bring forward, separate from the Comprehensive Plan, an ordinance establishing the annual office limit on a permanent basis. C. A limited extension of the interim ordinance through June 30, 2018 will allow time for the City to complete the necessary work and analysis to prepare a permanent ordinance. D. The findings adopted in Ordinance No. 5357 are incorporated herein by reference and reaffirmed. SECTION 2. Extension. The City Council hereby extends Interim Ordinance No. 5357 through June 30, 2018. SECTION 3. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Interim Ordinance No. 5357 inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. Effective Period. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date 170613 jb Lee/PLANNING 2 after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance shall expire on June 30, 2018 or upon Council adoption of a permanent annual office limit ordinance, whichever occurs first. SECTION 6. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084 711 CF4A49 Ordinance No. 5357 Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) to Chapter 18.85 entitled "Interim Zoning Ordinances" Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet in Designated Areas of City FINDINGS A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birth place of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology-based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office market~_,_ _________ _ According to one study Class A office rates have climbed 49 percent since the start of 2010. The same study reported Class B office space increasing by 114.4% since 2010. C. In particular, average commercial rental rates have gone up significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 in 2015. D. As a result, the City has seen a steady increase of new Office and Research and Development (R&D) projects. According to data submitted by the City to support the Valley Transportation Authority's Congestion Management Plan (CMP), since 2001, the City has added 234,002 of net new square feet of office/R& D development in the California Avenue area; 315,586 in the downtown area, and 46,210 in the El Camino Real corridor. E. While this new development is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan, the rate of change has been faster than anticipated, resulting in changes in the character of the City's commercial districts. The changes have also resulted in additional parking demand, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions, and negatively impact the City's jobs/housing ratio. F. Based on the CMP data, there have been six years since 2001 in which more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D development have been entitled in these districts combined, and these six years include the last two (fiscal years 2014 and 2015). G. Record high monthly rental rates for office space and low vacancy rates suggest that the rapid pace of development is likely to continue, putting pressure on sites that are not currently developed to their maximum potential, and contributing to a feeling in the community that the character of the City's commercial districts are changing too fast. 151001 cs 0131471 1 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope 10: 05BEA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084 711 CF4A49 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. A new Section 18.85.200 {Annual Office Limit) is added to Chapter 18.85 entitled "Interim Zoning Ordinances" to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: "18.85.200 Annual Office Limit 18.85.201 Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the definitions below: (a) Office Annual Limit Area shall include the area shown in Exhibit A, comprising the commercial districts of Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Real corridor. (b) Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall include any of the following uses in the Office Annual Limit Area: 1. Research and Development as defined in Section 18.04.030(123); 2. Administrative Office Services as defined in Section 18.040.030(6); 3. General Business Office as defined in Section 18.040.030(61); 4. Medical Office greater than 5,000 net new square feet as defined in Section 18.04.030(95 ); and 5. Professional Office as defined in Section 18.04.030(116). (c) Qualifying Application shall mean an application for a permit or other planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use which (1) has been determined to be complete, (2) has completed the necessary analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act and (3) has been reviewed by all required commissions and/or Planning Director, as applicable. 18.85.202 Office Annual Limit. During the pendency of this Ordinance no more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office Annual Limit Land Uses per fiscal year shall be approved by the City in the Office Annual Limit Area. (a) For purposes of this Ordinance, the fiscal year shall be defined as July 1 to June 30. (b)The 50,000 square foot limit imposed by this section shall not apply to exempt projects as defined in 18.85.203 and such projects shall not be counted towards this limit. (c) This restriction shall be in addition to any other applicable growth restriction including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Code. In the event multiple policies apply to a project, the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply. 18.85.203 Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this Ordinance: 151103 cs 0131471 2 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084711 CF4A49 (a) Small Projects. Projects containing less than 2,000 net new square feet or less of Office Annual Limit Land Uses and accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility are exempt from the Office Annual Limit. (b) Small Medical Office Projects. Projects containing 5,000 net new square feet or less of Medical Office are exempt from the Development Cap. (c) Self-Mitigating Projects. Projects that would both: (1) provide rental housing for more workers than would be employed in the project; and (2) provide substantial transportation demand management strategies (individually or in cooperation with other projects or programs) to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. (d) Pipeline Projects. Projects which have been approved, or which are considered "pipeline projects" as follows: 1. Projects which obtained a planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Projects which are the subject of a planning entitlement application that was submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and deemed complete by the City on or before March 31, 2015. (e) City Office Space. New office space used by the City of Palo Alto. 18.85 .205 Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment. An applicant may request that the requirements of this Ordinance be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. 18.85.206 Procedures for Reviewing Qualifying Applications. The following additional processing and approval requirements shall apply to Office Annual Limit Land Uses: (a) No Qualifying Application for an Office Annual Limit Land Use shall be acted upon by the Director or by the City Council between July 1 and March 31 of the following year. (b) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications that are 151103 cs 0131471 3 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084 711 CF4A49 pending on March 31 would not exceed the annual limit, the Qualifying Applications shall be acted upon using the Zoning Code's usual process immediately following March 31. (c) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications would exceed the annual limit, the Director shall rank all Qualifying Applications based on scoring criteria set forth in Section 18.85.207 and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council may accept the Director's recommendation or reevaluate the ranking based on the scoring criteria. Based on their review, the Council shall approve in ranked order one or more Qualifying Applications to achieve a maximum of 50,000 net new square feet. The Council may approve applications as proposed and recommended, and may require modifications of any project to reduce the proposed square footage in order to stay within the 50,000 square feet Office Annual Limit. The Council's action on all Qualifying Applications shall be made before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. (d) Any application which is subject to City Council evaluation and action pursuant to Section (c) above and which was not approved by the City Council shall be denied unless, at the request of the applicant, it is rolled over to the next fiscal year for processing in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance. Further, in lieu of modifications to the project's Office Annual Limit Land Use, the applicant can elect to roll over the application to the next fiscal year. The City and applicant may agree to extend any applicable processing time periods to effectuate this provision. 18.85.207 Selection Criteria. The City Council shall evaluate applications subject to the annual limit using the following criteria based upon weighting set forth in administrative rules or procedures which shall provide that projects meeting criterion (i) shall be selected first and weighted against each other: Impacts (a) The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings; and (b) The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; and (c) The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality; and Environmental Quality (d) Environmental quality; and Public Benefit (e) The value to the community of public benefits offered; and 151103 cs 0131471 4 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 05BEA42C-633E-4A13-978B-OB4711 CF4A49 (f) Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and (g) Mixed use projects including retail; and (h) Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios; and Pipeline Projects (i) Any entitlement application involving an Office Annual Limit Land Use deemed complete by the City between March 31, 2015 and June 15, 2015. 18.85 .208. The Director has the authority to adopt rules or procedures to implement the efficient and equitable implementation of this Ordinance." SECTION 2. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. This ordinance shall expire within two years of its effective date or upon Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, whichever occurs first. SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations II II II II II II II 151103 cs 0131471 5 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084711 CF4A49 Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. INTRODUCED: September 21, 2015 PASSED: October 26, 2015 AYES: BERMAN, BURT, DUBOIS, FILSETH, HOLMAN, KNISS, SCHARFF, SCHMID, WOLBACH NOES : ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATIEST: ~ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~1~ .. --------------- Senior Assistant City Attorney 151103 cs 0131471 6 APPROVED: Mayor [?:-;;!' 3QFZ2Q8F82064QB City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Rev. October 1, 2015 CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle s J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R oa d O re g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d U niversity Avenue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R oa d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona AvenueArastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct Mc Kellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive Hemlock Court Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Capitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina W ay Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road D CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue e Hill Avenue anuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matader o Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Lagu na Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Av enue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expres La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley StreetPrinceton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Aven ue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madron o Aven u e Portola Avenu e Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford AvenueBirch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way E Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe St Maple Stree Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive C University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays DriveLois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane EdgewoodDrive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hillv Lane 66 Bryant StreetRamona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Wa y Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenu e Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryes sa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court JenkinsCourt Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomitaCourt Lom ita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Rai mundo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra W alk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm Road Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Alpine Access Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r v oir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park Annual Office and R&D Cap Area Boundaries City Jurisdictional Limits abc Note: Other uses where Office may be an "accessory use" maybe conditionally permitted in Residential Zoning Districts 0'2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D An n u a l C a p B o u n d a r i e s Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-10-01 11:54:38 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) Exhibit A Certificate Of Completion Envelope Number: 058EA42C633E4A 139788084 711 CF4A49 Subject: Please DocuSign this document: ORD 5357 Office Growth Meter October 1 2015.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 6 Certificate Pages: 5 AutoNav: Enabled Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Record Tracking Status: Original 11/3/201510:58:11 AM PT Signer Events Cara Silver cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/15/2015 5:07:16 PM PT ID: 11910ed1-61d1-4ff3-9cf9-f4eb5a0768e2 Hillary Gitelman Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAito.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: James Keene james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 4/14/2015 5:40:07 PM PT I D: 44fe333a-6a81-4cb 7 -b 7 d4-9254 73ac82e3 In Person Signer Events Editor Delivery Events Agent Delivery Events Intermediary Delivery Events Signatures: 3 Initials: 0 Holder: Kim Lunt kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org Signature ((DocuSigned by; ~:.0~:::,. Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 ('UDocuSigned by: ~::;,.:~~ Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Signature Status Status Status Docu~. iii SiCU.lD Status: Completed Envelope Originator: Kim Lunt 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33 .32.254 Location: DocuSign Timestamp Sent: 11/3/201511:01:21 AM PT Viewed: 11/3/2015 11 :27:49 AM PT Signed: 11/3/201512:46:40 PM PT Sent: 11/3/2015 12:46:41 PM PT Viewed: 11/3/2015 12:50:43 PM PT Signed: 11/3/201512:51 :05 PM PT Sent: 11/3/2015 12:51 :07 PM PT Viewed: 11/13/2015 2:33:24 PM PT Signed: 11/13/2015 2:33:32 PM PT Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8097) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Land Use and Transportation Element Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Review and Recommendation on the Draft Transportation and Land Use Elements From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Review the Transportation Element of the June 30,2017 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update and recommend to the City Council changes to the Transportation Element policies and programs and the Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table 2. Identify any specific issues in Land Use Element that the PTC would like to focus on at the following meetings Report Summary This report augments the Comprehensive Plan Update staff report that was submitted to the PTC on July 12, 2017 (Attachment A). It includes highlights from the PTC’s discussion at the July 12, 2017 meeting, an updated schedule, some additional background information and a description of what to expect at the July 26 meeting on the Transportation Element. At the meeting, Commissioners will be asked to provide comments and suggestions on the draft Transportation Element while the staff and consultants take notes. After all comments and suggestions are noted, the Commission plans to use “straw votes” to identify individual comments and suggestions that will be grouped into a final motion. The Commission’s final motion, along with a transcript of the meeting, will be provided to the City Council as part of the PTC’s report and recommendation. Background On July 12, the PTC received a staff report that includes an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update legal requirements and process, key issues in the Land Use and Transportation City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Elements and the objectives, approach and schedule for the PTC’s review. The staff report for the July 12th meeting is included as Attachment A and intended to serve as a key background document for the PTC´s review of the Comprehensive Plan. The PTC was also sent a bound copy of the June 30, 2017 draft of the Comp Plan, which will be used throughout the PTC’s review. At the July 12th meeting, the schedule was changed to start the PTC review with the Transportation Element and provide 3 consecutive meetings for the PTC’s discussion of the Land Use Element as shown in Table 1 below. This change was made to give the PTC adequate time to review the more complex issues in the Land Use Element. At the meeting, it was also noted that the PTC may add an additional meeting on August 23rd or start meetings earlier than 6PM to complete their review on schedule. Table 1. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule (Revised 7.12.17) Month/Date Topic June 30 Start of 90-day PTC review period July July 12 7/12 PTC Hearing Comp Plan Orientation July 26 7/26 PTC Hearing Transportation Goals T-1 to T-8 and Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table August Aug. 9 8/ 9 PTC Hearing Land Use (1 of 2) Goals L-1 to L-4 Aug. 23 Potential Additional PTC Hearing on Land Use (If Needed) Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing Land Use (2 of 2) Goals L-5 to L-10 September + Sept. 1 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Month/Date Topic Sept. 13 9/13 PTC Hearing Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table Sept. 27 9/27 PTC Hearing Final Review; Recommendation to Council on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and the Final EIR Sept. 30 End of 90-day PTC review period Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 18, 2017 At the July 12th meeting, individual commissioners asked for information about how the draft Transportation Element changed from the Element that was referred by the Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Council in June 2016. Links to tracked changes versions of the Element as it was referred to the Council by the CAC and subsequently revised by the City Council are shown in Table 2. Table 2 also includes links to background information on Transportation Element issues from Staff Reports. Table 2 . Transportation Element Changes from the CAC Draft to the Current Council Draft Document Web Link Useful Background Information in Staff Report and Relevant Page Numbers July 19, 2016 – Final CAC Draft of Transportation Element referred to Council Staff Report Final Staff Report to the CAC on the Transportation Element http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff- Memo_7.19.16.pdf Page 13 Parking Traffic Congestion Transportation Element Draft Recommended by the CAC to the City Council (Tracked Changes) http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Att_D_Draft- Transportation-Element-Tracked_07.19.16.pdf September 19, 2016 – First Council review of CAC Draft Transportation Element (see above) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Document Web Link Useful Background Information in Staff Report and Relevant Page Numbers Staff Report Review of CAC Transportation Element http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/docu ments/53793 Page 2 Single-occupant vehicle use Page 3 Parking VMT/LOS Transit-dependent community January 30, 2017 – Second Council review of Draft Transportation Element (alongside Land Use Element) Note that the Council agendized but did not discuss the Transportation Element at this meeting. Council discussed the draft Element showing revisions from the September 19, 2016 Council meeting (above) at the May 1, 2017 meeting (below). Staff Report Comp Plan Update - Land Use and Transportation Elements http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/docu ments/55582 Page 10 Parking TDM Page 11 VMT/LOS Transportation Infrastructure Investments May 1, 2017 – Final substantive Council review of Draft Transportation Element Staff Report Comp Plan Update - Transportation and Land Use Elements http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/docu ments/57258 Page 1 Transportation Infrastructure Investments Transit-dependent community Regional cooperation Neighborhood impacts Single-occupant vehicle use Page 6 VMT/LOS Transportation Element Revised Draft Element based on Sept. 2016 Council Review (Tracked Changes) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/docu ments/57258 Page 115 Council Motion May 1, 2017 Council Direction on the Transportation Element and resulting changes http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/Att.F_050117_Council-Motion-LU- Transp_Table_w_links.pdf June 30, 2017 Draft Transportation Element City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Document Web Link Useful Background Information in Staff Report and Relevant Page Numbers Revised Draft Element as referred by the City Council to the PTC (Clean copy) http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/3_TranspoElement_June30_CLEAN.pdf Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 18, 2017 What to Expect at the July 26 PTC Meeting At the July 26 meeting, the PTC will discuss the Transportation Element and recommend changes to the City Council of the policies and programs in that Element and the Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table. To assist the PTC, staff identified key policy issues and updates in the Transportation Element. These are listed on pages 12 to 20 of the attached July 12, 2017 PTC Staff Report. At the July 12th meeting, some Commissioners mentioned specific Transportation Element issues they want discussed at the July 26 PTC meeting : Reviewing the list of Transportation Infrastructure Investments in the Narrative (page T-12 of the June 30 draft Transportation Element), including the Geng Road extension to Laura Lane. A map of Geng Road is included as Attachment B. The City is considering an extension of Geng Road from its current terminus to connect with Laura Lane; implementation of this idea would be contingent on further site-specific analysis and acquisition of right-of-way. Connecting Geng Road with Laura Lane through an existing parking lot would provide a bypass to the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road and would help to alleviate congestion there. The Embarcadero Road at East Bayshore Road intersection would be expected to operate with less average delay with the proposed Geng Road extension. Adding improvements to the Transit Center at University Avenue to the list of Transportation Infrastructure Investments (page T-12 of the June 30 draft Transportation Element). There are already some references to improvements to the Transit Center in the Comp Plan. Page T-16 of the June 30 draft element lists “Improved circulation in the Palo Alto Transit Center, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles”. This is the last item on a list of improvements that the City expects other agencies to undertake. Programs T3.10.3, and Policy T-8.4 also call for improvements at the Transit Center. Understanding how it was decided to use both LOS and VMT as metrics to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of new development and whether VMT should be the metric instead (Goal T-2, Policy T-2.3 and Program T2.3.1, page T-33 and T-34 of the June 30 draft Transportation Element). The CAC and the City Council wanted to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 ensure that the City maintains a policy of using conventional vehicular LOS to evaluate the potential impacts on traffic congestion as a result of new development. Utilizing both LOS and VMT metrics provides the City with a comprehensive view to address traffic and to reflect its sustainability goals. While LOS describes local-level impacts at a specific location, VMT describes network-wide impacts by measuring the number of miles traveled by motor vehicles and reflects the length of trips as well as the number of trips. VMT is also a key factor in quantifying greenhouse gas emissions. Together, LOS and VMT measures can inform efforts to reduce commute lengths and enhance the availability of alternative transportation options. Discussing how much specificity the Comp Plan should include on parking, so that it is a reliable document for the PTC to use to review projects. Considering whether the current policies provide a shared understanding of the ideal parked street (Goal T-5, pages T-40 to T-43 of the June 30 draft Transportation Element). The Element has a phased approach to parking supply and presents an overall direction which provides sufficient but not excessive parking; the concept of parking pricing is introduced as well. Policy T5.1 on page T-40 states that all new development projects should be consistent with existing parking regulations and manage parking demand generated by the project without the use of on street parking, while programs T5.1.1 through T5.1.3 describe the phased approach to reduce parking requirements over time if TDM and technological changes demonstrate a reduction in parking demand. In addition, the topic of parking pricing has been introduced as a new program T5.2.2 (page T-41) which supports implementation of a comprehensive suite of parking supply and demand management strategies citywide. The PTC is also reviewing the Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table (pages 9 -21 of the Implementation Plan Chapter of the June 30 draft). Background on the Implementation Table can be found on page 10 of the attached July 12, 2017 PTC Staff Report. The PTC may recommend changing priorities or adding/subtracting programs now. The PTC will have additional opportunities to review Comp Plan Implementation in the course of their regular annual review , which staff is recommending occur in December each year. At the July 12th PTC meeting, the Commission discussed the logistics of developing a motion that incorporates the PTC’s recommended changes to the Transportation Element and the Implementation Plan Table. Based on that discussion, the staff plans to take notes during the PTC discussion and develop a list of potential recommendations to give to the PTC. The PTC can use that list to take straw votes and craft the motion the PTC wants to include as its recommendation to the City Council. To make sure that the Council has the benefit of the entire PTC discussion, the staff will include the transcript of the entire meeting in the report to the City Council as well as the adopted motion(s). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679 Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A July 12 PTC Staff Report (PDF) Attachment B Location of GengRoad Extension (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8096) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Comp Plan Update: Overview Title: Comprehensive Plan Update: Overview of the Comp Plan Review process, including legal requirements of the Plan, objectives, key issues and schedule. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Receive a staff presentation providing an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and the June 30, 2017 Draft Plan referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) by the City Council. The presentation and materials are intended to assist the PTC with its review and recommendation over the next few months, and no formal action is recommended at this meeting. Nonetheless, Commissioners may identify specific issues they would like to focus on at one of their following meetings. Report Summary This staff report will serve as a guide for the PTC’s review and recommendation regarding the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan over the next three months. The report and presentation will provide the following: Explanation of the Comprehensive Plan Update process so far; Overview of the contents, organization, and legal requirements for the Comprehensive Plan (which is a called a “general plan” under State law); Summary of key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements, on which the PTC has chosen to focus their review; and Description of the proposed objectives, approach and schedule for PTC’s review, consistent with earlier discussions by the Commission. Background On June 12, 2017, the City Council referred the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC for review and a recommendation within 90 days. This draft Plan (referred to in this report as the June 30, 2017 Draft Plan) reflects the Citizens Advisory Committee’s (CAC) May ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 16, 2017 recommendations to the Council and incorporates changes based on Council’s review up to and including their meeting on June 12th. Consistent with Section 19.04.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s direction, the PTC’s 90 day review began with dissemination of the Draft Plan on June 30, 2017 and will end (unless extended by the Council) on September 30, 2017. The June 30, 2017 Draft Plan has been distributed to the PTC and is available on the 5th floor at City Hall, at the City libraries and on the Comp Plan Update website: www.paloaltocompplan.org. The PTC has had several discussions at prior meetings regarding how to conduct its review, whether it is feasible within 90 days, whether to use one or more subcommittees, and how many meetings to hold. At the June 14, 2017 meeting, the PTC passed a motion to focus its review on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and decided not to form subcommittees. In response to a Commission question, staff noted that PTC members can consult with other members outside of meetings, as long as these discussions adhere to Brown Act requirements and do not involve a majority of the members. The PTC also discussed what issues the PTC should address in its review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This staff report includes a list of key issues for both the Land Use and Transportation Elements. Some of these issues were the subjects of significant discussion at both the CAC and the Council. Others are included because they are key policy updates in the Comp Plan. Resources Staff suggests that PTC members become familiar with the Comp Plan website at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/, which was created for the most recent phase of the Comp Plan Update and serves as a central location for project updates, published documents, meeting materials, and background information. It will be a valuable reference to inform the PTC’s review. Of particular relevance, the Comp Plan website includes individual pages with meeting materials for all public meetings, including the City Council and Citizen Advisory Committee, that have been held as part of the Update process. CAC meeting materials (full CAC and subcommittees): http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/ PTC meeting materials (including study sessions dating back to 2008 – this will continue to be updated regularly during your review over the summer): http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/ City Council meeting materials (including recent reviews of the CAC draft Elements in 2016 and 2017, as well as initial direction on the Goals and Visions for each Element from 2015): http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/planning-and-transportation-commission/ City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The website also has all EIR documents (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/). The fiscal study that analyzes the six Comp Plan EIR scenarios, the existing conditions reports prepared in 2014, materials from the 2015 Summit, and other background documents are available on the Resources page at http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/resources/. Discussion The discussion below provides a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, followed by a discussion of the organization and legal requirements governing each section of the Draft Plan. Subsequent sections focus on key issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements for the PTC’s review and the status of the environmental review process. Comprehensive Plan Update Process The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in 1998 and sets goals, policies, and programs related to land use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource, community services, and safety. The City Council recognized the need to update the Plan and initiated the update in 2006. The PTC then spent close to six years working on the Comprehensive Plan Update (from 2008 to 2014), ultimately sending its recommendation to the City Council in April of 2014. Upon receipt of the PTC’s recommendations, the City Council adopted a schedule and strategy for “reframing” the long-running update to include expanded community engagement and a full evaluation of alternatives, cumulative impacts and mitigation strategies. The Council held a community-wide Summit, attended by over 350 people in May 2015, and created the CAC to engage in further dialog and community outreach to inform the Council’s amendments. Between July 2015 and May 2017, the full CAC met 23 times to review elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC, and receive and review community input. The CAC also formed subcommittees to discuss each Element, as well as a Sustainability subcommittee that considered sustainability-related issues in several Elements. There were a total of 29 meetings of CAC subcommittees. All CAC meetings were noticed and open to the public and included time for public comment. All meeting materials and minutes from CAC meetings are available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/ In addition, the City Council has met independently to review elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, review recommendations advanced by the PTC and the CAC, and receive and review community input. The City Council has discussed the Comp Plan goals and vision statements, EIR scenarios, and draft Elements at 24 meetings since 2010. City Council agendas, staff reports, and other relevant materials for Comp Plan discussion items are available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/city-council/ Section 19.04.080 of the Municipal Code describes two processes for adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update and reflects the State law as it existed in 1955. Former City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Government Code sections 65501 through 65510 apply to updates initiated by the PTC, while former Government Code sections 65511 through 65513 apply to updates initiated by the Council. The procedures are very similar in both instances: the PTC must hold at least one public hearing before making a recommendation to the Council. Where the PTC has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred back to the PTC for a 45 day review period; where the Council has initiated an update, Council amendments are referred to the PTC for a 90 day review period. In both cases, once this review period is complete, the City Council may ultimately adopt an update to the Comprehensive Plan at a noticed public hearing (former Gov. Code Section 65514). The Council-initiated process applicable to the update underway is similar to the process under current State law, which provides that the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments for adoption by the city council. Under current State law, however, the planning commission has only 45 days after city council referral to submit its report. As explained above, the prior law incorporated into the Municipal Code provides the PTC with a review period of up to 90 days. As noted above, the City Council referred the draft Comprehensive Plan Update to the PTC at the June 12, 2017 Council meeting, with the referral to be effective upon transmittal of the draft Plan. Therefore, the Council’s referral is effective and the PTC’s review period begins as of June 30, 2017 when the document was transmitted to the PTC. Comprehensive Plan Update Organization The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains chapters or “elements” that address topics required by State law, as well as optional elements and topics. This relationship is shown in Table 1. The Plan includes a total of seven Elements; two are optional. All of these draft elements are based on the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan, revised to reflect the City Council’s direction regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the PTC’s proposed revisions and public input. These draft elements are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the full CAC, CAC subcommittees, staff, and consultants. Table 1. State-Mandated and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Elements State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element Land Use Land Use & Community Design Circulation Transportation Housing* Housing* Open Space Conservation Noise Natural Environment Safety Safety Optional Elements Business & Economics City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 State-Mandated Element Comprehensive Plan Element Community Services & Facilities *The City’s current Housing Element was adopted separately in November 2014 and certified by the State in January 2015, so it has not been part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2017 Each element begins with a vision statement which lays out the overall objective and spirit of the element, followed by an introductory narrative. Following the vision statement and narrative, the plan’s organization is achieved via a series of headings, subheadings and goals. Goals are high-level statements articulating an end point towards which the City will direct its efforts. They provide a structure for the subsequent policies and implementation programs that serve to advance the goals. This structural framework is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Structural Framework of the Comprehensive Plan (Used in All Elements) Vision Statement summarizing what Palo Alto will be like at the end of the planning horizon. Goal General end towards which the City will direct effort. Policy Specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program. Program An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to an adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Programs require resources—primarily time and money—to complete. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2017 In addition to formal “elements,” the Comprehensive Plan contains a number of other sections or chapters intended to improve the usability of the document. These include the introduction, governance chapter, and implementation chapter. The function of each section and element is described further below, along with applicable legal requirements. For the elements that the PTC has chosen not to focus on, we have also briefly summarized changes from the current Comprehensive Plan. (See the sections that follow for a more in depth discussion of key issues and changes related to the Land Use and Transportation elements.) Introduction Legal Requirements The Introduction is considered a “section” or “chapter” of the Comp Plan and is not an Element. It provides background information for users of the Comprehensive Plan. Organization The Introduction chapter provides an overview of the basic requirements and format of the Plan, as well as the public participation and implementation processes for its development. The City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 subsection on major themes has been updated to describe the current planning challenges and opportunities addressed by this update, specifically, the themes of “meeting housing supply challenges” and “protecting and sustaining the natural environment.” A new section – “maintaining a safe community” – has been added to reflect the new, separate Safety Element. The comprehensive plan update process section has been completely replaced with a description of the roles and contributions of the CAC, Council and PTC to the Plan’s overall structure, vision, goals, policies and programs. This section also describes the Plan’s community engagement framework, including the Summit and Open City Hall. Land Use Element Legal Requirements The State law requiring adoption of a general plan (referred to as the Comprehensive Plan in Palo Alto) provides that the land use element must: define categories for the location and type of public and privates uses of land under the City's jurisdiction; recommend standards for population density and building intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and include a Land Use Map and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in the city. Organization The Land Use Element addresses: growth management, compatibility and design policies within each land use designation, urban design, historic and archaeological resources, parks and gathering places, public streets and public spaces, including parking, gateways, the urban forest, utilities and infrastructure, and public art, as well as the Palo Alto Airport. The Land Use Element also includes the Land Use Map and land use designations. See the discussion of Key Issues below for more information. Transportation Element Legal Requirements State general plan law says that the circulation element must correlate directly with the land use element. According to Government Code Section 65302, the circulation element should include the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities. In addition, the element must plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element addresses most of the required aspects of the required circulation element, including complete streets, expressways and freeways, transit, walking, bicycling, parking, and special transportation needs. The portion related to local public utilities is addressed in other elements. Organization The Transportation Element addresses: sustainable transportation; decreasing traffic delay and congestion; streets; neighborhood impacts; motor vehicle and bicycle parking; road safety; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 transit-dependent community; and regional collaboration and coordination. See the discussion of Key Issues below for more information. Natural Environment Element Legal Requirements In Palo Alto, the existing Natural Environment Element encompasses four of the seven mandatory elements of a general plan (Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety). In this Comp Plan Update, Safety is separated into a separate element, so the updated Natural Environment encompasses three legally-required elements of a general plan. Therefore, the Natural Environment Element must respond to clearly-defined statutory requirements, as well as a number of legislative changes in general plan law over the past fifteen years since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. State general plan law says that the conservation element must address the “conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, wildlife, and minerals” (Gov. Code, § 65302(d)(1).) According to Government Code Section 65560, the open space element should cover any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to 1) the preservation of natural resources; 2) the managed production of resources (in the case of Palo Alto, this is limited to Williamson Act-contracted lands only) ; 3) outdoor recreation; 4) public health and safety (which is also addressed in the Safety Element); 5) support of the mission of military installations (there are none within the Palo Alto SOI); or 6) the protection of any Native American historic, cultural, burial or sacred site. (In the Comprehensive Plan, protection of tribal burial sites and sacred sites are addressed as archeological resources under Goal L-7 of the Land Use Element.) Finally, the noise element is a mandatory element described in Government Code Section 65302(f) that covers the issues and sources of noise relevant to the local planning area. The element should utilize the most accurate and up-to-date information available to reflect the noise environment, stationary sources of noise, predicted levels of noise, and the impacts of noise on local residents, and include measures to address existing or foreseeable noise problems. Organization The Natural Environment Element addresses: open space, including connectivity, habitat, and public access; the urban forest and the understory; creeks and riparian areas; water resources, including water quality, water supply, drought, and groundwater; air quality; noise, including impacts from construction, aircraft, and rail; energy, including carbon-neutral energy, conservation and efficiency, and grid improvements; and climate change and climate adaptation. The draft Element reflects Council recommendations to incorporate a new Goal on City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Climate Change and Climate Adaption, and to create a new Safety Element by moving Goals on Natural Hazards (Goal N-2), Hazardous Waste (Goal N-6), and Solid Waste (Goal N-7) to a separate Safety Element. The Council also added language to two goals, and revised the vision statement to address traffic congestion. The Natural Environment Element, as well as the Land Use and Community Design Element and the Transportation Element, was drafted to be consistent with the goal and strategies in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), which has been under preparation in a separate, parallel process and is pending Council adoption. Safety Element Legal Requirements The Safety Element is a required Element under State general plan law. As noted above, the current Comprehensive Plan presents Safety Element content as part of the Natural Environment Element. Based on Council direction, the Safety Element has been drafted as a standalone Element. According to Government Code Section 65302(g), the Safety Element must address protection from seismic hazards, dam failure, landslides and other geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. There are specific requirements to map, and have policies responding to, flood hazard zones, wildfire hazard areas, and sea level rise, as well as other topics related to climate adaptation and resiliency. According to Government Code Section 65302, the land use element must also identify and provide for annual review those areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. Note that although the Government Code references this requirement as part of the land use element, the City has the flexibility to place the required information in another Element as appropriate. These floodplain requirements are fulfilled in the Safety Element. Organization The Safety Element includes the Natural Hazards, Hazardous Waste, and Solid Waste goals that were removed from the existing Natural Environment Element. The Safety Element addresses: community safety, including public awareness, emergency management, and volunteer programs; natural hazards, including earthquakes, fire, and flood; and human-caused threats, including hazardous materials, solid waste, and cybersecurity. It also touches on the protection and respect for civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy; safety from climate impacts; emergency preparation; and protection from outside threats or terrorism. Community Services & Facilities Element Legal Requirements The Community Services & Facilities Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements for its contents. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Organization The Community Services & Facilities Element addresses: community service delivery, including broad participation, partnerships, access, schools, children youth and teens, seniors, and those with special needs; City services provided to the public; maintenance of existing parks and community facilities; planning for future parks and community facilities; and community well- being. This Element reflects CAC-identified themes, including inclusion, participation in civic life, vitality of Palo Alto, better connection to schools and school-age children’s needs, services for teens, emphasis on the diversity of citywide programming, redefinition of “customer service”, increased and stronger connection to metrics to measure success. In addition, this Element recognizes the upcoming Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Business & Economics Element Legal Requirements The Business & Economics Element is an optional element. There are no statutory requirements for its contents. Organization The Business & Economics Element addresses: the City’s overall economy, including fiscal health and business attraction and retention; compatibility and interdependence between businesses, residential neighborhoods, and the environment; the local culture of innovation and support for small businesses; flexibility and predictability for businesses seeking City approvals; and the physical settings of Palo Alto’s retail centers and business employment districts. This draft Element reflects Council recommendations to adopt the current Goals and organization of the Element, with updates limited to modifications to the wording of Goal B-2 and Goal B-3. The Element also reflects Council direction to consider policies and programs that would mitigate impacts of job growth, such as parking, housing and traffic. Governance Legal Requirements The Governance chapter is a not an “element” of the Plan and is not required by State law. It addresses community involvement in local decision-making processes. Organization The Governance chapter is intended to provide guidance to citizens and community groups participating in City decision-making. Substantive changes recommended to the Governance Chapter mostly focus on the new technologies and tools for citizen participation that have been developed since the last Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Plan also includes an Implementation Chapter that identifies specific actions to be taken to carry out the Plan. For each action, the priority, anticipated level of effort, and responsible agency or department is identified. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Implementation Legal Requirements Similar to Governance, the Implementation Chapter is not a Plan Element, but is intended as a description of the steps to be taken in order to achieve the Plan’s goals. It consolidates and repeats implementation programs from all of the elements of the plan into a single list. Organization The Implementation chapter has two main parts: a background narrative and a table that consolidates and prioritizes the timing for all programs in the Comp Plan. The narrative explains how programs implement the Comp Plan and how the timing of that implementation is established by decision-makers based on evolving priorities and available resources. The narrative clarifies that it will not be feasible to implement all of the programs over the 15 year life of the plan. This means that the City has to prioritize, and the text acknowledges that priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time. The narrative also calls on the PTC to conduct an annual review of the plan as required by State law, and concludes with a caveat: “The Implementation Plan was designed to advance the overarching vision and themes of the Comprehensive Plan. The City recognizes there are resource constraints and a need to focus those resources.” The Implementation table provides the following information for each program in the Comp Plan: Lead Department or Agency: The City Department that would have primary responsibility for tracking and completing the program. Timing: Five categories are used: o R: “Routine” activities that are part of the normal course of business for staff; o IP: “In progress” – programs that are already underway to complete a specific, defined work effort; o S: “Short-term” – programs planned for implementation within the first five years after Comprehensive Plan adoption; o M: “Medium-term” – typically means programs that would be implemented or completed roughly within five to ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption; and o L: “Long-term” – programs that would be implemented or completed more than ten years after Comprehensive Plan adoption. With resource constraints and changing circumstances, it is expected that the timing identified here may change. For example, as short-term programs begin, they will change to “In Progress.” Anticipated Level of Effort: Gives an order-of-magnitude of cost in terms of staff and monetary resources required to implement the program. Some programs are already budgeted and ongoing, while the City Council will need to identify resources during future budget cycles in order to implement other programs. The PTC may City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 recommend changing priorities or adding/subtracting programs in the course of their regular annual review, which staff is recommending occur in December each year. Staff may then recommend prioritization or funding during the annual budget process, which begins shortly thereafter. PTC Review As shown in Table 3 below, the PTC will be reviewing the Land Use and Transportation Elements in July, August and September 2017. The PTC brings a new and valuable perspective, one that is enriched by the Commission’s work on planning issues, policies and projects, to the Comprehensive Plan Update. The PTC can add the greatest value to the draft Comprehensive Plan Update by focusing on key issues and questions in the Land Use and Transportation Elements and bringing their experience and needs as key users of the Comp Plan to this review. It is anticipated that the PTC’s recommendations to the City Council will take the form of a report that includes one or more motions with a list of suggested changes to the Draft Plan transmitted to the PTC on June 30, 2017. These suggested changes would be at a policy level, not at the level of wordsmithing existing policies. For example, the PTC could recommend “Strengthen the policies on transit dependent populations” instead of editing the language of the existing policies on this topic. The Council will be reviewing these elements after the PTC review has been completed (see Table 3 below) when the Council holds its final set of hearings to adopt the Comp Plan Update and will review the PTC report then. Suggested objectives of the PTC’s review are: To recommend needed high-level adjustments to policies and programs in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, and the Implementation Plan, to better address major policy issues. To identify any inconsistencies or redundancies between the elements for clarification or elimination in order to make the document more useable for the PTC and the public. A draft schedule for PTC review is provided below. Environmental Review The Commission will receive the Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update in late August or early September and will be asked to recommend certification by the City Council pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Table 3. Proposed PTC Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule Month Topic June 30 Start of 90-day PTC review period City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 July July 12 7/12 PTC Hearing Comp Plan Orientation July 26 7/26 PTC Hearing Land Use (1 of 2) Goals L-1 to L-4 August Aug. 9 8/ 9 PTC Hearing Land Use (2 of 2) Goals L-5 to L-10 and Land Use Section of Implementation Plan Table Aug. 30 8/30 PTC Hearing Transportation (1 of 2) Goals T-1 to T-4 September + Sept. 1 Final EIR Transmitted to the Commission Sept. 13 9/13 PTC Hearing Transportation (2 of 2) Goals T-5 to T-8 and Transportation Section of the Implementation Plan Table Sept. 27 9/27 PTC Hearing Final Review; Recommendation to Council on the Land Use and Transportation Elements and the Final EIR Sept. 30 End of 90-day PTC review period Source: Planning & Community Environment, July 2017 Key Issues in the Land Use and Transportation Elements Below are key issues in the Comprehensive Plan Update’s changes to policy and program direction affecting the Land Use and Transportation Elements. The policies and programs on this list were important updates during the discussion and refinement of these Elements at the CAC and/or the Council. This list is intended to help the PTC frame their review of these Elements. The PTC is encouraged to bring its own fresh perspective to these issues and to the review of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. This PTC perspective is likely to have more impact and value for the City Council, which has already reviewed the CAC’s recommendations. Land Use Element This section provides background information from the CAC and Council discussions of key issues to help the PTC understand the options discussed and the recommendations included in the June 30 draft. A. Non-residential Growth Management The CAC and Council both spent considerable time and energy addressing non-residential development, especially the amount of future office and R&D space. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 The current Comprehensive Plan manages non-residential development through Policy L-8, which places an absolute numerical cap on the amount of non-residential space in the nine “monitored” planning areas shown on Map L-6, as well as through Program L-8, which has a similar cap for downtown. After learning about the existing system and reviewing data on past non-residential growth and capacity remaining under the current caps, the CAC developed a series of new options for Council’s consideration. The CAC’s growth management options evolved into three major components: a cumulative growth cap, an annual limit, and a downtown cap. The CAC, primarily through the work of the Sustainability subcommittee, also developed a list of development requirements and community indicators, intended to regulate the quality of growth alongside other policies to regulate the quantity of growth. December 15, 2016 CAC staff report: Initial introduction to the Land Use Element, including growth management policies: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Dec-15-2015-CAC-packet1.pdf April 6, 2016 Land Use subcommittee agenda packet, including discussion of dynamic growth management tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/CACLandUseSucommitteeAgendaPacket-20160406.pdf April 19, 2016 full CAC staff report, including discussion of dynamic growth management tools: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CAC-Packet- 04.19.2016-Memo.pdf May 17, 2016 CAC staff report presenting multiple options for growth management policies and programs: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf June 13, 2016 Land Use subcommittee staff report with detailed discussion of evolving growth management policy options and questions for refinement: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CAC_Subctte-Memo- 06.13.16_Corrected.pdf June 24, 2016 continuation of June 13 subcommittee discussion of growth management policy options, presented in a staff report: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160624.pdf and attachment: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Att.-A-Land-Use- Growth-Management-Options.pdf July 19, 2016 full CAC staff report summarizing growth management policy options developed by the Land Use subcommittee: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_7.19.16.pdf July 26, 2016 Sustainability subcommittee staff report; initial exploration of performance measures and community indicators: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Memo_20160726.pdf August 16, 2016 full CAC staff report, describing the work of both the Sustainability and the Land Use subcommittees. Presents three major components of growth management policy options: overall cumulative growth management policy options, performance measures, and numerical caps. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_08.16.16.pdf City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 September 20, 2016 full CAC staff report, reporting consensus that the Land Use and Sustainability subcommittees had drafted a full range of growth management policies and programs that accurately represented the range of options to forward to the City Council for discussion: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff-Report_Sept20-2.pdf. Beginning on November 28, 2016, the City Council reviewed the draft Land Use Element that the CAC unanimously recommended at its September meeting, including the growth management options. The November 28 Council packet, which includes a detailed description of the CAC-drafted range of cumulative cap options, annual limit options, and downtown cap options, is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54761 On November 28, 2016, Council provided some initial feedback, and requested additional information, but did not make any formal motions. The Council took up the Land Use Element again on January 30, 2017. The staff report for January 30 is here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55582. The comments from November 28, 2016 are summarized in Attachment, C, which begins on page 147 of the packet. The Council discussed the cumulative cap, annual limit, and downtown cap in detail at its January 30, 2017 meeting. Ultimately, the Council moved to: Maintain the existing citywide (cumulative) cap on non-residential development, recognizing that 1.7 million new square feet are remaining, and focus the cap on office/R&D development only, rather than including retail and other non-residential uses. Also, continue to exempt medical office uses in the SUMC vicinity and require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap should be adjusted. (Goal L-1, Policy L-1.9) Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance making permanent the interim Annual Limit of 50,000 square feet of New Office/R&D Development, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update; and Eliminate the Downtown Cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus on monitoring development (see Program L1.9.1) and parking demand (see Transportation Element Program T5.1.3). Maintain the policy requiring the highest quality development with the least impacts, (see Goal L-1, Policy L-1.10) but delete policies and programs that refer to specific development requirements. Delete the policies that refer to creating Community Indicators from the Comp Plan since there are several other city programs that assess community indicators. The Council motion on the Land Use Element, including direction on growth management policies, is available in the January 30, 2017 action minutes, here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153 (see page 5). While staff would be happy to answer questions about the CAC’s growth management options and the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Council’s decisions, we urge the PTC to focus on areas where they can add their perspective(s) or recommend adjustments that would improve the usability of the plan, rather than re-visit the Council’s high level decisions. B. Housing The CAC and Council discussed the need for Palo Alto to be more assertive in sustaining a socio- economically diverse community by addressing the high cost of housing. The draft Land Use Element reflects a broad and comprehensive interpretation of “housing that is affordable” rather than a narrower focus on “affordable housing.” Policies and programs refer to “housing that is affordable,” meaning housing that is at the lower end of the local price range due to age, size, design, location, or other characteristics, but is not legally required to be affordable to a certain income level (Program L1.3.1, Program L2.5.1, Policy L-2.7). There was also consensus on the need to preserve existing housing that is affordable and to minimize displacement of existing residents. (Policy L 2.7 and 2.8) CAC members offered a range of different ideas about how to address housing supply and affordability. Many CAC discussions of housing issues occurred as part of discussions of related issues of design and land use planning. For example, some CAC members expressed willingness to exceed the City’s height limit in order to build additional housing, especially housing for seniors and people with special needs, while others did not agree. (See below for background on height limit discussions.) Some strongly supported protecting local retail and/or existing surface parking in shopping centers, particularly Stanford Shopping Center, while others felt that these spaces could be considered as potential locations for new housing. (See D below for background on discussion of commercial centers.) The array of housing policies and programs under Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8 in the June 30 draft Element is based on both CAC draft policies and Council direction on the components of the preferred scenario in the Comp Plan EIR. The Council also discussed locations for new housing, adding programs to explore housing in the Stanford Research Park, near Stanford University Medical Center and, under certain circumstances, at the Stanford Shopping Center. (See Policy L-2.4 and its programs). Following Council direction, the June 30 draft Element includes policies to: Allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes for greater affordability and laying out strategies to increase housing supply (Goal L-2, Policies L-2.3 to L-2.8) Height limits were an issue closely related to both housing and growth management. The subcommittee and full CAC discussed height limits extensively and developed a range of options for Council consideration that included keeping the existing 50-foot height limit, allowing some flexibility if needed to achieve better design (e.g. to allow taller ground floor retail spaces), and to allow heights of up to 65 feet – or even taller - in specific areas to encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing options. See the May 17, 2016 full CAC staff report for a discussion: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_05.17.16.pdf (page 6-7). The Council considered the range of height limit policy options in its January 30, 2017 review of the Land Use Element. Councilmembers noted that the City’s 50 foot height limit is currently referred to in a narrative section of the Comprehensive Plan, but is not contained in any goal or policy and the Council motion was to maintain the current 50 foot height limit in the zoning ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update. Therefore, the June 30 draft Element does not include a policy establishing a height limit; however, the Council was clear that they do not see a strong need to change the existing 50-foot height limit. The Council motion is here (see page 5): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56153 C. Neighborhoods Throughout the development of the draft Land Use Element, there was strong consensus on both the Council and the CAC that the Comp Plan should continue to set high standards for urban design and protect neighborhood character through a focus on neighborhood compatibility. In this context, a major topic of CAC focus was basement construction. The CAC received extensive and detailed public comments on the issue of basements in single family homes and the array of potential impacts they can cause to groundwater supply, flooding, occupancy densities, and public safety. The CAC also explored a policy and program addressing concerns about basement design and the impact of large basements on neighborhoods. CAC staff reports on this issue were provided on July 19, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff- Memo_7.19.16.pdf - see page 8), August 16, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Staff-Memo_08.16.16.pdf -see page 16), and September 20, 2016 (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CAC_Staff- Report_Sept20-2.pdf - see page 5). These efforts resulted in a draft policy to avoid the negative impacts of basement construction (Goal L-3, Policy L-3.5), which Council refined through its review. The following Land Use Policies address the key Policy Updates in Goals 4 through 10. They address current and emerging issues. D. Hotels Identify suitable hotel locations and explore increasing Hotel FAR (Goal L-4, Policy L-4.4). This policy was added by the Council. E. Commercial Centers Identify characteristics of commercial centers- including exploring additional retail FAR at Stanford Shopping Center and preparing coordinated area plans for the Fry’s site and the surrounding California Avenue area and downtown (Goal L-4, Policies L-4.6 to L-4.8). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 F. Employment Districts Foster compact employment districts that reduce auto trips. Explore a diverse mix of uses at Stanford Research Park, including residential, retail and a hotel (Goal L-5, Program L-5.1). G. Urban Design Promote compatibility and avoid abrupt changes in scale and density (Goal L-6, Policy L-6.7). H. Historic Resources Protect historic resources, including protecting resources that have not been evaluated for inclusion in State or Federal Historic Resources Inventory prior to substantial alteration or demolition. Consider revising the TDR ordinance so development transferred from historic buildings downtown can only be used for residential development. (Goal L-7, Policies L-7.2 and L-7.13) I. Civic Uses Support existing community facilities and create new gathering places. Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. (Goal L-8, Policy L-8.1) J. Public Streets and Spaces Create and enhance publicly accessible outdoor gathering spaces (Goal L-9, Policies L-9.4 to 9.6). K. Palo Alto Airport Minimize environmental impacts associated with airport operations, including noise and bayland protection and enhancement (Goal L-10, Policies L -10.3 to 10.6). Transportation Element In the Transportation Element, key policy questions include prioritization of future transportation infrastructure investments and sustainability-based strategies and initiatives. There was more consensus at the CAC and at the Council on the Transportation Element as compared to the Land Use Element. For example, at the CAC, there were no issues or policies within the draft Transportation Element that resulted in the CAC generating policy options for Council decision. Therefore, this section does not include a detailed review of CAC policy options and Council direction, as presented above for the Land Use Element, but this section gives a brief overview of how the Element was developed, and provides links past CAC and Council staff reports that offer more detailed background information. The CAC discussed the Transportation Element at 6 full meetings and 4 subcommittee meetings from September 2015 through July 2016. The Sustainability subcommittee also discussed the Transportation Element. The staff report for the first CAC discussion of the Element provides the background of the contents of the 1998 Element, previous PTC revision process, the Council City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18 direction on Element goals and vision, and a goal-by-goal overview of key issues and related City efforts. It is available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Agenda-Item-3- Transportation-Element-Discussion.pdf The staff report for the first CAC review of a Draft Transportation Element includes background on Transportation Element subcommittee areas of consensus and topics for further CAC discussion, including an evolving discussion of approaches to parking, and the appropriate balance between encouraging alternative’s to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips without demonizing drivers. See: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Staff-Report.pdf The CAC considered recommending the draft Element to Council at their June 21, 2016 meeting. The staff report prepared for that meeting contains a detailed summary of the CAC and subcommittee process of deliberation that led to the draft Element, including the issues that garnered both consensus and differences of opinion through the process. It also provides links to interim drafts of the Element. It is available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CAC-Memo_06.21.16.pdf After in-depth discussion on June 21, the CAC unanimously recommended the draft Element to the Council at their July 19, 2016 meeting. The City Council first reviewed the CAC draft Transportation Element at the Council’s August 15 and September 19, 2016 meetings. The Council staff report summarizes the CAC process and outlines key issues on which staff sought Council feedback, including overall Element organization, strategies for reducing SOV trips, a phased approach to parking supply, and utilizing both vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and level of service (LOS) as metrics for traffic analysis. It is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53339 In addition to responding to issues raised by the CAC, the Council also focused on the policies and programs supporting the City’s new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy and the associated Transportation Management Association (TMA); ensuring that policies accurately reflect the new Residential Parking Program (RPP); and carefully reviewing the legally-required list of planned transportation infrastructure investments. The final Council staff report covering the draft Transportation Element is from its May 1, 2017 meeting. That staff report reviews the Council’s prior feedback on transportation infrastructure investments and other revisions made in response to Council direction. The May 1, 2017 Council staff report is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57258 Key policy topics for PTC discussion include: Transportation Infrastructure Investments: the Council considered and provided direction on this list, which reflects the planned improvement assumed as part of the Comp Plan EIR analysis. The Council-approved list appears in the background section of the draft Element (page T-12) and is: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19 o Full grade separations for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists at Caltrain crossings. o Retrofit/improvements to existing grade separated Caltrain crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists at California Avenue and University Avenue. o Construction of new pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing of Caltrain in South Palo Alto and in North Palo Alto. o Pedestrian and bicycle improvements derived from the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan as amended. o The US 101/Adobe Creek bicycle and pedestrian bridge. o El Camino Real intersection and pedestrian safety/streetscape improvements. o Downtown mobility and safety improvements. o Geng Road extension to Laura Lane. o Middlefield Road corridor improvements. Single-occupant vehicle use: The Element tackles this topic from several angles, developing a comprehensive strategy throughout Goal T-1 of this Element that encompasses: o making it easier and more convenient to use alternatives to the automobile (Policy T-1.1) o improving first/last mile connections (Program T1.6.1, Policy T-1.13), with an emphasis on continuing the free shuttle program (Policy T-1.14) o increasing efforts to market, promote, and educate about alternatives to the automobile and make transit more convenient (Policies T-1.7 through T-1.12) o identifying funding sources for transit and alternative transportation improvements (Policy T-1.25, T-1.26 and T-1.27) o preparing for technological and societal changes that will affect transportation, including zero-emission vehicles (Policy T-1.3 and T-1.4). Council directed addition of a new policy on autonomous vehicles, which was crafted with input from staff technical experts (Policy T-1.5). TDM requirements: The Element formalizes a program to implement TDM requirements for future development. The program establishes specific quantified goals for trip reduction and is closely tied to an EIR mitigation measure to reduce traffic congestion impacts. (Goal T-1, Program T1.2.2) Traffic congestion: Policies and programs under Goal T-2 address traffic congestion, including through expanding the existing TMA (Policy T-2.2) and addressing school- related congestion (Policies T-2.6 and T-2.7) VMT and LOS: The draft Element maintains a policy of using conventional vehicular LOS to evaluate the potential impacts on traffic congestion as a result of new development. Utilizing both LOS and VMT metrics provides the City with a comprehensive view to address traffic and to reflect its sustainability goals. (Goal T-2, Policy T-2.3 and Program T2.3.1) Enhancing connectivity: Policies and programs under Goal T-3, Efficient Roadway Network, emphasize the City's commitment to Complete Streets principles (PolicyT-3.5), City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 20 improved connections to primary destinations (Policy T3.10.3), and prioritize the safety of school children (Policy T-3.14). Neighborhood impacts: Traffic calming and minimizing impacts to neighborhood streets (Goal T-4) Parking: Under Goal T-5, the draft Element includes a phased approach to managing parking demand and evaluating changing parking needs over time (Policy T-5.1); the concept of parking pricing is introduced as well (Program T-5.2.2). It also includes a policy to work to protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts (Policy T- 5.11). Safety: As a key component of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, policies under Goal T-6, Roadway Safety, prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level of-service at intersections and vehicle parking (Policy T-6.1), and add a new Vision Zero policy (Policy T-6.2). Transit-dependent community: With a series of new policies and programs under Goal T-7, this draft Element expands support for the transit-dependent community to address the needs of those who are dependent on transit due to economic disadvantage or choice, as well as maintaining policies and programs that improve access for seniors and those with mobility constraints. Regional cooperation: Policies and programs under Goal T-8 emphasize working with other State and regional agencies to prioritize Caltrain grade separations (Policy T-8.1), freeway improvements (Policy T-8.6), and bicycle (Policy T-8.11), pedestrian (Policy T- 8.12), and transit projects (Policy T-8.10). Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Hillary Gitelman, Director Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2321 (650) 329-2679 Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Council motions: A table showing all Council motions on the Land Use and Transportation Elements, as well as the revisions made in response to each motion, is available here: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Att.F_050117_Council- Motion-LU-Transp_Table_w_links.pdf 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 1 60 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 2 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 5 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 5 6 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 5 7 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 5 8 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 5 9 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 0 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 9 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 4 0 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 8 2 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 4 2 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 4 3 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 3 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 2 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 1 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 3 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 8 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 7 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 6 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 5 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 4 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 3 0 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 4 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 8 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 9 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 1 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 2 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 4 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 5 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 6 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 7 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 8 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 9 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 7 0 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 3 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 5 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 6 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 7 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 1 9 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 1 8 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 1 7 0 0 3 - 1 7 - 0 2 0 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 3 0 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 4 9 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 3 1 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 0 3 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 0 4 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 1 3 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 2 9 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 8 2 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 6 2 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 7 9 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 6 3 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 7 4 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 7 5 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 8 4 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 8 0 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 3 3 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 2 6 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 3 4 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 1 7 0 0 8 - 0 3 - 0 6 6 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 2 7 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 2 0 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 0 9 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 2 2 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 3 0 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 1 4 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 3 9 0 0 8 - 0 2 - 0 3 2 0 0 8 - 0 1 - 0 5 0 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 3 5 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 3 4 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 3 30 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 3 1 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 3 20 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 3 0 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 90 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 7 0 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 80 0 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 6 EMBA R C A D E R O R O A D W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D SA N D A L W O O D C O U R T ED G E W O O D D R I V E EAST BAYSHORE ROAD B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y EMBARCADERO R O A D E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D WATSON CO U R T BA Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E R O A D E A S T LAURA LA N E E D G E W O O D D R I V E GE N G R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y O'BRINE L A N E WE S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D WEST BAYSHORE ROA D 11 6 111 0 1 20 8 0 2115 2129 2145 21592160 2148 2085 2073 2134 2120 2061 2104 2088 20 5 8 20 5 2 2090 2082 2074 2066 2 0 5 8 20 5 0 205 3 1979 1991 2003 2015 2029 2047 2069 2079 2091 2101 2076 20 7 0 20 6 4 20 2 8 20 2 2 20 1 6 2073 2400 2085 2191 2197 2200 2300 2450 22 2 5 2100 2601 2525 23 7 0 2479 1 7 3 0 17 0 0 17 6 6 22 7 5 17 1 7 17 5 5 17 3 1 15 1 2027 2047 18 7 5 2000 17 3 5 220 0 12 5 0 20 6 0 20 8 1 1900 19 0 5 2452 2170 2180 2190 20 6 2 20 7 0 20 7 2 20 7 6 20 7 8 20 8 2 20 8 6 20 8 8 2194 22 2 2 E d g e w o o d D r i v e E a s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Watson C o u r t Laura L a n e Sa n d a l w o o d C t O'Brine L a n e ( P r i v a t e ) G e n g R o a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Geng Road Extension City Jurisdictional Limits 0'300' Conceptual Location of Geng Road Extension CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto cmoitra, 2017-07-18 16:20:23Geng Road Extension (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\cmoitra.mdb) ATTACHMENT B